3 ms·

The poll I linked shows a difference in thought among white vs Hispanic vs Black perceptions of whether or not whites benefit from advantages in society. I don'

The poll I linked shows a difference in thought among white vs Hispanic vs Black perceptions of whether or not whites benefit from advantages in society. I don't see any definition of what a societal advantage is; it may be income. My point was more that races don't agree on whether whites have societal advantages which is very serious if policies are based on that. Things like university admissions, scholarships, and job applications do not favor whites so this point is debatable I think. I would argue that being non white is a societal advantage, being white is a disadvantage now. Anti white racism is publicly acceptable. Non white people may not care about "microaggressions" but I think for racial quotas at schools it is much less clear[1], polls seem to go back and forth. Polls aside, my point is that even if what you are saying is true, non white people support the party that discusses microaggressions and quotas overwhelmingly. Why should the polls be trusted? I believe there are certain liberal white elites who benefit from this but it's surely not just them and surely non white people are aware of what they are supporting. Another interpretation of this is just that there is indifference to radicalism or even varying degrees of support for radicalism. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/poll-support-increases-affirmative-action-programs-rcna81762 https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/poll...

rayiner 3y ago
> The poll I linked shows a difference in thought among white vs Hispanic vs Black perceptions of whether or not whites benefit from advantages in society. I don't see any definition of what a societal advantage is In the absence of a definition, people’s reading of the question may reflect political polarization, but not necessarily about how a multiethnic society should work. For example, I think the constitutional design of a limited, federalized government was killed a century ago by non-Anglo immigrants. Certainly, black people generally believe in a robust federal government that can protect them from racism, and both they and Hispanics support big government with substantial investments in education and healthcare that can help reduce disparities. But that doesn’t mean they necessarily support the social and cultural rituals around race advanced by white liberals, or the more extreme policies such as racial preferences. For that reason, it’s important to distinguish between “affirmative action” and “racial preferences. Originally, “affirmative action” mean taking affirmative steps to end explicit racial discrimination that was known to be happening. Today, it can encompass things like taking affirmative steps to ensure that universities and companies are marketing openings to qualified applicants of various races. Obviously that is a policy that has pretty broad support. But poll after poll shows that minorities oppose using race as a factor in the actual admissions and hiring decisions. In California, Prop 16 was defeated in every single majority Hispanic county: https://thehill.com/opinion/education/526642-hispanics-shock-democrats-in-deep-blue-california https://thehill.com/opinion/education/526642-hispanics-shock.... Racial preferences, and similar policies such as “diversity requirements” (i.e. quotas) are a core approach for white liberals that most minorities reject.
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  > by non-Anglo immigrants i believe these now make up the majority of the elite white liberals. > and both they and Hispanics support big government see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Historical_data_for_all_races_and_for_Hispanic_origin_(1610%E2%80%932020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d... Looks like one particular party is a beneficiary and drafter of immigration policy. > But that doesn’t mean they necessarily support the social and cultural rituals around race advanced by white liberals, What about black professors and activists like Ibram Kendi? Blacks appear to support racial quotas in respect to Prop 16. White liberals are certainly part of it, but not all of it. I don't see any reason to say that black elites are being led by whites and not speaking on their own accord. Brandon Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, is a good example of a radical race activist. He was most popular in areas with highest black population and won the black community by the widest margin. That suggests that radical agendas are not just shared by white liberals but have support in the black community. > Racial preferences, and similar policies such as “diversity requirements” (i.e. quotas) are a core approach for white liberals that most minorities reject. If there was really such opposition to racial quotas and other racial preferences, why do they continue to support the party who puts race at the center of everything they do? Several attempts recently have been made at establishing quotas for medicine, grants, etc. but challenged in court. This was no surprise. It's contradictory to support that party especially since the party seems to focus particularly on black issues and expects other non white people to act along.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - onetimeusename 3y ago
      > The people selected to be “representative” of the group aren’t actually a representative sampling of the group. I believe white liberals are involved in it yes. But I also believe elite black radicals have their own goals and can sustain their own power. In general the elite don't reflect the norm so black elites have different goals than the average black person. A similar pattern is seen in South Africa. Black elites run the country while the norm is impoverished. It would be hard to argue that SA is run by white liberals though. The majority of large cities have black mayors and a number of teacher's unions are run by blacks. It's hard to see how white liberals even can benefit from things like not enforcing laws and taxes targeted at wealthy whites https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/01/chicago-mayoral-election-police-reform-policies https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/01/chicago-mayo.... Right now the relationship is symbiotic with white liberals. But in my opinion this is a strange relationship. Speaking of SA, racial retribution is a politically popular narrative demagogues can take advantage of. It's not unprecedented and happened repeatedly in ethnically diverse African countries in the last few decades. I think this is the general pattern ethnic conflict in a democracy leads to which I think the US is headed towards. A lot of the Hispanic and Asian population came in the last 30 years or so and it would be hard to argue they are a victim of racism in the US but it is disappointing that they are siding with the pro ethnic conflict side. > This is the white-liberal-dominated selection process at work. This can happen in a selection process because the white american mind is propagandized to believe it is subconsciously racist and an evil oppressor so generally white people give deference to outspoken blacks to avoid being accused of racism. A small number of radicals can overpower a majority in that sense.

rayiner 3y ago

> The poll I linked shows a difference in thought among white vs Hispanic vs Black perceptions of whether or not whites benefit from advantages in society. I don't see any definition of what a societal advantage is In the absence of a definition, people’s reading of the question may reflect political polarization, but not necessarily about how a multiethnic society should work. For example, I think the constitutional design of a limited, federalized government was killed a century ago by non-Anglo immigrants. Certainly, black people generally believe in a robust federal government that can protect them from racism, and both they and Hispanics support big government with substantial investments in education and healthcare that can help reduce disparities. But that doesn’t mean they necessarily support the social and cultural rituals around race advanced by white liberals, or the more extreme policies such as racial preferences. For that reason, it’s important to distinguish between “affirmative action” and “racial preferences. Originally, “affirmative action” mean taking affirmative steps to end explicit racial discrimination that was known to be happening. Today, it can encompass things like taking affirmative steps to ensure that universities and companies are marketing openings to qualified applicants of various races. Obviously that is a policy that has pretty broad support. But poll after poll shows that minorities oppose using race as a factor in the actual admissions and hiring decisions. In California, Prop 16 was defeated in every single majority Hispanic county: https://thehill.com/opinion/education/526642-hispanics-shock-democrats-in-deep-blue-california https://thehill.com/opinion/education/526642-hispanics-shock.... Racial preferences, and similar policies such as “diversity requirements” (i.e. quotas) are a core approach for white liberals that most minorities reject.

onetimeusename 3y ago
> by non-Anglo immigrants i believe these now make up the majority of the elite white liberals. > and both they and Hispanics support big government see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Historical_data_for_all_races_and_for_Hispanic_origin_(1610%E2%80%932020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d... Looks like one particular party is a beneficiary and drafter of immigration policy. > But that doesn’t mean they necessarily support the social and cultural rituals around race advanced by white liberals, What about black professors and activists like Ibram Kendi? Blacks appear to support racial quotas in respect to Prop 16. White liberals are certainly part of it, but not all of it. I don't see any reason to say that black elites are being led by whites and not speaking on their own accord. Brandon Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, is a good example of a radical race activist. He was most popular in areas with highest black population and won the black community by the widest margin. That suggests that radical agendas are not just shared by white liberals but have support in the black community. > Racial preferences, and similar policies such as “diversity requirements” (i.e. quotas) are a core approach for white liberals that most minorities reject. If there was really such opposition to racial quotas and other racial preferences, why do they continue to support the party who puts race at the center of everything they do? Several attempts recently have been made at establishing quotas for medicine, grants, etc. but challenged in court. This was no surprise. It's contradictory to support that party especially since the party seems to focus particularly on black issues and expects other non white people to act along.
- rayiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    > The people selected to be “representative” of the group aren’t actually a representative sampling of the group. I believe white liberals are involved in it yes. But I also believe elite black radicals have their own goals and can sustain their own power. In general the elite don't reflect the norm so black elites have different goals than the average black person. A similar pattern is seen in South Africa. Black elites run the country while the norm is impoverished. It would be hard to argue that SA is run by white liberals though. The majority of large cities have black mayors and a number of teacher's unions are run by blacks. It's hard to see how white liberals even can benefit from things like not enforcing laws and taxes targeted at wealthy whites https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/01/chicago-mayoral-election-police-reform-policies https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/01/chicago-mayo.... Right now the relationship is symbiotic with white liberals. But in my opinion this is a strange relationship. Speaking of SA, racial retribution is a politically popular narrative demagogues can take advantage of. It's not unprecedented and happened repeatedly in ethnically diverse African countries in the last few decades. I think this is the general pattern ethnic conflict in a democracy leads to which I think the US is headed towards. A lot of the Hispanic and Asian population came in the last 30 years or so and it would be hard to argue they are a victim of racism in the US but it is disappointing that they are siding with the pro ethnic conflict side. > This is the white-liberal-dominated selection process at work. This can happen in a selection process because the white american mind is propagandized to believe it is subconsciously racist and an evil oppressor so generally white people give deference to outspoken blacks to avoid being accused of racism. A small number of radicals can overpower a majority in that sense.