4 ms·

“Using literacy tests for racial discrimination”. Look, this is what bothers me with current “wokeism” trends. With this reasoning, literally any test/course/i

“Using literacy tests for racial discrimination”. Look, this is what bothers me with current “wokeism” trends. With this reasoning, literally any test/course/initiative/whatever will statistically have a slight racial/cultural/religious bias because the world and its population have such biases. So any positive initiative (like this one) which aims at improving lives of everyone (including people of color) will be taken down by a community or another because it’s statistical implication, interpreted in a certain way, will mean it will have a bias. But the measure itself is NOT racist! It’s discrimination based on literacy, not based on race! I understand race and literacy have some amount of correlation, but unless this correlation is 100%, it means that there are people of color which are literate, and white people which are illiterate. This measure will benefit people of color in a massive way, so why oppose it ?? This makes no sense.

ATsch 5y ago
These policies were introduced precisely so that people like you could defend them as "not racist" while still having the same net effect. We have more than ample documentation of it to the point that the only reason to disagree is deliberate ignorance or historical denialism.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- crubier 5y ago
  Ok so you’re saying: « Making prisoners read books is racist ». Don’t you realize that this statement is either completely delusional or some form of woke nonsensical Newspeak? Let me recap: This initiative only has upsides, no downsides. And it has no race distinction. And it benefits people across the board, from people of color to white people. And in absolute terms it will benefit to more people of color than white people (due to the demographics of Brazilian prisons). But you think that statistically it might benefit proportionally slightly more to white people than to people of color, so we should stop this initiative (which again, has no downside for anyone)? Man I still think of myself as left wing and progressist, but this recent trend of the left, away from universalism, and deep into communautarism makes me feel more and more estranged... I don’t disagree with your point that reducing mass incarceration should also be pursued though, and is more impactful.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > This initiative only has upsides, no downsides. Theoretically, it might release someone who the rest of the world would have been better off keeping in jail.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      This guy got out of Austrian prison because he could write readably, up to the point of being published and gaining a lot of support from the usual literary luvvies. (I read the book, it was way too self-pitying. Written well, but the stench of "everyone was so mean to me and I am such a victim" was unbearable.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Unterweger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Unterweger He went on to murder a few more women before being caught and sentenced to life. (Hanged himself the same evening.)
      - crubier 5y ago
        Situation is different here. We talk about reading books not writing them. And of a maximum of reducing by 48days per year, so a 13% reduction of the sentence of people read books continuously, not about releasing people that wouldn’t have been released anyway.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        > Situation is different here. We talk about reading books not writing them. I'm struggling to see why you think that makes a difference. The only obvious difference is that reading a book is much easier than writing one, which would tend to aggravate the problem of letting people out of jail when they should be in it.
    - crubier 5y ago
      They can only gain 48 days per year, so a 13% reduction in their sentence if they chain-read books. It might release someone slightly earlier, not release someone which wouldn’t have been released anyway.
  - 5y ago

ATsch 5y ago

These policies were introduced precisely so that people like you could defend them as "not racist" while still having the same net effect. We have more than ample documentation of it to the point that the only reason to disagree is deliberate ignorance or historical denialism.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
crubier 5y ago
Ok so you’re saying: « Making prisoners read books is racist ». Don’t you realize that this statement is either completely delusional or some form of woke nonsensical Newspeak? Let me recap: This initiative only has upsides, no downsides. And it has no race distinction. And it benefits people across the board, from people of color to white people. And in absolute terms it will benefit to more people of color than white people (due to the demographics of Brazilian prisons). But you think that statistically it might benefit proportionally slightly more to white people than to people of color, so we should stop this initiative (which again, has no downside for anyone)? Man I still think of myself as left wing and progressist, but this recent trend of the left, away from universalism, and deep into communautarism makes me feel more and more estranged... I don’t disagree with your point that reducing mass incarceration should also be pursued though, and is more impactful.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > This initiative only has upsides, no downsides. Theoretically, it might release someone who the rest of the world would have been better off keeping in jail.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    This guy got out of Austrian prison because he could write readably, up to the point of being published and gaining a lot of support from the usual literary luvvies. (I read the book, it was way too self-pitying. Written well, but the stench of "everyone was so mean to me and I am such a victim" was unbearable.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Unterweger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Unterweger He went on to murder a few more women before being caught and sentenced to life. (Hanged himself the same evening.)
    - crubier 5y ago
      Situation is different here. We talk about reading books not writing them. And of a maximum of reducing by 48days per year, so a 13% reduction of the sentence of people read books continuously, not about releasing people that wouldn’t have been released anyway.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        > Situation is different here. We talk about reading books not writing them. I'm struggling to see why you think that makes a difference. The only obvious difference is that reading a book is much easier than writing one, which would tend to aggravate the problem of letting people out of jail when they should be in it.
  - crubier 5y ago
    They can only gain 48 days per year, so a 13% reduction in their sentence if they chain-read books. It might release someone slightly earlier, not release someone which wouldn’t have been released anyway.
- 5y ago