3 ms·

This is the most ignorant thing I have read in awhile. Adversity is adversity, white males face it, women face it, PoC face it. What you don't think there are

This is the most ignorant thing I have read in awhile. Adversity is adversity, white males face it, women face it, PoC face it. What you don't think there are white kids with single moms? Or white kids that had dads that beat them? Or white kids that were molested? Or white kids that got harassed by police? Or white kids that were told to give up, or that they wouldn't amount to anything? Your view of white people is completely detached from reality. Anyone who has been through adversity (most people), can empathize with anyone else who has gone through adversity even if the circumstances of that adversity weren't exactly the same.

philosopher1234 4y ago
Interesting. I imagine that means you're a real champion of improving opportunities for minorities, and spend a substantial amount of your time taking action to try and solve that problem, since adversity is adversity.
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  I'll happily oppose any racist law or coporate policy. Do you care to point me to any? And not just some "systemic racist" boogie man in the sky?
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    Good for you. Do you spend time actually researching systematic racism? Since we’re all just people perfectly capable of advocating for the same justice im sure you do.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    To echo the person you're responding to, what have you actually done to date to "improv[e] opportunities for minorities, and spend a substantial amount of your time taking action to try and solve that problem"? Saying you will take hypothetical action is easy, but all that matters is what you've actually done and are doing. If you haven't taken any substantial action to date then perhaps consider that may be a sign that you are not as motivated and understanding about the oppression of others as your initial comment may have indicated. If on the other hand you have been involved in a significant amount of anti-racist activism that's genuinely awesome.
    - hitpointdrew 4y ago
      I am not saying I will take hypothetical action. I will take real action. But I need evidence that systemic racism exists, you need to point to something and say “that right there is a racist law/policy”. I have thus far seen no such laws or policies. And please, don’t start with a conclusion (there are only X number of PoC CEO’s or something) and then go on a witch hunt to prove your conclusion. That is not how reason and science works. Until evidence is brought forth I cannot accept the systematic racism theory (and that is all it is without evidence). And since I suspect no such evidence actually exists, and since I am not inclined to go in witch hunts, why is the burden of proof on me? No, you show me the proof, I have enough things to worry about. Not to mention, laws and policies are public information, if there were racist ones it shouldn’t be hard to find and would have likely already come to light, yet no one can point me to one. This is no different than when someone claims God is real, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person denying the existence of God. What you’re doing is essentially demanding I prove God doesn’t exist.
      - virgildotcodes 4y ago
        So you went from saying that those who have experienced adversity can naturally empathize with the adversity others have faced, to now saying you do not accept that systemic racism exists? Do you see how those two statements strongly contradict one another? Anyway, if your position is genuinely that systemic racism doesn't exist, given all the information you have access to in this day, then I don't think there's any evidence I could show you that would ever sway you. That said, it's worth a shot, here's a tiny grain of sand on the nearly infinite beach of facts supporting the continued existence of racism - people with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a callback for a job interview.[1] [1]https://archive.is/fdUuy https://archive.is/fdUuy
        hitpointdrew 4y ago
        > Do you see how those two statements strongly contradict one another? Nope, no contradiction at all. You can have adversity and not have systemic racism. I don’t have the foggiest clue how you can think that is a contradiction. > people with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a callback for a job interview.[1] Fair enough, but how is this remotely “systemic”? Do you really think there are company policies that promote this? Or is this individual (I.e. not systemic) biases? Unless the company policy is to prefer the resumes with white sounding names then I don’t see how this is systemic.
cauch 4y ago
What you say is far from being obvious. What is the ground mechanism that, according to you, will make "adversity recognize adversity even if the circumstances are different"? In fact, from what I see, it's usually the opposite: people who have faced adversity will have a strong bias to consider their adversity was worse than the adversity of others who face a different kind of adversity. This is the same kind of bias as "the grass is always greener ...": it is very difficult to understand the bad aspect of the situation when from the outside, and when someone has faced adversity, this will be amplified by that: they had first hand experience vs. an adversity that they need to just imagine. It reminds me of, for example, those guys who are saying "if women were whistling at me in the street, I would take it as a complement": amongst those guys, a bunch have probably faced strong adversity. Still, they cannot understand why women dislike being whistled at and jump to the conclusion that these women don't know how good they have it. The fact that they have faced adversity amplify the fact that they don't recognize adversity: "why are they telling it's adversity, they are just soft, if they lived what I've lived, they will know what real adversity is". edit: hm, while I'm not a fan of the "systemic racism" thing, depicting it as a "boogie man in the sky" does not make you look like prone to really open to understand adversity of others. I'm sure you decided that "they are just complaining, they don't know "real adversity"" while you have no idea what it is really like.

philosopher1234 4y ago

Interesting. I imagine that means you're a real champion of improving opportunities for minorities, and spend a substantial amount of your time taking action to try and solve that problem, since adversity is adversity.

hitpointdrew 4y ago
I'll happily oppose any racist law or coporate policy. Do you care to point me to any? And not just some "systemic racist" boogie man in the sky?
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  Good for you. Do you spend time actually researching systematic racism? Since we’re all just people perfectly capable of advocating for the same justice im sure you do.
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  To echo the person you're responding to, what have you actually done to date to "improv[e] opportunities for minorities, and spend a substantial amount of your time taking action to try and solve that problem"? Saying you will take hypothetical action is easy, but all that matters is what you've actually done and are doing. If you haven't taken any substantial action to date then perhaps consider that may be a sign that you are not as motivated and understanding about the oppression of others as your initial comment may have indicated. If on the other hand you have been involved in a significant amount of anti-racist activism that's genuinely awesome.
  - hitpointdrew 4y ago
    I am not saying I will take hypothetical action. I will take real action. But I need evidence that systemic racism exists, you need to point to something and say “that right there is a racist law/policy”. I have thus far seen no such laws or policies. And please, don’t start with a conclusion (there are only X number of PoC CEO’s or something) and then go on a witch hunt to prove your conclusion. That is not how reason and science works. Until evidence is brought forth I cannot accept the systematic racism theory (and that is all it is without evidence). And since I suspect no such evidence actually exists, and since I am not inclined to go in witch hunts, why is the burden of proof on me? No, you show me the proof, I have enough things to worry about. Not to mention, laws and policies are public information, if there were racist ones it shouldn’t be hard to find and would have likely already come to light, yet no one can point me to one. This is no different than when someone claims God is real, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person denying the existence of God. What you’re doing is essentially demanding I prove God doesn’t exist.
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      So you went from saying that those who have experienced adversity can naturally empathize with the adversity others have faced, to now saying you do not accept that systemic racism exists? Do you see how those two statements strongly contradict one another? Anyway, if your position is genuinely that systemic racism doesn't exist, given all the information you have access to in this day, then I don't think there's any evidence I could show you that would ever sway you. That said, it's worth a shot, here's a tiny grain of sand on the nearly infinite beach of facts supporting the continued existence of racism - people with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a callback for a job interview.[1] [1]https://archive.is/fdUuy https://archive.is/fdUuy
      - hitpointdrew 4y ago
        > Do you see how those two statements strongly contradict one another? Nope, no contradiction at all. You can have adversity and not have systemic racism. I don’t have the foggiest clue how you can think that is a contradiction. > people with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a callback for a job interview.[1] Fair enough, but how is this remotely “systemic”? Do you really think there are company policies that promote this? Or is this individual (I.e. not systemic) biases? Unless the company policy is to prefer the resumes with white sounding names then I don’t see how this is systemic.

cauch 4y ago

What you say is far from being obvious. What is the ground mechanism that, according to you, will make "adversity recognize adversity even if the circumstances are different"? In fact, from what I see, it's usually the opposite: people who have faced adversity will have a strong bias to consider their adversity was worse than the adversity of others who face a different kind of adversity. This is the same kind of bias as "the grass is always greener ...": it is very difficult to understand the bad aspect of the situation when from the outside, and when someone has faced adversity, this will be amplified by that: they had first hand experience vs. an adversity that they need to just imagine. It reminds me of, for example, those guys who are saying "if women were whistling at me in the street, I would take it as a complement": amongst those guys, a bunch have probably faced strong adversity. Still, they cannot understand why women dislike being whistled at and jump to the conclusion that these women don't know how good they have it. The fact that they have faced adversity amplify the fact that they don't recognize adversity: "why are they telling it's adversity, they are just soft, if they lived what I've lived, they will know what real adversity is". edit: hm, while I'm not a fan of the "systemic racism" thing, depicting it as a "boogie man in the sky" does not make you look like prone to really open to understand adversity of others. I'm sure you decided that "they are just complaining, they don't know "real adversity"" while you have no idea what it is really like.