9 ms·

If you haven't noticed, that's been the goal for a long time now. People get accepted to college because of the color of their skin. People get better SAT score

If you haven't noticed, that's been the goal for a long time now. People get accepted to college because of the color of their skin. People get better SAT scores now because of the color of their skin. Every major company has diversity boards which make sure to hire people based in the color of their skin. Hollywood and big business choose who to be in ads, movies, and other customer facing media because of the color of their skin. Groups decide their memberships based on the color of people's skin. CHAZ protesters in Seattle are arguing for judging people in court differently based on the color of their skin. It's really so interesting that these groups of politically motivated people think they're ending what they perceive as racism ... by being as racist as it's possible to be.

iagovar 6y ago
No idea why are you being downvoted. It seems like a pretty accurate description of what's happening. We don't have much of that in my country but we have it with women. Anyway it will eventually reach us as we're already colonized by American culture.
- DeusExMachina 6y ago
  Probably sooner than you think. Thanks to the internet nowadays things travel incredibly fast.
  - iagovar 6y ago
    Yeah, we noticed with the last BLM protests. It's funny to see your government rushing to virtue signaling and pushing people into the streets, in the middle of the current crisis and calling the opposition to be criminals just a few weeks ago for suggesting that we had to stop quarantines. And this in a country ravaged with structural unemployment and <1% black population. It's an increasing problem. People gets distracted with american internal agenda.
    - bzb3 6y ago
      We have a social-communist government, I don't know what you'd expect from them.
rblatz 6y ago
These policies exist because we live in an imperfect system that does see race and actively favors whiteness. It’s the pinnacle of white privilege and ignorance to say that “I don’t see race.”
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  > It’s the pinnacle of white privilege and ignorance to say that “I don’t see race.” Who gets to decide when "white privilege" no longer exists? Not intended to be inflammatory, just curious what the benchmark is. “If you can't measure it, you can't improve it.” sort of thing.
  - gentlesoulcarp 6y ago
    No one. The statistics decide. Roughly speaking, the USA is a corporatocracy. With the powerful lobbying and incentives the corporations have on how the government functions, these organizations and the people who control them have the most power to influence the country. The answer to the question "when has power been appropriately dispersed" is ultimately simple--Look at the makeup of the executive leadership at the most powerful companies. When it consistently matches the demographic makeup of the country as a whole, then it will have largely been demonstrated that there is a certain level of equality.
amluto 6y ago
> by being as racist as it's possible to be. Even if someone were to hire someone else solely because of the color of their skin, this would be nowhere near as racist as it’s possible to be. Hint: people are being killed because of the color of their skin right now. People in the US used to buy people in large numbers because of the color of their skin.
- TheGrim999 6y ago
  I know this will be hard to accept, but no matter how many people tell me that minorities are being killed because of the color of their skin, I've noticed that not a single one of these people ever include any facts or data to back up that claim. Sure, black people are killed by police. So are white people. So are people of every race. All the actual data I've seen is that black people are killed less frequently, in proportion to the violent crime they commit than white people are. I believe your thought process is no more than a mind virus, a viral meme, that's wrapped up in emotion and pushed as hard as possible for political gain. There's plenty of videos of white people being killed by police that you all just ignore. You don't look at the actual data or think critically, you're just driven by emotion and group think.
  - bmcfeeley 6y ago
    You've brought exactly as many sources to bear in this conversation as the parent you've replied to, which is to say, none. When admonishing others for their lack of sources and making a counterclaim, you may want to consider providing the source yourself. As for sources of evidence suggesting disproportionate use of force against black persons, here's one to consider: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/ Victims of fatal shootings by police were majority white, but disproportionately black. Additionally, black individuals were unarmed when fatally shot more frequently than white persons.
    - john_moscow 6y ago
      >Victims of fatal shootings by police were majority white, but disproportionately black. That depends on what you take as a baseline. I would assume that police shootings mostly happen in response to violent behavior. I couldn't find any data on the violent behavior, however there is an open FBI dataset on homicide offenders by race [0]. If you assume a correlation between the number of homicide offenders and the general probability of violent behavior, it could very much explain the disproportion you pointed out. [0] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
mullingitover 6y ago
> It's really so interesting that these groups of politically motivated people think they're ending what they perceive as racism ... by being as racist as it's possible to be. The existing system is already very biased against them, I don't have a problem with some corrective action. "In fact, companies are more than twice as likely to call minority applicants for interviews if they submit whitened resumes than candidates who reveal their race—and this discriminatory practice is just as strong for businesses that claim to value diversity as those that don’t." https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes...
- mullingitover 6y ago
  More evidence of systemic bias in hiring practices: "This paper suggests that African-Americans face differential treatment when searching for jobs and this may still be a factor in why they do poorly in the labor market. Job applicants with African-American names get far fewer callbacks for each resume they send out. Equally importantly, applicants with African-American names find it hard to overcome this hurdle in callbacks by improving their observable skills or credentials." https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand...
- john_moscow 6y ago
  I would actually blame the corrective action for it. Companies are not personal, they are purely about managing business and risks. When you hire a person, you care for 2 things: 1. How likely will they perform their duties in a way that is profitable to the company? 2. How much will it cost to the company to fire them, if they turn out to generate loss. Some people may have a stereotype that people of certain backgrounds would perform worse than people of other backgrounds, so that would affect heir judgement at point 1. However, if we make special rules that make it harder to fire underperformers from certain backgrounds, it greatly increases the costs at point 2, making them actually much less favorable candidates. So in the current political climate, companies at the same time are forced to: 1. Claim that they will prefer diverse candidates and have diversity policies. 2. Actually avoid diverse candidates, because in case they underperform, laying them off would be considerably more expensive due to PR issues. The study very much confirms this behavior, and I bet that making more special rules will only make it worse.
Natsu 6y ago
It's weird that people act like this is the only solution to correct past injustice, too, when there's a much simpler racially-neutral method. You just help all disadvantaged persons equally. Inasmuch as any particular identifiable group is thereby disadvantaged, they're disproportionately helped by this neutral method. If only people of race X were poor, then helping all poor people would be isomorphic to helping all people of race X. But it will always remain balanced to the degree that any group is disadvantaged. So if we just make things biased in favor of the poor, this will be able to self-correct automatically. I don't get why that isn't seen as the best solution.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  Yeah it's a weird contortion of the mind that a vast majority of people are willing to make. Like the issue is poverty and opportunity, for every race, but no, suddenly there is this disproportionate rush to be "anti-racist" by being racist, it's so obviously orwellian 2+2 = 5 i'm surprised it hasn't been made the headline of every major media
  - amznthrowaway5 6y ago
    Most people aren't smart enough to think these types of things through, instead of just following the crowd. So cheaters get to put in policies that high income people from non-white races can game while continuing to oppress poor people from all races in the name of "social justice".
  - malandrew 6y ago
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-reli...
- john_moscow 6y ago
  Because people who promote these policies have their own vested interest. The formula is always the same: 1. You pick a minority that suffers from something, compared to the majority. The minorities usually feel intimidated by the majority, and the viral/network effects within them are much stronger. Once you get them to back you, this directly translates to political capital. 2. You find a way to offer help to them, that is seen as beneficial at the first glance, but in the long run will not solve the problem. This entrenches them, making them dependent on your help. 3. You find a party that will pay for your policy. It needs to be a relatively large group with much weaker network effects. They also need to be wealthier than the minority, so you will be seen as a nuisance, rather than a real threat. 4. You use the "*ist" label to quickly shut up people criticizing your policy and pointing out its long-term inefficiency. Because most of the critics won't have a vested interest, they won't fight you till their political death. Instead, they will quickly retreat in fear of social media outrage against them. Rinse and repeat. The minority continues to suffer, the silent majority is scared to criticize anything, the society becomes more and more polarized and divided.

iagovar 6y ago

No idea why are you being downvoted. It seems like a pretty accurate description of what's happening. We don't have much of that in my country but we have it with women. Anyway it will eventually reach us as we're already colonized by American culture.

DeusExMachina 6y ago
Probably sooner than you think. Thanks to the internet nowadays things travel incredibly fast.
- iagovar 6y ago
  Yeah, we noticed with the last BLM protests. It's funny to see your government rushing to virtue signaling and pushing people into the streets, in the middle of the current crisis and calling the opposition to be criminals just a few weeks ago for suggesting that we had to stop quarantines. And this in a country ravaged with structural unemployment and <1% black population. It's an increasing problem. People gets distracted with american internal agenda.
  - bzb3 6y ago
    We have a social-communist government, I don't know what you'd expect from them.

rblatz 6y ago

These policies exist because we live in an imperfect system that does see race and actively favors whiteness. It’s the pinnacle of white privilege and ignorance to say that “I don’t see race.”

toomuchtodo 6y ago
> It’s the pinnacle of white privilege and ignorance to say that “I don’t see race.” Who gets to decide when "white privilege" no longer exists? Not intended to be inflammatory, just curious what the benchmark is. “If you can't measure it, you can't improve it.” sort of thing.
- gentlesoulcarp 6y ago
  No one. The statistics decide. Roughly speaking, the USA is a corporatocracy. With the powerful lobbying and incentives the corporations have on how the government functions, these organizations and the people who control them have the most power to influence the country. The answer to the question "when has power been appropriately dispersed" is ultimately simple--Look at the makeup of the executive leadership at the most powerful companies. When it consistently matches the demographic makeup of the country as a whole, then it will have largely been demonstrated that there is a certain level of equality.

amluto 6y ago

> by being as racist as it's possible to be. Even if someone were to hire someone else solely because of the color of their skin, this would be nowhere near as racist as it’s possible to be. Hint: people are being killed because of the color of their skin right now. People in the US used to buy people in large numbers because of the color of their skin.

TheGrim999 6y ago
I know this will be hard to accept, but no matter how many people tell me that minorities are being killed because of the color of their skin, I've noticed that not a single one of these people ever include any facts or data to back up that claim. Sure, black people are killed by police. So are white people. So are people of every race. All the actual data I've seen is that black people are killed less frequently, in proportion to the violent crime they commit than white people are. I believe your thought process is no more than a mind virus, a viral meme, that's wrapped up in emotion and pushed as hard as possible for political gain. There's plenty of videos of white people being killed by police that you all just ignore. You don't look at the actual data or think critically, you're just driven by emotion and group think.
- bmcfeeley 6y ago
  You've brought exactly as many sources to bear in this conversation as the parent you've replied to, which is to say, none. When admonishing others for their lack of sources and making a counterclaim, you may want to consider providing the source yourself. As for sources of evidence suggesting disproportionate use of force against black persons, here's one to consider: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/ Victims of fatal shootings by police were majority white, but disproportionately black. Additionally, black individuals were unarmed when fatally shot more frequently than white persons.
  - john_moscow 6y ago
    >Victims of fatal shootings by police were majority white, but disproportionately black. That depends on what you take as a baseline. I would assume that police shootings mostly happen in response to violent behavior. I couldn't find any data on the violent behavior, however there is an open FBI dataset on homicide offenders by race [0]. If you assume a correlation between the number of homicide offenders and the general probability of violent behavior, it could very much explain the disproportion you pointed out. [0] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

mullingitover 6y ago

> It's really so interesting that these groups of politically motivated people think they're ending what they perceive as racism ... by being as racist as it's possible to be. The existing system is already very biased against them, I don't have a problem with some corrective action. "In fact, companies are more than twice as likely to call minority applicants for interviews if they submit whitened resumes than candidates who reveal their race—and this discriminatory practice is just as strong for businesses that claim to value diversity as those that don’t." https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes...

mullingitover 6y ago
More evidence of systemic bias in hiring practices: "This paper suggests that African-Americans face differential treatment when searching for jobs and this may still be a factor in why they do poorly in the labor market. Job applicants with African-American names get far fewer callbacks for each resume they send out. Equally importantly, applicants with African-American names find it hard to overcome this hurdle in callbacks by improving their observable skills or credentials." https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand...
john_moscow 6y ago
I would actually blame the corrective action for it. Companies are not personal, they are purely about managing business and risks. When you hire a person, you care for 2 things: 1. How likely will they perform their duties in a way that is profitable to the company? 2. How much will it cost to the company to fire them, if they turn out to generate loss. Some people may have a stereotype that people of certain backgrounds would perform worse than people of other backgrounds, so that would affect heir judgement at point 1. However, if we make special rules that make it harder to fire underperformers from certain backgrounds, it greatly increases the costs at point 2, making them actually much less favorable candidates. So in the current political climate, companies at the same time are forced to: 1. Claim that they will prefer diverse candidates and have diversity policies. 2. Actually avoid diverse candidates, because in case they underperform, laying them off would be considerably more expensive due to PR issues. The study very much confirms this behavior, and I bet that making more special rules will only make it worse.

Natsu 6y ago

It's weird that people act like this is the only solution to correct past injustice, too, when there's a much simpler racially-neutral method. You just help all disadvantaged persons equally. Inasmuch as any particular identifiable group is thereby disadvantaged, they're disproportionately helped by this neutral method. If only people of race X were poor, then helping all poor people would be isomorphic to helping all people of race X. But it will always remain balanced to the degree that any group is disadvantaged. So if we just make things biased in favor of the poor, this will be able to self-correct automatically. I don't get why that isn't seen as the best solution.

Avicebron 6y ago
Yeah it's a weird contortion of the mind that a vast majority of people are willing to make. Like the issue is poverty and opportunity, for every race, but no, suddenly there is this disproportionate rush to be "anti-racist" by being racist, it's so obviously orwellian 2+2 = 5 i'm surprised it hasn't been made the headline of every major media
- amznthrowaway5 6y ago
  Most people aren't smart enough to think these types of things through, instead of just following the crowd. So cheaters get to put in policies that high income people from non-white races can game while continuing to oppress poor people from all races in the name of "social justice".
- malandrew 6y ago
  https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-reli...
john_moscow 6y ago
Because people who promote these policies have their own vested interest. The formula is always the same: 1. You pick a minority that suffers from something, compared to the majority. The minorities usually feel intimidated by the majority, and the viral/network effects within them are much stronger. Once you get them to back you, this directly translates to political capital. 2. You find a way to offer help to them, that is seen as beneficial at the first glance, but in the long run will not solve the problem. This entrenches them, making them dependent on your help. 3. You find a party that will pay for your policy. It needs to be a relatively large group with much weaker network effects. They also need to be wealthier than the minority, so you will be seen as a nuisance, rather than a real threat. 4. You use the "*ist" label to quickly shut up people criticizing your policy and pointing out its long-term inefficiency. Because most of the critics won't have a vested interest, they won't fight you till their political death. Instead, they will quickly retreat in fear of social media outrage against them. Rinse and repeat. The minority continues to suffer, the silent majority is scared to criticize anything, the society becomes more and more polarized and divided.