8 ms·

Don’t believe the propaganda. “Anti-racism” is actually about racism against Asians. “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocr

by tomp 4y ago

Don’t believe the propaganda. “Anti-racism” is actually about racism against Asians. “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. “Inclusion” is actually about excluding people that have different political or moral opinions (e.g. that don’t want to be racist against Asians or that support meritocracy).

EdwardDiego 4y ago
- rippercushions 4y ago
  I believe GP is referencing American university admissions, where DEI-flavored racial quotas tend to disadvantage Asians when compared to a race-blind system based purely on standardized tests.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    Huh, okay, so, to clarify my understanding, because of the quotas, assuming a fixed amount of available spots, less Asians get in than they would without the quotas. But a) wouldn't that apply to other demographics too? and b) All Asians? Are Hmong, for example, over-represented in college enrollments? I'm just trying to understand why it's specifically anti-Asian.
    - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
      It isn't specifically "anti-Asian". A bunch of pro-diversity people see white people do well and get successful. They see the same in Asians. They see the opposite for black and latino. They conclude "we must give black and latino preferential treatment to catch up". It is a bit more elaborate, but not much more than that. >All Asians? Yes. Despite their fronts, diversity initiatives don't look much further beyond sex, gender and skin color. You're already one level deeper than most of these politics go.
      - EdwardDiego 4y ago
        Yeah, that's always the problem with race-based initiatives, there's always edge cases, like any policy.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Elaborating on this, there is a passage quoted in the article from the most common text on "anti-racism" : "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The consequences of this are easy to illustrate in orchestras. Orchestras have always been heavily dominated by white and Asian musicians. When it was argued that this was due to discrimination in hiring, the solution was quite simple and tasteful - swap to blind auditions. And that is something few would oppose. So they did. The problem is that not only did it fail to create more diverse orchestras, in many cases they became even less diverse than they were prior. So now the 'anti-racist' view is that orchestras need to begin being racist against white and Asian applicants, and start biasing selection by race. [1] Groups that disproportionately overperform become acceptable targets for racism. Incidentally this is not entirely different than the motivation for some of the darkest moments in our history. Alas people never seem to appreciate that the "evil" groups in times past never saw themselves as evil, but simply as people engaging in temporarily distasteful action for a greater future. That greater future never comes, but the distasteful actions certainly do. Of course, "this time it'll be different." [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Jews were also persecuted because of their overperformance. Too many rich Jews in a city = a reliable recipe for pogrom.
      - EdwardDiego 4y ago
        From my understanding, the Jewish diaspora in Christendom often became moneylenders due to various laws that a) prohibited Jews from owning property or businesses and b) laws that prohibited lending money at interest by Christians. Then yeah, when someone fired up some anti-Semitic hyperbole, well, great way to get out of that debt you owed, right? IIRC Edward I of England expelled the Jews primarily to confiscate their property after years of taxing them superhard, but it also gave the Crown ownership of debts owed to the Jews, so he was playing the populist hand, and getting funds at the same time.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  By their very nature, "diversity" and "inclusion" are racist because it must consider someone's race. By arguing for "diversity" and "inclusion" we are mandating we judge people for what they are, rather than who they are; judge them by the color of their skin rather than the quality of their character. "Anti-racism", which in American academia usually comes about in the form of blacks and latinos receiving preferential treatment at the cost of whites and asians, is indeed racism. Racism is not acceptable, no matter how benevolent the intent or goal. And while we're here, since it's part of the bigger, main discussion anyway: "Equity" is the anti-thesis of equality, because "equity" mandates that all individuals arrive (and stay!) at the same place in life no matter who they are. It throws out individual ambitions and efforts towards obtaining a better silver plate in lieu of society handing everyone the same steel plate.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    That doesn't quite explain why it's specifically anti-Asian though?
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      It's anti-asian and also anti- any race that isn't on the list of beneficiaries. The original argument could have been conveyed better by framing it more broadly, but it isn't wrong.
      - EdwardDiego 4y ago
        Aah, that makes sense, if I'm understanding it correctly, they specified Asians because they're another minority, but disadvantaged by policies that seek to help other minorities.
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        Pretty much. Any policy that helps someone on the basis of race is, unsurprisingly, racist.
xg15 4y ago
> “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. The "meritocracy" that includes your rich parents into your "merit".
- tomp 4y ago
  No, the correct answer to this is "provide free/subsidised schooling to exceptional people who cannot otherwise afford it". By the way, this is the meritocratic way because we're looking for best people, which includes identifying unrealized talent and then nurturing it. Instead, the SJW/woke way is "reduce standards until everybody passes", literally https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-cancel-math-class-11621355858 https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc... (a.k.a. everybody equal, everybody stupid akin to Communism's everybody equal, everybody poor)
  - varnaud 4y ago
    >exceptional people Why would you only provide free/subsidized schooling to exceptional people. Why not all people? If you truly believe in meritocracy, wouldn't you want everyone to have a fair opportunity to prove themselves?
    - tomp 4y ago
      If resources are limited (and they're always limited) you invest into the highest ROI options. Exceptional people have a chance of pushing society forward (i.e. creating more resources for the future... exponentially). (But yeah in general I oppose age-segregated schooling, I think education should have "tracks" (math, physics, sports, music, etc.) and people should attend whatever "level" they're at in each track, in mixed-age groups. And make mostly free (but guided) choices regarding which tracks to put most effort in.)
  - kiba 4y ago
    Meritocracy is opposed to egalitarianism. After all, people with advantages rise to the top, whether that's upbringing, talent, or gene.
cma 4y ago
> destroying meritocracy Low inheritance tax has had that covered for a while.

by tomp 4y ago

EdwardDiego 4y ago

rippercushions 4y ago
I believe GP is referencing American university admissions, where DEI-flavored racial quotas tend to disadvantage Asians when compared to a race-blind system based purely on standardized tests.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  Huh, okay, so, to clarify my understanding, because of the quotas, assuming a fixed amount of available spots, less Asians get in than they would without the quotas. But a) wouldn't that apply to other demographics too? and b) All Asians? Are Hmong, for example, over-represented in college enrollments? I'm just trying to understand why it's specifically anti-Asian.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    It isn't specifically "anti-Asian". A bunch of pro-diversity people see white people do well and get successful. They see the same in Asians. They see the opposite for black and latino. They conclude "we must give black and latino preferential treatment to catch up". It is a bit more elaborate, but not much more than that. >All Asians? Yes. Despite their fronts, diversity initiatives don't look much further beyond sex, gender and skin color. You're already one level deeper than most of these politics go.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      Yeah, that's always the problem with race-based initiatives, there's always edge cases, like any policy.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  Elaborating on this, there is a passage quoted in the article from the most common text on "anti-racism" : "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The consequences of this are easy to illustrate in orchestras. Orchestras have always been heavily dominated by white and Asian musicians. When it was argued that this was due to discrimination in hiring, the solution was quite simple and tasteful - swap to blind auditions. And that is something few would oppose. So they did. The problem is that not only did it fail to create more diverse orchestras, in many cases they became even less diverse than they were prior. So now the 'anti-racist' view is that orchestras need to begin being racist against white and Asian applicants, and start biasing selection by race. [1] Groups that disproportionately overperform become acceptable targets for racism. Incidentally this is not entirely different than the motivation for some of the darkest moments in our history. Alas people never seem to appreciate that the "evil" groups in times past never saw themselves as evil, but simply as people engaging in temporarily distasteful action for a greater future. That greater future never comes, but the distasteful actions certainly do. Of course, "this time it'll be different." [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Jews were also persecuted because of their overperformance. Too many rich Jews in a city = a reliable recipe for pogrom.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      From my understanding, the Jewish diaspora in Christendom often became moneylenders due to various laws that a) prohibited Jews from owning property or businesses and b) laws that prohibited lending money at interest by Christians. Then yeah, when someone fired up some anti-Semitic hyperbole, well, great way to get out of that debt you owed, right? IIRC Edward I of England expelled the Jews primarily to confiscate their property after years of taxing them superhard, but it also gave the Crown ownership of debts owed to the Jews, so he was playing the populist hand, and getting funds at the same time.
Dalewyn 4y ago
By their very nature, "diversity" and "inclusion" are racist because it must consider someone's race. By arguing for "diversity" and "inclusion" we are mandating we judge people for what they are, rather than who they are; judge them by the color of their skin rather than the quality of their character. "Anti-racism", which in American academia usually comes about in the form of blacks and latinos receiving preferential treatment at the cost of whites and asians, is indeed racism. Racism is not acceptable, no matter how benevolent the intent or goal. And while we're here, since it's part of the bigger, main discussion anyway: "Equity" is the anti-thesis of equality, because "equity" mandates that all individuals arrive (and stay!) at the same place in life no matter who they are. It throws out individual ambitions and efforts towards obtaining a better silver plate in lieu of society handing everyone the same steel plate.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  That doesn't quite explain why it's specifically anti-Asian though?
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    It's anti-asian and also anti- any race that isn't on the list of beneficiaries. The original argument could have been conveyed better by framing it more broadly, but it isn't wrong.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      Aah, that makes sense, if I'm understanding it correctly, they specified Asians because they're another minority, but disadvantaged by policies that seek to help other minorities.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        Pretty much. Any policy that helps someone on the basis of race is, unsurprisingly, racist.

xg15 4y ago

> “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. The "meritocracy" that includes your rich parents into your "merit".

tomp 4y ago
No, the correct answer to this is "provide free/subsidised schooling to exceptional people who cannot otherwise afford it". By the way, this is the meritocratic way because we're looking for best people, which includes identifying unrealized talent and then nurturing it. Instead, the SJW/woke way is "reduce standards until everybody passes", literally https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-cancel-math-class-11621355858 https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc... (a.k.a. everybody equal, everybody stupid akin to Communism's everybody equal, everybody poor)
- varnaud 4y ago
  >exceptional people Why would you only provide free/subsidized schooling to exceptional people. Why not all people? If you truly believe in meritocracy, wouldn't you want everyone to have a fair opportunity to prove themselves?
  - tomp 4y ago
    If resources are limited (and they're always limited) you invest into the highest ROI options. Exceptional people have a chance of pushing society forward (i.e. creating more resources for the future... exponentially). (But yeah in general I oppose age-segregated schooling, I think education should have "tracks" (math, physics, sports, music, etc.) and people should attend whatever "level" they're at in each track, in mixed-age groups. And make mostly free (but guided) choices regarding which tracks to put most effort in.)
- kiba 4y ago
  Meritocracy is opposed to egalitarianism. After all, people with advantages rise to the top, whether that's upbringing, talent, or gene.

cma 4y ago

> destroying meritocracy Low inheritance tax has had that covered for a while.