5 ms·

You do realize that race and class are heavily intersectional, right? That rates of poverty are higher for non-whites, right? Also, helping people who are affec

You do realize that race and class are heavily intersectional, right? That rates of poverty are higher for non-whites, right? Also, helping people who are affected by institutional racism is not racist, it is an attempt to correct for existing racism.

_casperc 14y ago
You are not helping people because of their race, so why use that to select who gets help? There are rich black people as well as there are poor white people.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 14y ago
  Think of this mathematically. We did something very wrong at time T = 0. It is a matter of fact that economic wrongs are self-perpetuating and long-lived. Thus, at time T = 450, you can isolate, statistically, some economic disadvantage in any black person who can trace their lineage back as being affected by that original wrong at T = 0. It doesn't matter how rich they are--they would be incrementally richer had that wrong not occurred. At the same time, the poor white person benefited from that original wrong, and you can isolate, statistically, some economic advantage to him tracing back to that original wrong. It doesn't matter how poor he is, he would be incrementally poorer had that wrong not occurred.
  - iy56 14y ago
    The harms and benefits you are talking about are not quantifiable in a commonly-agreed-upon way. I think that's a prerequisite for the kind of analysis you want to do.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      This is a common flaw in reasoning--just because harms or benefits are not easily quantifiable does not mean that they should be assumed to be zero.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - iy56 14y ago
        I didn't say it was zero. I said it precludes principal component analysis (or whatever variant you prefer).
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    What percentage of the US population is descended from people who primarily immigrated after 1865?
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
Even if everything you say is true (that some races are poorer than other races) how does that counter what I said? The strategy I'm talking about gives to poor and disadvantaged people regardless of their race, so if a ton of blacks are poor then they will receive the majority of the benefits. But as an additional benefit middle and upper class minorities won't get advantages they don't need. You also won't require people to "prove" their ethnicity to be granted these benefits (or discriminated against because they aren't for example "black enough"). Here is a fun question: Exactly how black do you have to be to get affirmative action right now? Do they have like a colour wheel? How does that even work?
- adaml_623 14y ago
  You missed the part of his comment that did counter some of what you said. You said: "Affirmative action should exist; but it should be entirely based on parental income, growing up in a poor area, or other disadvantaged indicators. Not race, not ethnicity, and not gender. These things don't prove you're poor or disadvantaged." which seems quite reasonable. He said: "Also, helping people who are affected by institutional racism is not racist, it is an attempt to correct for existing racism." Your statement doesn't seem to acknowledge things in society contributing to future problems. So he is saying that you have to counter current institutional *isms which still exists today. Otherwise the current biases of today will just contribute to the population of disadvantaged people of tomorrow. I think you need both approaches. Kind of a PID controller kind of solution to the problem.
  - zanny 14y ago
    Countering institutional racism is reactive. It isn't passive like affirmative action is. I think he is describing facilitating courts to allow the discriminated to sue the discriminators, and given sufficient evidence charge them with racial discrimination. I do agree with him though, you don't repay racisms of the past and present with more racism in the opposite direction.
    - king_jester 14y ago
grannyg00se 14y ago
It is racist by the fact that it is based on race. Worse, it continues to reinforce thinking along racial lines rather than circumstancial ones thus perpetuating the idea that we should classify based on race. It would be much better to stop saying "you get this because you are this colour" and start saying "you get this because it looks like you could use a hand." Racism exists, but trying to fight it with more racism is not going to help reduce the focus on race, and until people stop identifying race as a good way to classify a human, racism won't go away.
- alxp 14y ago
  > It is racist by the fact that it is based on race. Your definition is too simplistic. Racism isn't just prejudice based on race. Racism requires a power imbalance. Acting to counteract an institutional imbalance caused by racism is not "just anotehr kind of racism."
  - ShawnBird 14y ago
    The focus on race in racism is, in part, due to people acknowledging race as a thing. There is nothing more significant about skin color than hair color but we don't have programs to help out blondes and we don't talk about 'the blonde vote'.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - grannyg00se 14y ago
    Oppression requires a power imbalance. Racism only requires using race as a classification upon which you base your actions. Choosing who you hang out with simply based on race is racism even though ut is not a power imbalance. And you can act to counteract an institutional imbalance caused by racism without furthering racism. Focus on something else. Race is being reinforced as an accepted means to classify people and that is the root cause of the problem.
    - 14y ago

_casperc 14y ago

You are not helping people because of their race, so why use that to select who gets help? There are rich black people as well as there are poor white people.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 14y ago
Think of this mathematically. We did something very wrong at time T = 0. It is a matter of fact that economic wrongs are self-perpetuating and long-lived. Thus, at time T = 450, you can isolate, statistically, some economic disadvantage in any black person who can trace their lineage back as being affected by that original wrong at T = 0. It doesn't matter how rich they are--they would be incrementally richer had that wrong not occurred. At the same time, the poor white person benefited from that original wrong, and you can isolate, statistically, some economic advantage to him tracing back to that original wrong. It doesn't matter how poor he is, he would be incrementally poorer had that wrong not occurred.
- iy56 14y ago
  The harms and benefits you are talking about are not quantifiable in a commonly-agreed-upon way. I think that's a prerequisite for the kind of analysis you want to do.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    This is a common flaw in reasoning--just because harms or benefits are not easily quantifiable does not mean that they should be assumed to be zero.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - iy56 14y ago
      I didn't say it was zero. I said it precludes principal component analysis (or whatever variant you prefer).
- tedunangst 14y ago
  What percentage of the US population is descended from people who primarily immigrated after 1865?

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago

Even if everything you say is true (that some races are poorer than other races) how does that counter what I said? The strategy I'm talking about gives to poor and disadvantaged people regardless of their race, so if a ton of blacks are poor then they will receive the majority of the benefits. But as an additional benefit middle and upper class minorities won't get advantages they don't need. You also won't require people to "prove" their ethnicity to be granted these benefits (or discriminated against because they aren't for example "black enough"). Here is a fun question: Exactly how black do you have to be to get affirmative action right now? Do they have like a colour wheel? How does that even work?

adaml_623 14y ago
You missed the part of his comment that did counter some of what you said. You said: "Affirmative action should exist; but it should be entirely based on parental income, growing up in a poor area, or other disadvantaged indicators. Not race, not ethnicity, and not gender. These things don't prove you're poor or disadvantaged." which seems quite reasonable. He said: "Also, helping people who are affected by institutional racism is not racist, it is an attempt to correct for existing racism." Your statement doesn't seem to acknowledge things in society contributing to future problems. So he is saying that you have to counter current institutional *isms which still exists today. Otherwise the current biases of today will just contribute to the population of disadvantaged people of tomorrow. I think you need both approaches. Kind of a PID controller kind of solution to the problem.
- zanny 14y ago
  Countering institutional racism is reactive. It isn't passive like affirmative action is. I think he is describing facilitating courts to allow the discriminated to sue the discriminators, and given sufficient evidence charge them with racial discrimination. I do agree with him though, you don't repay racisms of the past and present with more racism in the opposite direction.
  - king_jester 14y ago

grannyg00se 14y ago

It is racist by the fact that it is based on race. Worse, it continues to reinforce thinking along racial lines rather than circumstancial ones thus perpetuating the idea that we should classify based on race. It would be much better to stop saying "you get this because you are this colour" and start saying "you get this because it looks like you could use a hand." Racism exists, but trying to fight it with more racism is not going to help reduce the focus on race, and until people stop identifying race as a good way to classify a human, racism won't go away.

alxp 14y ago
> It is racist by the fact that it is based on race. Your definition is too simplistic. Racism isn't just prejudice based on race. Racism requires a power imbalance. Acting to counteract an institutional imbalance caused by racism is not "just anotehr kind of racism."
- ShawnBird 14y ago
  The focus on race in racism is, in part, due to people acknowledging race as a thing. There is nothing more significant about skin color than hair color but we don't have programs to help out blondes and we don't talk about 'the blonde vote'.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- grannyg00se 14y ago
  Oppression requires a power imbalance. Racism only requires using race as a classification upon which you base your actions. Choosing who you hang out with simply based on race is racism even though ut is not a power imbalance. And you can act to counteract an institutional imbalance caused by racism without furthering racism. Focus on something else. Race is being reinforced as an accepted means to classify people and that is the root cause of the problem.
  - 14y ago