8 ms·

The solution to institutional injustice being what? I really feel for the folks trying to address the problem, but I've yet to see a solution based on a solid

by woodman 12y ago

The solution to institutional injustice being what? I really feel for the folks trying to address the problem, but I've yet to see a solution based on a solid root cause analysis. I completely agree with your point on the "enlightening moment", it is quite an experience when your world view suddenly shifts due to new information. I would say that the root cause is ignorance at the human level, which gets incorporated into institutions - which are slow in adapting to social evolution. These institutions end up acting as drogues, slowing social progress. It might be time for us to evaluate the value of these institutions vs the cost. I doubt any of this is novel to somebody who a studied the problem, so I wonder why the solutions posed always seem to be bolt-ons.

vinceguidry 12y ago
You're looking at it. The only real solution that could ever be effective is to raise enough awareness of institutionalized bigotry so there's a critical mass of people interested in real change. Realistically this means that issues will get raised and dealt with on smaller scales, slowly bringing awareness to more and more people. Over time more and more people will clamor for the destruction of cultural traditions rooted in bigotry. Which is precisely what's happening. The tech community, with its forward-thinking outlook, has become a foremost battleground. The larger feminist movement has been grappling with trying to include more men among their numbers, the vast majority of them just tune out feminist ideology. You can't destroy institutions. What you can do is change peoples' consciousness so social injustices within those institutions gain attention instead of being ignored.
- woodman 12y ago
  Sounds like the plan is just more bolt-ons. Unless we are converging on a universally preferable society, this is a struggle that will go on forever as society evolves. I do agree that institutions can't be destroyed, as they're simply abstract concepts, but they can be disarmed in such a way that their influence is inconsequential (from the perspective of voluntary association). I do think the future is bright, the free exchange of information being key.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    It's a messy solution to a messy problem. I do think eventually sexism will go the way of eugenics. Replaced with another social struggle. There will always be some people aware of how things could be better that have the motivation to raise awareness.
    - woodman 12y ago
      Thankfully I am a programmer and not a social worker, because that perspective seems totally unacceptable to me. It feels like the Windows 98 solution - instead of figuring out the cause of infrequent bluescreens, just reboot, save often and hope that the problem is resolved in the next release :)
- sighsigh 12y ago
  Your usage of the concept of "institution" is akin to hand-waving mysticism warning us of the dangers of the devil. You haven't actually precisely defined it outside of some vague "choose-your-own-adventure" subjectivity... or is this the part where I'm supposed to just nod along out of fear of being down voted again?
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  sighsigh, you appear to have been hellbanned for the first comment in this thread, which was flagged enough times to get it killed. I can't reply directly to your posts for this reason. Your posts won't show up on people's pages unless individual posters have showdead turned on in their profile. I suggest you find a different outlet for your views. I would suggest you figure out how to have a real conversation with someone instead of just spouting off whatever vaguely-logical, overly-reactionary BS that's on your mind, but it doesn't look like you're interested in that. Best of luck to you.
  - sighsighsigh 12y ago
    Four people downvote me, and now I have been exiled by decree of a person who can't even define what an "institution" is. Hey, it's always easier to attack the person than define your terms. We're tech after all, who needs precision and accuracy anyways? The only person not interested in having a conversation is the person who waves their hands when talking about "institutions" instead of defining what that word means and which people are actually within it. Because according to your circular reasoning, racism is institutional, and if we change the institution then everyone changes... but we swear everyone isn't racist because racism is institutional, and if we change the institution then everyone changes... but we swear everyone isn't racist because racism is institutional, and if we change the institution then everyone changes... but we swear everyone isn't racist because... You are just a modern day inquisitor and you hate the PR associated with it, so you'll bob and weave and weasel your way around the label.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      You got four down votes but also a lot of flags. You won't see the number of flags you got like you do the down votes. Precision and accuracy aren't always possible within the constraints of a discussion. One has to learn to operate without them. But I'll indulge you one more time. "Racist" is a highly charged word. It should be reserved for those who truly deserve the label, i.e. Nazis and modern white supremacists. Unfortunately marginalizing just those people doesn't solve the problem. There's plenty of subtle behaviors and attitudes that don't quite reach the level of the white supremacist but still contributes to an overall lower opinion of black Americans than of white Americans. This phenomenon needs to be studied and understood, because it's a big problem and contributes to generational poverty. A workplace that one wouldn't call overtly racist can still have their black employees make less than their white employees for the same work. The phrase that the social justice movement has decided on to call this phenomenon is institutionalized racism. It's racism, but no one person or group of people is the culprit, instead it survives because people don't care enough to examine how or why they make certain decisions.

by woodman 12y ago

vinceguidry 12y ago

You're looking at it. The only real solution that could ever be effective is to raise enough awareness of institutionalized bigotry so there's a critical mass of people interested in real change. Realistically this means that issues will get raised and dealt with on smaller scales, slowly bringing awareness to more and more people. Over time more and more people will clamor for the destruction of cultural traditions rooted in bigotry. Which is precisely what's happening. The tech community, with its forward-thinking outlook, has become a foremost battleground. The larger feminist movement has been grappling with trying to include more men among their numbers, the vast majority of them just tune out feminist ideology. You can't destroy institutions. What you can do is change peoples' consciousness so social injustices within those institutions gain attention instead of being ignored.

woodman 12y ago
Sounds like the plan is just more bolt-ons. Unless we are converging on a universally preferable society, this is a struggle that will go on forever as society evolves. I do agree that institutions can't be destroyed, as they're simply abstract concepts, but they can be disarmed in such a way that their influence is inconsequential (from the perspective of voluntary association). I do think the future is bright, the free exchange of information being key.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  It's a messy solution to a messy problem. I do think eventually sexism will go the way of eugenics. Replaced with another social struggle. There will always be some people aware of how things could be better that have the motivation to raise awareness.
  - woodman 12y ago
    Thankfully I am a programmer and not a social worker, because that perspective seems totally unacceptable to me. It feels like the Windows 98 solution - instead of figuring out the cause of infrequent bluescreens, just reboot, save often and hope that the problem is resolved in the next release :)
sighsigh 12y ago
Your usage of the concept of "institution" is akin to hand-waving mysticism warning us of the dangers of the devil. You haven't actually precisely defined it outside of some vague "choose-your-own-adventure" subjectivity... or is this the part where I'm supposed to just nod along out of fear of being down voted again?
vinceguidry 12y ago
sighsigh, you appear to have been hellbanned for the first comment in this thread, which was flagged enough times to get it killed. I can't reply directly to your posts for this reason. Your posts won't show up on people's pages unless individual posters have showdead turned on in their profile. I suggest you find a different outlet for your views. I would suggest you figure out how to have a real conversation with someone instead of just spouting off whatever vaguely-logical, overly-reactionary BS that's on your mind, but it doesn't look like you're interested in that. Best of luck to you.
- sighsighsigh 12y ago
  Four people downvote me, and now I have been exiled by decree of a person who can't even define what an "institution" is. Hey, it's always easier to attack the person than define your terms. We're tech after all, who needs precision and accuracy anyways? The only person not interested in having a conversation is the person who waves their hands when talking about "institutions" instead of defining what that word means and which people are actually within it. Because according to your circular reasoning, racism is institutional, and if we change the institution then everyone changes... but we swear everyone isn't racist because racism is institutional, and if we change the institution then everyone changes... but we swear everyone isn't racist because racism is institutional, and if we change the institution then everyone changes... but we swear everyone isn't racist because... You are just a modern day inquisitor and you hate the PR associated with it, so you'll bob and weave and weasel your way around the label.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    You got four down votes but also a lot of flags. You won't see the number of flags you got like you do the down votes. Precision and accuracy aren't always possible within the constraints of a discussion. One has to learn to operate without them. But I'll indulge you one more time. "Racist" is a highly charged word. It should be reserved for those who truly deserve the label, i.e. Nazis and modern white supremacists. Unfortunately marginalizing just those people doesn't solve the problem. There's plenty of subtle behaviors and attitudes that don't quite reach the level of the white supremacist but still contributes to an overall lower opinion of black Americans than of white Americans. This phenomenon needs to be studied and understood, because it's a big problem and contributes to generational poverty. A workplace that one wouldn't call overtly racist can still have their black employees make less than their white employees for the same work. The phrase that the social justice movement has decided on to call this phenomenon is institutionalized racism. It's racism, but no one person or group of people is the culprit, instead it survives because people don't care enough to examine how or why they make certain decisions.