10 ms·

He’s right to do so. Statements that your research must be presented with a filter based on how it will advance political goals calls into question the integrit

He’s right to do so. Statements that your research must be presented with a filter based on how it will advance political goals calls into question the integrity of all research. When people don’t “trust the science” this will be why. But further, I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is violence. It’s abject insanity that such a notion is being advanced in society. The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. The only way anything stops is for people to have the humility and wisdom to say “this will stop with me.”

henriquez 4y ago
Arainach 4y ago
After decades/centuries of abuse, how does "forgiveness" fix systemic issues? Forgiveness can't fix the fact that black Americans were denied access to loans, houses, GI Bill provisions, and all sorts of opportunities that were the primary source of household wealth gains for the last 75 years. It can't fix the fact that those gains mean white people have, on average, more access to "a small loan" from a family member to start a business, a house or inheritance to fall back on if their take a risk starting a business and it doesn't pan out, and so on.
- ponow 4y ago
  So, with your reasoning, what's the correct response today to the Holocaust?
  - Arainach 4y ago
    Germany has been paying reparations to survivors since the 1950s and paid large sums to Israel and the World Jewish Congress as heirs to the deceased. http://www.mnchurches.org/blog/2021/02/18/holocaust-survivors-receive-german-reparations-day http://www.mnchurches.org/blog/2021/02/18/holocaust-survivor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_...
- smaudet 4y ago
  Regardless, there must be a system. Part of a functioning, healthy system is recompense/justice, and yes foregiveness. If you tear a system down, even if you manage to shift some power balance, you stand to create a situation as bad or worse than the one you began with. Unless a core value of the system you seek to create is forgiveness, you only stand to substitute one systemic opression for another. Put in terms perhaps you might understand, african americans, hispanics are not forgiven their crimes, where often those with wealth and influence or socially favorable bias are (often) foregiven. Adding more henious lanaguage, attitude to the mix does not help, when it can be redirected at those still in a position of relative powerlessness. Some specific crimes should be punished harder (rapists especially in college and positions of power should immediately be punished and severely), at the same time where we are willing to dole out forgiveness, that should be equally given. You cannot have one without the other.
- rodric 4y ago
  Your point stands, but population dynamics over the last 75 years complicate matters. There are as many immigrants in the United States today (not even counting children of immigrants) as there are Black Americans – immigrants who of course did not have access to GI Bill provisions, etc. How do they fit into the picture?
mushbino 4y ago
You're saying the only way to end discrimination is for the victims to forgive the perpetrators? How would that work exactly? IMO, the only way to move forward is to correct past wrongs by heavily investing in affected communities economically and afa education and health. What Haidt is being asked to do here does none of these things and is purely for show.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  > IMO, the only way to move forward is to correct past wrongs by heavily investing in affected communities economically and afa education and health. As if we hadn't been doing that for past 60 years, with extremely underwhelming (in fact, arguably negative) outcomes.
  - deepl_derber 4y ago
    The outcomes have been underwhelming because we (at least, the US) haven't actually been doing this, and we've just found new and arguably worse ways to maintain deeply racist policies.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      If what you say is true, books like “how to be an antiracist” would include examples of these “arguably worse” mechanisms to maintain inequality. They don’t contain such examples. Indeed, a central premise of Kendi’s book is that affirmative measures are required because simply “not being racist” doesn’t work.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        When you say "books like _How To Be An Antiracist_", you mean... bad books, right? Why would you expect bad-faith actors like Kendi to do better?
        barry-cotter 4y ago
        What’s your disagreement with Kendi and those like him? What changed?
meowtimemania 4y ago
I always thought anti-racist meant “this will stop with me.” My understanding was that anti-racism meant, if you hear/see something racist, take a part in ending it. I think you can be anti-racist, and walk the fine line of being forgiving of unintentional missteps, while also helping people realize why what they did was wrong.
- lupire 4y ago
  That view is less extreme than Kendi's position which staked a claim on the term "anti-racist" in public conversation.
- ponow 4y ago
  You would be cancelled for that view. The correct view is that people of good standing should only admit and hire from a few groups until there is parity. Extra points if you want overrepresentation, to compensate for past imbalances. Explicitly, you must accept the proposition that the son is not only to be blamed for the sins of the father, but also to be blamed for the sins of all who share similar ancestry. Individual behavior or innocence is irrelevant.
  - patrick451 4y ago
    It such a barbaric view that makes little more sense than sacrificing virgins to Baal so it will rain.
DoingIsLearning 4y ago
> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. Too handwavy, the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ (with adequate student to teacher ratios _everywhere_). Although the discussion is at NYU this problem is not limited to the US. The issue with this and other societal problems is that state governance is operated in 4 year cycles (much like corporations now are restrained by the next quarter). Public education is something you invest in now to see a benefit of 25 years down the road. Until we collectively solve the incentives around long term policy all other aspects of addressing discrimination fall short.
- bongoman37 4y ago
- ponow 4y ago
  > the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ So how does increasing the funding of poor white students advance Kendi's "anti-racist" program, precisely? Clearly there's no logical link between the two concepts of discrimination and government school funding, at best a historical one and where I live, government schools get way more funding per pupil ($10k more) than private school tuition. But that doesn't make the government schools good, as a rule.
  - grb423 4y ago
- hbrn 4y ago
  > the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ (with adequate student to teacher ratios You know that when you're describing a policy with vague words like "adequate" you are actually giving yourself an escape hatch in case the policy fails? "The policy was great, it's just that funding wasn't adequate". Which makes your policy unfalsifiable and almost religious in nature.
sweetheart 4y ago
> The only way anything stops is for people to have the humility and wisdom to say “this will stop with me.” You mean like when people decide to highlight issues with diversity and representation in academia by requiring it to be addressed?
- ovao 4y ago
  Addressing diversity issues in academia is a pursuit that can be — and commonly is — orthogonal to presenting research.
- ponow 4y ago
  Representation is a significant goal post move past equality of opportunity. Typically what is meant is that unequal representation is evidence of discrimination. Academia has bent over backwards for a long time now to attempt to admit people of all groups. Blaming academia's admission and hiring processes for the numbers not being the way representationalists would prefer completely ignores the practices of decades.
Test0129 4y ago
> But further, I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is violence. It’s abject insanity that such a notion is being advanced in society. This has been the way it's gone since Kendi wrote How to be an Anti-Racist. It is racism by any other name whether somehow "justified" or not. The books in the catalog of anti-racism include great hits like "White Fragility" further exemplifying the movements innate hatred of a certain skin color. The more you go down the rabbit hole the more you realize it's been a movement to transfer all problems other non-white races have onto white people and use that to promote what is objectively racist and bigoted language and methodology. These "authors" (I use that term loosely here, they are racist demagogues) are a key driver of so-called "diversity hiring" and an overall more difficult workplace because now anything can be conceived in their framework as some sort of anti-PoC swipe. This concept of "increasing representation" has in many places replaced the meritocracy. If anything, this type of movement has an overall negative effect (as exemplified by the pejorative "diversity hire" to refer to a person who is undeserving of their position). It's not uncommon to get silenced for having the above view of anti-racism though a cursory view of the movement will lead you to the same thing. The reason you are just seeing this now is we've reached the point the average American realized "anti-racism" is cleverly designed newspeak and it's supporters are becoming more fringe by the day. In fact, commonly, criticism of the movement is associated with "marginalizing" the experiences of "people of color" which creates a situation where the movement can do what it wants because the opposite of anti-racism, is, of course racism (in English). If you're criticizing them as the wrong skin color you "benefit from power structures designed to empower white people". There's no winning with them, and that's why the movement has taken so much ground. No one wants to be accused of racism so you end having to do all sorts of backflips through flaming rings just to show how not-racist you are. I don't have a solution to whatever perceived slights other people feel. I do know that targeting a group of people for punishment based on their skin color is wrong regardless of who it is or what they are.
that_guy_iain 4y ago
> He’s right to do so. Statements that your research must be presented with a filter based on how it will advance political goals calls into question the integrity of all research. When people don’t “trust the science” this will be why. When I started to read it, I thought it would be about making a statement about how we should be diverse. Not that he would have to present only science that is about diversity. The second I read there would be a litmus test for studies I was right onboard with him quitting.
rayiner 4y ago
> But further, I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is violence. It’s abject insanity that such a notion is being advanced in society. Kendi is just advocating for a system of racial preferences administered by "good white people." That's been a hobby horse of a segment of the political left since the Nixon administration. Decades later, it still remains unpopular even among the minorities it is supposed to help: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/05/08/americans-see-advantages-and-challenges-in-countrys-growing-racial-and-ethnic-diversity https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/05/08/americans-see-adv.... But center left think tanks and advocacy organizations won't let it go. Even the most liberal state in the country defeating it resoundingly won't dissuade them: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/california-not-bellwether-affirmative-action https://www.americanprogress.org/article/california-not-bell.... So keep expecting it to pop up in different guises until they manage to get their way.
- quacked 4y ago
  Is the reason that he wants it administered by "good white people" because every other ethnic group (including the "bad white people") is nakedly self-interested when it comes to racial preference?
  - rayiner 4y ago
    What makes you think they’re not nakedly self interested? They get the most out of the system, because they get to run the show. They not only get a powerful club against “bad white people,” but also get to hand-pick “representation” to shape minority groups according their own preferences. They’ll pick Hispanics who answer to “Latinx” but never one that believes that abortion is wrong. They’ll pick Muslims that endorses white American views of gender roles. They’ll pick the Asian that says Asian values are a “model minority myth.” As to why Kendi supports it, who knows. Lots of people attach a low price to their dignity.
    - arinlen 4y ago
      > They’ll pick Hispanics who answer to “Latinx” but never one that believes that abortion is wrong. They’ll pick Muslims that endorses white American views of gender roles. They’ll pick the Asian that says Asian values are a “model minority myth.” Is that worse than not picking a single Hispanic, Muslim, or Asian because they are Hispanic, Muslim, and Asian? The main flaw in your blend of anti-affirmative action argument is that at it's core it's a pro-racism argument, which supports the racist status quo as a default desirable scenario by first going out of your way to reject each and any alternative to the racist status quo.
deepl_derber 4y ago
>The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is violence. It’s abject insanity that such a notion is being advanced in society. Absolutely not. The idea that any of this is fixable with 'forgiveness' is far more insane. You can't undo hundreds of years of systematic disenfranchisement and subjugation with forgiveness - you have to discriminate in the opposite direction. To quote LBJ, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." That's what Kendi is saying, and he's completely right.
- naasking 4y ago
  > You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." It's not fair. Neither is discriminating in the other direction because these people are not at fault for what their ancestors did, not to mention that affirmative action policies divide people along racial lines rather than the factor more relevant to today, class lines. Ask yourself whether a black student with wealthy parents should benefit from preferential admissions to colleges over a white student from a poor background.
  - skyde 4y ago
    you hear people from minority group all the time saying they want to keep the bloodline pure and not dare someone from a different races. If a white people said this everyone would say he is a nazi.
    - lazyeye 4y ago
      Similarly when immigrant minorities gravitate to particular localities for their shared culture and background, this is a wonderful example of diversity. When white people do this, its called white flight and is akin to nazism.
- skyde 4y ago
OOPMan 4y ago
As a South African it's wild to me that just over 30 years ago Mandela warned of the dangers of this way of thinking and yet here we are...
- ETH_start 4y ago
  Thomas Sowell explains how insurgent movements generally have a more just vision for the world in their early stages, and become tyrannical after they seize power. He gives the example of the vision laid out by MLK in the 1960s ("judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin"), and contrasts it with that of modern social justice types, and also compares Christianity when it was persecuted in the Roman Empire, to when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. > The only way anything stops is for people to have the humility and wisdom to say “this will stop with me.” This is how I used to think. It’s reminiscent of the thinking of the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, John Lennon, and countless others who have had noble idealism which sadly isn’t congruous with reality. Here is a quote which demonstrates the logical endpoint of this idea: > Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.....It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany.... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.[1] That is the logical conclusion of this idea, take your own life in hopes you’ll posthumously be considered worthy of having been spared, and worthy of having anyone intervene to spare you. Because unilaterally, arbitrarily deciding to forgive a transgressor who’s still motivated by their transgression grants permission and submission to their goal. There is historical precedent for a similar notion being more realistic and effective: Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa. But what makes it more realistic and more effective is that there was significant, forceful pressure which motivated the transgressors to seek mutual reconciliation. To some extent, they were also willing participants. Personal anecdote time: like probably many here, I was bullied as a kid. It was a shockingly regular occurrence for me to be violently attacked, sometimes even by people I don’t think I’d ever interacted with before they were beating me. I had a timid and peaceful demeanor even when some of my family strongly encouraged me to defend myself. Eventually this led to a group of ~20 kids kicking me on the ground while I covered my head and neck and hoped to make it out alive. I was 13-14 years old, I had endured beatings on a lesser scale too many times to count. Of course I knew I couldn’t defend myself from 20 kids, so I took another beating. But the next time I got jumped, by one kid, I punched him straight in the face. I didn’t even know I had it in me to do, but instinct took over. Then I got up, saw the kid who attacked me was embarrassed but physically okay, and I walked away. That was the last time anyone ever laid hands on me outside a sporting context with established consent. Now I can forgive those kids, because they’ve stopped beating me. 1: Quoting Gandhi, source: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/gandhi-on-the-holocaust https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/gandhi-on-the-holocaust
- hbrn 4y ago
boppo1 4y ago
> I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. You’re at least a year behind.
JellyBeanThief 4y ago
> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. Stepping aside from the main debate, how can you possibly justify this? If I'm going to be forgiven every time I discriminate, assault, and slander people, why would I ever want to change my behavior? After all, I get rewarded for it: When I do those things I gain advantages over other people that benefit me, not to mention the psychological rush of dominating others. You forgive me for those things? Over and over, unconditionally? That sounds to me like I'm your god and I can do with you as a I please. Discrimination, violence, and hatred are antisocial behaviors. They need to be reduced in a way that is just and fair and effective. Forgiveness is none of those.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  The forgiveness line is straight out of the Bible. If you were a domineering tyrant wouldn’t it be convenient if your population were obligated to forgive you? Sounds pretty docile
- Jochim 4y ago
  > Discrimination, violence, and hatred are antisocial behaviors. They need to be reduced in a way that is just and fair and effective. Forgiveness is none of those. The key thing for me is we give people the opportunity to change. This doesn't necessarily mean that there shouldn't be consequences. Only that the consequences are proportionate and finite. In my opinion, hostility towards people who have made mistakes is a major problem that holds the left back. Identity politics has been very successful in driving a wedge between groups that would otherwise have very similar economic and class interests. I don't believe that was a mistake.
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    Is the hostility from the right holding them back? It doesn’t seem like it. is it only the left that is not allowed to have aggression?
    - Jochim 4y ago
raxxorraxor 4y ago
The problem with him resigning is that only conformant people remain. These are unlikely to further science as well.
raindropm 4y ago
I never understand the American way to fix these issue. They do have good intention, we can see that, but somehow the perspective of how they see the problem is distorted, which let to distorted answer. I think many of us can see it, but can't say it aloud. Unless we see others as friends — that everyone is flawed human being, including yourself, that share this same world, and one day have to left this world altogether sooner or later, then I don't see how this problem will genuinely get fixed. What they did instead is amped up individualistic ego and make the divide even more...divide.

henriquez 4y ago

Arainach 4y ago

After decades/centuries of abuse, how does "forgiveness" fix systemic issues? Forgiveness can't fix the fact that black Americans were denied access to loans, houses, GI Bill provisions, and all sorts of opportunities that were the primary source of household wealth gains for the last 75 years. It can't fix the fact that those gains mean white people have, on average, more access to "a small loan" from a family member to start a business, a house or inheritance to fall back on if their take a risk starting a business and it doesn't pan out, and so on.

ponow 4y ago
So, with your reasoning, what's the correct response today to the Holocaust?
- Arainach 4y ago
  Germany has been paying reparations to survivors since the 1950s and paid large sums to Israel and the World Jewish Congress as heirs to the deceased. http://www.mnchurches.org/blog/2021/02/18/holocaust-survivors-receive-german-reparations-day http://www.mnchurches.org/blog/2021/02/18/holocaust-survivor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_...
smaudet 4y ago
Regardless, there must be a system. Part of a functioning, healthy system is recompense/justice, and yes foregiveness. If you tear a system down, even if you manage to shift some power balance, you stand to create a situation as bad or worse than the one you began with. Unless a core value of the system you seek to create is forgiveness, you only stand to substitute one systemic opression for another. Put in terms perhaps you might understand, african americans, hispanics are not forgiven their crimes, where often those with wealth and influence or socially favorable bias are (often) foregiven. Adding more henious lanaguage, attitude to the mix does not help, when it can be redirected at those still in a position of relative powerlessness. Some specific crimes should be punished harder (rapists especially in college and positions of power should immediately be punished and severely), at the same time where we are willing to dole out forgiveness, that should be equally given. You cannot have one without the other.
rodric 4y ago
Your point stands, but population dynamics over the last 75 years complicate matters. There are as many immigrants in the United States today (not even counting children of immigrants) as there are Black Americans – immigrants who of course did not have access to GI Bill provisions, etc. How do they fit into the picture?

mushbino 4y ago

You're saying the only way to end discrimination is for the victims to forgive the perpetrators? How would that work exactly? IMO, the only way to move forward is to correct past wrongs by heavily investing in affected communities economically and afa education and health. What Haidt is being asked to do here does none of these things and is purely for show.

xyzzyz 4y ago
> IMO, the only way to move forward is to correct past wrongs by heavily investing in affected communities economically and afa education and health. As if we hadn't been doing that for past 60 years, with extremely underwhelming (in fact, arguably negative) outcomes.
- deepl_derber 4y ago
  The outcomes have been underwhelming because we (at least, the US) haven't actually been doing this, and we've just found new and arguably worse ways to maintain deeply racist policies.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    If what you say is true, books like “how to be an antiracist” would include examples of these “arguably worse” mechanisms to maintain inequality. They don’t contain such examples. Indeed, a central premise of Kendi’s book is that affirmative measures are required because simply “not being racist” doesn’t work.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      When you say "books like _How To Be An Antiracist_", you mean... bad books, right? Why would you expect bad-faith actors like Kendi to do better?
      - barry-cotter 4y ago
        What’s your disagreement with Kendi and those like him? What changed?

meowtimemania 4y ago

I always thought anti-racist meant “this will stop with me.” My understanding was that anti-racism meant, if you hear/see something racist, take a part in ending it. I think you can be anti-racist, and walk the fine line of being forgiving of unintentional missteps, while also helping people realize why what they did was wrong.

lupire 4y ago
That view is less extreme than Kendi's position which staked a claim on the term "anti-racist" in public conversation.
ponow 4y ago
You would be cancelled for that view. The correct view is that people of good standing should only admit and hire from a few groups until there is parity. Extra points if you want overrepresentation, to compensate for past imbalances. Explicitly, you must accept the proposition that the son is not only to be blamed for the sins of the father, but also to be blamed for the sins of all who share similar ancestry. Individual behavior or innocence is irrelevant.
- patrick451 4y ago
  It such a barbaric view that makes little more sense than sacrificing virgins to Baal so it will rain.

DoingIsLearning 4y ago

> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. Too handwavy, the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ (with adequate student to teacher ratios _everywhere_). Although the discussion is at NYU this problem is not limited to the US. The issue with this and other societal problems is that state governance is operated in 4 year cycles (much like corporations now are restrained by the next quarter). Public education is something you invest in now to see a benefit of 25 years down the road. Until we collectively solve the incentives around long term policy all other aspects of addressing discrimination fall short.

bongoman37 4y ago
ponow 4y ago
> the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ So how does increasing the funding of poor white students advance Kendi's "anti-racist" program, precisely? Clearly there's no logical link between the two concepts of discrimination and government school funding, at best a historical one and where I live, government schools get way more funding per pupil ($10k more) than private school tuition. But that doesn't make the government schools good, as a rule.
- grb423 4y ago
hbrn 4y ago
> the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ (with adequate student to teacher ratios You know that when you're describing a policy with vague words like "adequate" you are actually giving yourself an escape hatch in case the policy fails? "The policy was great, it's just that funding wasn't adequate". Which makes your policy unfalsifiable and almost religious in nature.

sweetheart 4y ago

> The only way anything stops is for people to have the humility and wisdom to say “this will stop with me.” You mean like when people decide to highlight issues with diversity and representation in academia by requiring it to be addressed?

ovao 4y ago
Addressing diversity issues in academia is a pursuit that can be — and commonly is — orthogonal to presenting research.
ponow 4y ago
Representation is a significant goal post move past equality of opportunity. Typically what is meant is that unequal representation is evidence of discrimination. Academia has bent over backwards for a long time now to attempt to admit people of all groups. Blaming academia's admission and hiring processes for the numbers not being the way representationalists would prefer completely ignores the practices of decades.

Test0129 4y ago

> But further, I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is violence. It’s abject insanity that such a notion is being advanced in society. This has been the way it's gone since Kendi wrote How to be an Anti-Racist. It is racism by any other name whether somehow "justified" or not. The books in the catalog of anti-racism include great hits like "White Fragility" further exemplifying the movements innate hatred of a certain skin color. The more you go down the rabbit hole the more you realize it's been a movement to transfer all problems other non-white races have onto white people and use that to promote what is objectively racist and bigoted language and methodology. These "authors" (I use that term loosely here, they are racist demagogues) are a key driver of so-called "diversity hiring" and an overall more difficult workplace because now anything can be conceived in their framework as some sort of anti-PoC swipe. This concept of "increasing representation" has in many places replaced the meritocracy. If anything, this type of movement has an overall negative effect (as exemplified by the pejorative "diversity hire" to refer to a person who is undeserving of their position). It's not uncommon to get silenced for having the above view of anti-racism though a cursory view of the movement will lead you to the same thing. The reason you are just seeing this now is we've reached the point the average American realized "anti-racism" is cleverly designed newspeak and it's supporters are becoming more fringe by the day. In fact, commonly, criticism of the movement is associated with "marginalizing" the experiences of "people of color" which creates a situation where the movement can do what it wants because the opposite of anti-racism, is, of course racism (in English). If you're criticizing them as the wrong skin color you "benefit from power structures designed to empower white people". There's no winning with them, and that's why the movement has taken so much ground. No one wants to be accused of racism so you end having to do all sorts of backflips through flaming rings just to show how not-racist you are. I don't have a solution to whatever perceived slights other people feel. I do know that targeting a group of people for punishment based on their skin color is wrong regardless of who it is or what they are.

that_guy_iain 4y ago

> He’s right to do so. Statements that your research must be presented with a filter based on how it will advance political goals calls into question the integrity of all research. When people don’t “trust the science” this will be why. When I started to read it, I thought it would be about making a statement about how we should be diverse. Not that he would have to present only science that is about diversity. The second I read there would be a litmus test for studies I was right onboard with him quitting.

rayiner 4y ago

quacked 4y ago
Is the reason that he wants it administered by "good white people" because every other ethnic group (including the "bad white people") is nakedly self-interested when it comes to racial preference?
- rayiner 4y ago
  What makes you think they’re not nakedly self interested? They get the most out of the system, because they get to run the show. They not only get a powerful club against “bad white people,” but also get to hand-pick “representation” to shape minority groups according their own preferences. They’ll pick Hispanics who answer to “Latinx” but never one that believes that abortion is wrong. They’ll pick Muslims that endorses white American views of gender roles. They’ll pick the Asian that says Asian values are a “model minority myth.” As to why Kendi supports it, who knows. Lots of people attach a low price to their dignity.
  - arinlen 4y ago
    > They’ll pick Hispanics who answer to “Latinx” but never one that believes that abortion is wrong. They’ll pick Muslims that endorses white American views of gender roles. They’ll pick the Asian that says Asian values are a “model minority myth.” Is that worse than not picking a single Hispanic, Muslim, or Asian because they are Hispanic, Muslim, and Asian? The main flaw in your blend of anti-affirmative action argument is that at it's core it's a pro-racism argument, which supports the racist status quo as a default desirable scenario by first going out of your way to reject each and any alternative to the racist status quo.

deepl_derber 4y ago

>The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is violence. It’s abject insanity that such a notion is being advanced in society. Absolutely not. The idea that any of this is fixable with 'forgiveness' is far more insane. You can't undo hundreds of years of systematic disenfranchisement and subjugation with forgiveness - you have to discriminate in the opposite direction. To quote LBJ, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." That's what Kendi is saying, and he's completely right.

naasking 4y ago
> You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." It's not fair. Neither is discriminating in the other direction because these people are not at fault for what their ancestors did, not to mention that affirmative action policies divide people along racial lines rather than the factor more relevant to today, class lines. Ask yourself whether a black student with wealthy parents should benefit from preferential admissions to colleges over a white student from a poor background.
- skyde 4y ago
  you hear people from minority group all the time saying they want to keep the bloodline pure and not dare someone from a different races. If a white people said this everyone would say he is a nazi.
  - lazyeye 4y ago
    Similarly when immigrant minorities gravitate to particular localities for their shared culture and background, this is a wonderful example of diversity. When white people do this, its called white flight and is akin to nazism.
skyde 4y ago

OOPMan 4y ago

As a South African it's wild to me that just over 30 years ago Mandela warned of the dangers of this way of thinking and yet here we are...

ETH_start 4y ago
Thomas Sowell explains how insurgent movements generally have a more just vision for the world in their early stages, and become tyrannical after they seize power. He gives the example of the vision laid out by MLK in the 1960s ("judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin"), and contrasts it with that of modern social justice types, and also compares Christianity when it was persecuted in the Roman Empire, to when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. > The only way anything stops is for people to have the humility and wisdom to say “this will stop with me.” This is how I used to think. It’s reminiscent of the thinking of the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, John Lennon, and countless others who have had noble idealism which sadly isn’t congruous with reality. Here is a quote which demonstrates the logical endpoint of this idea: > Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.....It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany.... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.[1] That is the logical conclusion of this idea, take your own life in hopes you’ll posthumously be considered worthy of having been spared, and worthy of having anyone intervene to spare you. Because unilaterally, arbitrarily deciding to forgive a transgressor who’s still motivated by their transgression grants permission and submission to their goal. There is historical precedent for a similar notion being more realistic and effective: Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa. But what makes it more realistic and more effective is that there was significant, forceful pressure which motivated the transgressors to seek mutual reconciliation. To some extent, they were also willing participants. Personal anecdote time: like probably many here, I was bullied as a kid. It was a shockingly regular occurrence for me to be violently attacked, sometimes even by people I don’t think I’d ever interacted with before they were beating me. I had a timid and peaceful demeanor even when some of my family strongly encouraged me to defend myself. Eventually this led to a group of ~20 kids kicking me on the ground while I covered my head and neck and hoped to make it out alive. I was 13-14 years old, I had endured beatings on a lesser scale too many times to count. Of course I knew I couldn’t defend myself from 20 kids, so I took another beating. But the next time I got jumped, by one kid, I punched him straight in the face. I didn’t even know I had it in me to do, but instinct took over. Then I got up, saw the kid who attacked me was embarrassed but physically okay, and I walked away. That was the last time anyone ever laid hands on me outside a sporting context with established consent. Now I can forgive those kids, because they’ve stopped beating me. 1: Quoting Gandhi, source: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/gandhi-on-the-holocaust https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/gandhi-on-the-holocaust

hbrn 4y ago

boppo1 4y ago

> I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. You’re at least a year behind.

JellyBeanThief 4y ago

> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. Stepping aside from the main debate, how can you possibly justify this? If I'm going to be forgiven every time I discriminate, assault, and slander people, why would I ever want to change my behavior? After all, I get rewarded for it: When I do those things I gain advantages over other people that benefit me, not to mention the psychological rush of dominating others. You forgive me for those things? Over and over, unconditionally? That sounds to me like I'm your god and I can do with you as a I please. Discrimination, violence, and hatred are antisocial behaviors. They need to be reduced in a way that is just and fair and effective. Forgiveness is none of those.

philosopher1234 4y ago
The forgiveness line is straight out of the Bible. If you were a domineering tyrant wouldn’t it be convenient if your population were obligated to forgive you? Sounds pretty docile
Jochim 4y ago
> Discrimination, violence, and hatred are antisocial behaviors. They need to be reduced in a way that is just and fair and effective. Forgiveness is none of those. The key thing for me is we give people the opportunity to change. This doesn't necessarily mean that there shouldn't be consequences. Only that the consequences are proportionate and finite. In my opinion, hostility towards people who have made mistakes is a major problem that holds the left back. Identity politics has been very successful in driving a wedge between groups that would otherwise have very similar economic and class interests. I don't believe that was a mistake.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  Is the hostility from the right holding them back? It doesn’t seem like it. is it only the left that is not allowed to have aggression?
  - Jochim 4y ago

raxxorraxor 4y ago

The problem with him resigning is that only conformant people remain. These are unlikely to further science as well.

raindropm 4y ago

I never understand the American way to fix these issue. They do have good intention, we can see that, but somehow the perspective of how they see the problem is distorted, which let to distorted answer. I think many of us can see it, but can't say it aloud. Unless we see others as friends — that everyone is flawed human being, including yourself, that share this same world, and one day have to left this world altogether sooner or later, then I don't see how this problem will genuinely get fixed. What they did instead is amped up individualistic ego and make the divide even more...divide.