3 ms·

Now imagine how annoyed non-white people with them systematically having problems with joining certain professions. >I think all this focus on race and gender

Now imagine how annoyed non-white people with them systematically having problems with joining certain professions. >I think all this focus on race and gender may have the opposite effect that people want. That's a common critique from reactionaries, never seen much proof from it.

slashdev 3y ago
> Now imagine how annoyed non-white people with them systematically having problems with joining certain professions. But do they? Adjusting for education and experience? I've yet to see proof of that. > That's a common critique from reactionaries, never seen much proof from it. I can attest to it personally. Not proof, but it makes me wonder.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > Adjusting for education and experience? That's largely the systemic problem with joining certain professions. Those are most often the qualities the market seeks, but education and experience are biased towards the wealthy. You need resources to attain them. For historical reasons, non-white people as a group don't have the same kind of wealth.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    That's true. Financial inequality is a much bigger problem in the US than discrimination.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      I expect at the end of the day they are one and the same. As in, certain races are treated the way they are because they are poor (generally speaking). It is not like, for example, the white "slack jawed yokels" (rednecks, hicks, white trash, whatever insensitive term you want to call them) are held in high esteem. They too are poor (generally speaking), so they get treated poorly. Let's face it, if the rich list was comprised of mostly black women, we would be bowing down to them and praising their every move. They are marginalized because they, by and large, don't have a good answer to "But what can you do for me?"
      - slashdev 3y ago
        There's more truth to that than I'd like to believe.
surgical_fire 3y ago
> That's a common critique from reactionaries, never seen much proof from it. You need no proof when you can just dismiss any sort of criticism to the current state of things with a blanket accusation of people being reactionaries.
- krapp 3y ago
  Someone reacting to the existence of racial politics by becoming more racist out of spite is literally being a reactionary. That's the psychology of comic book villains.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    It's not out of spite. That'd be childish. I'm aware of things I was ignorant of before, like how much crime is commited by people of color. Now I also have to consider if someone earned their position through merit or if it was the result of DEI. Before it was never a question in my mind.
    - krapp 3y ago
      I think it's childish to interpret crime statistics as a valid justification for racism, rather than consider correlating factors such as increased poverty among non-whites, and more aggressive policing and conviction of non-whites, and purposeful misinterpretation of statistics by white supremacists. I think it's childish to assume candidates hired under DEI are less likely to deserve their position than white male candidates. There is no reason to believe that DEI policies require lowering standards other than a belief that white men are categorically more qualified by default. Otherwise, one wouldn't see race, gender and quality as mutually exclusive. I'm not going to get into a long, drawn out argument over this because I suspect it would be a waste of time and it would ruin my day - you came into this thread virtue signaling your racism after all, so it seems you're not in a mood to have your point of view challenged. But I do think you and the normalized cultural bigotry you're expressing are clear examples of why we cannot afford to "just go back to not seeing those things." You can disagree with the incentives of the politics without embracing prejudice against the people those politics are meant to help.

slashdev 3y ago

> Now imagine how annoyed non-white people with them systematically having problems with joining certain professions. But do they? Adjusting for education and experience? I've yet to see proof of that. > That's a common critique from reactionaries, never seen much proof from it. I can attest to it personally. Not proof, but it makes me wonder.

randomdata 3y ago
> Adjusting for education and experience? That's largely the systemic problem with joining certain professions. Those are most often the qualities the market seeks, but education and experience are biased towards the wealthy. You need resources to attain them. For historical reasons, non-white people as a group don't have the same kind of wealth.
- slashdev 3y ago
  That's true. Financial inequality is a much bigger problem in the US than discrimination.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    I expect at the end of the day they are one and the same. As in, certain races are treated the way they are because they are poor (generally speaking). It is not like, for example, the white "slack jawed yokels" (rednecks, hicks, white trash, whatever insensitive term you want to call them) are held in high esteem. They too are poor (generally speaking), so they get treated poorly. Let's face it, if the rich list was comprised of mostly black women, we would be bowing down to them and praising their every move. They are marginalized because they, by and large, don't have a good answer to "But what can you do for me?"
    - slashdev 3y ago
      There's more truth to that than I'd like to believe.

surgical_fire 3y ago

> That's a common critique from reactionaries, never seen much proof from it. You need no proof when you can just dismiss any sort of criticism to the current state of things with a blanket accusation of people being reactionaries.

krapp 3y ago
Someone reacting to the existence of racial politics by becoming more racist out of spite is literally being a reactionary. That's the psychology of comic book villains.
- slashdev 3y ago
  It's not out of spite. That'd be childish. I'm aware of things I was ignorant of before, like how much crime is commited by people of color. Now I also have to consider if someone earned their position through merit or if it was the result of DEI. Before it was never a question in my mind.
  - krapp 3y ago
    I think it's childish to interpret crime statistics as a valid justification for racism, rather than consider correlating factors such as increased poverty among non-whites, and more aggressive policing and conviction of non-whites, and purposeful misinterpretation of statistics by white supremacists. I think it's childish to assume candidates hired under DEI are less likely to deserve their position than white male candidates. There is no reason to believe that DEI policies require lowering standards other than a belief that white men are categorically more qualified by default. Otherwise, one wouldn't see race, gender and quality as mutually exclusive. I'm not going to get into a long, drawn out argument over this because I suspect it would be a waste of time and it would ruin my day - you came into this thread virtue signaling your racism after all, so it seems you're not in a mood to have your point of view challenged. But I do think you and the normalized cultural bigotry you're expressing are clear examples of why we cannot afford to "just go back to not seeing those things." You can disagree with the incentives of the politics without embracing prejudice against the people those politics are meant to help.