4 ms·

In other words, you make snap judgements and assumptions about people based on their age, race, and sex.

by imgabe 4y ago

busterarm 4y ago
That is in fact what the book How to be Anti-Racist prescibes that you do. Part of the thesis of that book is that you are a racist if you treat people as individuals. To be Anti-Racist, you must treat people as part of their collective and then treat them well or badly based on membership of that collective in the name of equity. Thus whites and asians must be treated poorly because of their race and other minorities treated positively because of their race. Basically you fight racism with racial discrimination.
- imgabe 4y ago
  Indeed, and the problem with all that is that it’s stupid and wrong.
  - busterarm 4y ago
    As stupid and wrong it is, it is invading every aspect of our professional lives. It's extremely disturbing to find how many of my generation (let's say 30s & 40s) have accepted this belief system uncritically. It seems at least that zoomers are somewhat more critical, or at least 50-50 on the topic. It's going to take many, many decades to unravel the harm this is causing.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  Well that is just utterly vile.
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    They like that it's vile; that's the point for them. The power, the influence, and the authoritarian ability to control people's lives and, eventually, kill them (in my opinion), is what they crave. Do not underestimate these people and how insane they are.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  That’s not the thesis of the book.
  - busterarm 4y ago
    Absolutely it is and presented clearly as so. The book presents 5 questions to settle the question of "Am I racist?" __always giving primacy to the individual over the collective, or group; __always embracing the concept of individual rights to help me judge problematic social interactions; __never assessing quantities of stuff in gauging whether a policy is racist; __always attempting to embrace the “color-blind rule” when making choices; __always maintaining awareness of the distinctions between equity and equality; never compromizing equality of rights in order to bring about equity of stuff.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      These questions and what you said are two different things. You don’t need to treat any group poorly and none of those questions suggest you do. You made a leap that doesn’t logically follow.
      - busterarm 4y ago
        You clearly have not read the book or even the quoted parts of it in the article. This quote is highlighted by Haidt who even supports and says there is a place for 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 book makes its point of view as plain as day. I haven't made any kinds of leap whatsoever. Haidt only drew the line at his work being compelled to promote anti-racism because that's contradictory to the aim for truth and why we do research in the first place.
        kenjackson 4y ago
        Your characterization of poor treatment seems like a leap. I guess the question for you is: if I discriminate against you in the post in such a way it creates inequity, but never attempt to correct it but merely say from this point forward no one can discriminate — is everyone being treated fairly?
- narrator 4y ago
  The point of all this is to have people who are unqualified as individuals embedded deep in every organization who are loyal to and owe their jobs and livelihood not to their own merit, but to external political movements. Unlike unions, these external political movements do not care about the organizations their members are embedded in, but have other goals which is why they are unconcerned with merit. Unions at least wanted the organizations their members belonged to to survive and employees to have some level of competence.
bruce511 4y ago
I make snap judgements on statements, supposing age, race and sex, yes. (not the other way around as you suggest.) I then investigated to see if my suppositions were correct. That they are helps me make judgements with insufficient data in the future. If they are not it helps me broaden my model.

In other words, you make snap judgements and assumptions about people based on their age, race, and sex.

by imgabe 4y ago

In other words, you make snap judgements and assumptions about people based on their age, race, and sex.

That is in fact what the book How to be Anti-Racist prescibes that you do. Part of the thesis of that book is that you are a racist if you treat people as individuals. To be Anti-Racist, you must treat people as part of their collective and then treat them well or badly based on membership of that collective in the name of equity. Thus whites and asians must be treated poorly because of their race and other minorities treated positively because of their race. Basically you fight racism with racial discrimination.

imgabe 4y ago
Indeed, and the problem with all that is that it’s stupid and wrong.
- busterarm 4y ago
  As stupid and wrong it is, it is invading every aspect of our professional lives. It's extremely disturbing to find how many of my generation (let's say 30s & 40s) have accepted this belief system uncritically. It seems at least that zoomers are somewhat more critical, or at least 50-50 on the topic. It's going to take many, many decades to unravel the harm this is causing.
HyperSane 4y ago
Well that is just utterly vile.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  They like that it's vile; that's the point for them. The power, the influence, and the authoritarian ability to control people's lives and, eventually, kill them (in my opinion), is what they crave. Do not underestimate these people and how insane they are.
kenjackson 4y ago
That’s not the thesis of the book.
- busterarm 4y ago
  Absolutely it is and presented clearly as so. The book presents 5 questions to settle the question of "Am I racist?" __always giving primacy to the individual over the collective, or group; __always embracing the concept of individual rights to help me judge problematic social interactions; __never assessing quantities of stuff in gauging whether a policy is racist; __always attempting to embrace the “color-blind rule” when making choices; __always maintaining awareness of the distinctions between equity and equality; never compromizing equality of rights in order to bring about equity of stuff.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    These questions and what you said are two different things. You don’t need to treat any group poorly and none of those questions suggest you do. You made a leap that doesn’t logically follow.
    - busterarm 4y ago
      You clearly have not read the book or even the quoted parts of it in the article. This quote is highlighted by Haidt who even supports and says there is a place for 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 book makes its point of view as plain as day. I haven't made any kinds of leap whatsoever. Haidt only drew the line at his work being compelled to promote anti-racism because that's contradictory to the aim for truth and why we do research in the first place.
      - kenjackson 4y ago
        Your characterization of poor treatment seems like a leap. I guess the question for you is: if I discriminate against you in the post in such a way it creates inequity, but never attempt to correct it but merely say from this point forward no one can discriminate — is everyone being treated fairly?
narrator 4y ago
The point of all this is to have people who are unqualified as individuals embedded deep in every organization who are loyal to and owe their jobs and livelihood not to their own merit, but to external political movements. Unlike unions, these external political movements do not care about the organizations their members are embedded in, but have other goals which is why they are unconcerned with merit. Unions at least wanted the organizations their members belonged to to survive and employees to have some level of competence.

bruce511 4y ago

I make snap judgements on statements, supposing age, race and sex, yes. (not the other way around as you suggest.) I then investigated to see if my suppositions were correct. That they are helps me make judgements with insufficient data in the future. If they are not it helps me broaden my model.