7 ms·
From the subtitle of the article: > and quite possibly even racist And I'm out. Does racism exist? Of course. Is everything everywhere always racism? Of cou
by next_xibalba 4y ago
From the subtitle of the article:
> and quite possibly even racist
And I'm out.
Does racism exist? Of course.
Is everything everywhere always racism? Of course not.
- DantesKite 4y agoI felt the same way. I don't like the disingenuous way the article starts, because it really does dilute the serious nature of racism. It shouldn't be something off-handedly used to get a few more clicks on an article or to signal to your in-group that you're virtuous.
- renewiltord 4y agoUnderstandable, but I think you're missing out. Better to ignore that stuff here if it bothers you. Interesting article.
- twofornone 4y agoI strongly disagree. These accusatory virtue signals are everywhere, deliberate, and most importantly antithetical to reason. Ignoring this stuff is how we ended up with diversity quotas. We should all be pushing back at this point, meritocracy is literally at stake when people are hired for race/gender, and the dysfunction is already visible across many of our institutions. I came here to read an article about sunscreen, not be implicitly lectured with distilled identity politics.
- trompetenaccoun 4y agoFilter out the chatter and follow the actual information. The article is on some online magazine site, who cares what they write. The original study says nothing about race whatsoever.
- betwixthewires 4y agoI'm with you, but I take a different approach: mercilessly mock the chatter and noise, discuss the information. Encourage information, discourage senseless garbage.
- deanCommie 4y agoDiversity quotas irrespective of skill, and those that denigrate meritocracy are antithetical to reason. But from where I sit I do not see any diversity quotas that choose race/gender over skill. There might be exceptions somewhere, I won't lie. I only know about my corner which is big tech hiring. What I see is an acknowledgement that much selection in our society (to universities, for jobs, etc) are subjective decisions that incorporate objective and subjective factors. Every student trying to get into Yale has perfect GPA, SATs, and a list of extra-curricular activities as long as my arm. So if they are equal on these measures, why not bring in slightly more folks from races that have been historically disadvantaged to offset past injustices? Is that fair to white students? No. But there is no "fair" way to make a choice like this. Big tech hiring focus on diversity is much the same - the bar is NOT lowered for women or anyone from a minority race. The last step of hiring before an offer is an objective test of programming ability. And nobody gets through those except on merit. But the FIRST step of hiring for multi-billion dollar companies is to sift through thousands of interview applicants, or contact thousands of applicants on LinkedIn with identical sounding resumes. These steps are HIGHLY subjective and unscientific - they're based on keywords, feel of recruiters, overindexing on past signals (other big tech companies, big universities, etc). The first "screen out" phase of hiring has NEVER been a meritocracy. It's always been a gut feel of who "feels" like they would be a successful candidate. This is where the diversity initiatives are focused - to try to shift the variables in a subjective non-meritocratic process to - again - offset past racial discriminations to try to even the playing field slightly. I ask you to have patience with "being lectured about identity politics". I ask you to wonder why you find virtue signals "accusatory" if they're not talking to you or about you. Don't discount those talking about this subject as "woke", or "virtue signalers" or "social justice warriors". Some of them are overly angry and vitriolic, yes. Some are tired of explaining concepts that are clear and for granted to them, thinking that at this point anyone that disagrees is simply an agitator. Not all show good faith. Some are in it for themselves, and the glory of being holier-than-thou. I'm not going to pretend that doesn't exist. But most of the concepts being discussed are sound. And there is a lot of fire behind the smoke. There is a lot of past, present, and future "racism" that still needs to be understood, and addressed.
- twofornone 4y ago
- postpawl 4y ago“People of color rarely get melanoma. The rate is 26 per 100,000 in Caucasians, 5 per 100,000 in Hispanics, and 1 per 100,000 in African Americans. On the rare occasion when African Americans do get melanoma, it’s particularly lethal—but it’s mostly a kind that occurs on the palms, soles, or under the nails and is not caused by sun exposure.” It’s saying they’re pushing sun screen for people who don’t really need it.
- next_xibalba 4y agoIf we read all the sentences around those you quoted, it presents a nuanced view. It takes some motivated reasoning to flatten both the relevant context here and the background that science, particularly the science of human health, is highly uncertain. And yet the author manages just that, flattening all the context and nuance into: sunscreen is racist.
- postpawl 4y agoWhat missing context are you talking about? This is 2 paragraphs after the one I quoted and it says it even more clearly: “And yet they are being told a very different story, misled into believing that sunscreen can prevent their melanomas, which Weller finds exasperating. “The cosmetic industry is now trying to push sunscreen at dark-skinned people,” he says. “At dermatology meetings, you get people standing up and saying, ‘We have to adapt products for this market.’ Well, no we don’t. This is a marketing ploy.””
- next_xibalba 4y ago> The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that all people, regardless of skin color, protect themselves from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays by seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and using a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher > “I think that sun-protection advice,” [David Leffel, Yale] told me, “has always been directed at those most at risk”—people with fair skin or a family history of skin cancer. “While it is true that people with olive skin are at less risk, we do see an increasing number of people with that type of skin getting skin cancer. But skin cancer… is very rare in African Americans… and although they represent a spectrum of pigmentation, [they] are not at as much risk.”
- hklgny 4y agoNot sure why you’re being downvoted for it. It’s a useless addition to an otherwise interesting article.
- ghaff 4y agoAnd it's very possible the author didn't write it but an editor did. I'm not sure where one gets "racist" from the content of the article. Maybe insofar as the medical community makes blanket recommendations that arguably don't apply to/don't help black people. But it's a stretch to go from there to racism.
- datameta 4y agoAgreed... I didn't notice the mention of racism in the title. I only realized after reading the article and seeing people ignore the substance in lieu of attacking a perceived slighting.
- Apocryphon 4y agoClickbait headlines have abounded over past decades from editors with SEO concerns dancing in their eyes. One would think those who are easily triggered by social justice invocations would be more attuned to it by now- they should view it as no different from any other form of attention grabbing, and no more indictment against the articles these titles disservice compared to headlines who incite other passions. How discriminating of these who see one subheading blurb and then refuse to read further.
- devmor 4y agoYou should read the entire article. The author discusses how pushing products meant for white skin towards dark skinned people despite negative detriment is common. That is racism.
- kortilla 4y agoUnless they are being targeted, it’s absolutely not racism.
- throwawayboise 4y agoLots of products target particular races. It's only racism if it's motivated by hate, bias, a desire to cause harm, etc.
- hgomersall 4y agoNo, we can have racist policies. No value judgement is necessarily implied but they should be dealt with.
- chmod600 4y agoIt sounds more like they just want to sell more sunscreen. They don't really care what color your skin is as long as money is changing hands. Nothing racist about that. And doctors don't want to differentiate because it's safer to just say "sure, wear sunscreen all day and wear a helmet too, in case you get hit by a meteor". Nobody will blame a doctor for repeating the currently-accepted dogma. Maybe they'll blame sunscreen companies in ten years, but not the doctor.
- miked85 4y agoEverything is blamed on racism the last couple of years. The word essentially means nothing at this point.
- hackernewds 4y agoSeems like an overreaction
- miked85 4y agoBy who?
- worik 4y ago
- SkittyDog 4y agoBy you. Some things are called "racism" unnecessarily, and that causes some harms... But there is still plenty of actual, bona fide Racism that causes bigger harms. To disregard legitimate concerns about racism because you've grown frustrated with false positives is evidence of a weak morality. It's prioritizing our selfish frustrations over significant harms that other people (the victims of racism) are experiencing.
- miked85 4y agoI disagree. When you blame everything on "racism", then actual racism is ignored. Boy who cried wolf.
- SkittyDog 4y agoThe boy who cries wolf is definitely in the wrong, that much is true... But that doesn't remove blame from the townspeople who ignored his cries. It's not a binary absolute, where one person being wrong absolves the other of any wrongdoing. Intelligent, moral people aren't obligated or forced to jump into action when someone makes an accusation of racism. We can take a moment to consider the available facts, the context, and decide whether the charge of racism seems credible. It does take effort, so there's a limit to how much attention we can give to these things... But we can also respond to the false accusations, and push back on them for being distractions and wasting the patience of people. We get the society that is as good as we choose to put in effort to make it.
- trompetenaccoun 4y agoPeople should read the study, it's interesting: https://sci-hub.st/10.1111/joim.12496 https://sci-hub.st/10.1111/joim.12496 There's nothing about race in there anyway. Don't get tricked into these identity discussions. Both ignoring anything that has race in it as well as getting angry when they bait you with it ultimately means they have control over you, because you're easily manipulated with a single word.
- 867-5309 4y agoit's reversed here: the lighter your skin, the worse off you'll be
- bjt2n3904 4y agoAsterisk: They probably are using the "new" definition of racism, not the classical definition. The foundation of the "anti-racist" definition is that in any situation, a difference in outcomes has a single attribution: racism. As an example, if you give 100 children a math test -- no word problems, just algebra -- and find that there is any correlation between skin color and test performance, then the test itself must be racist, and perhaps even math itself. Similarly here, if there is a difference in how cancer affects people... what must be the cause? That's right! Racism™! This is a patently absurd understanding of racism, but I've found it extremely helpful to start discussions like these by pointing out that if we don't have a common definition of what it means for something to be racist, then we can't have a discussion about it. PS: The classical definition of racism is the idea that skin color is indicative of performance. To look at the students before or after the test takes place, and make the assumption that skin color will effect performance. The extremely fine point here is that *the skin color itself* is what will cause (or caused) the difference.
- lern_too_spel 4y agoNot the test but the society that allows some groups to continue to be undereducated in mathematics. The fact that many people don't understand this and loudly proclaim their lack of understanding, typically of certain backgrounds who are not affected, is also not due to their race making their brains incapable of understanding but due to society allowing them to continue to be undereducated on this topic.
- hemreldop 4y ago
- polio 4y agoThe article isn't claiming that everything everywhere is always racism. It's claiming that there is the possibility of the recommendation being racist. Perhaps you should read the article to decide for yourself how fair that characterization is.
- betwixthewires 4y agoI felt the same way when I read it, but decided to keep reading anyway. The only remotely racist thing referenced is the fact that marketing companies are trying to get black people to wear sunscreen even though they don't need it. I wouldn't call it racist per se, but it is a case of someone targeting a demographic for profit, regardless of the fact that they can't benefit from the product, with no concern whatsoever for any negative effects they could experience. Definitely shady and scummy.