Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

IMO, it's never hard to spot a recreational Marxist.

 

That’s the nature of revolution ya know. After that other things were at play as it failed.

 

Gotta break few eggs, I guess.

Of course, the real slaughter doesn’t start until after the revolution is won.

 

While I agree help should be colorblind, ignore gender, sex preference and be based on need, there are needs specific to identifiable groups. Women, for example, have a range of needs around childbirth--medical care, help and time to physically recover from childbirth--and many, including myself, would hold they have special needs around contraception, abortion and pregnancy. Different ethnicities and races suffer overt and systemic discrimination. Women, too. My inclination is to help them without penalizing supposed "haves."

 

Okay, then, they're objecting to discrimination against white people.

What is your case for affirmative action?

 

@Jolly Penguin says there is no difference between "race" and ethnicity. But I think the reason he makes that claim is a failure to understand "ethnicity". The latter term includes many things that @Jolly Penguin himself has complained about. Ethnicity includes many things. Some irrelevant to this conversation, but others like social status, financial level, education, cultural background ... needs, like you correctly pointed out... are what make the difference. He wonders why black people like Obama would require special treatment. If you analyze the topic based on "race", he might have a point. But the reason he DOESN'T have one is he is not accounting for ethnicity.

 

Affirmative action is not discrimination AGAINST anybody. It's discrimination IN FAVOR of those who are already discriminated against. Some on the right seek to equivocate affirmative action to mean that you are forced to hire or give preferential treatment to minorities. What it seeks to do is that if you have equally qualified individuals, and one is white, and the other a minority, you don't discriminate against the minority. They use words like "force" to imply that the ethnic minorities are "inferior". That's not how it works.

This narrative originates... or is promoted by white supremacists. This doesn't mean in any way shape or form that all those who oppose affirmative action are white supremacists. But they are drinking the kool aid.

 

Fail to see why ethnic discrimination should be any more acceptable to us than racial discrimination.

 

So you don't see a problem with discriminating so a poor kid, and not the Obama family gets the Pell grant. That's ok. The poster I responded to might.

 

delete

 

The individual who doesn't get the job is discriminated against. I thought you might justify the discrimination rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

They're right except they ignore the impact of systemic and overt racism that made it difficult for minorities to acquire the qualifications for the job.

It seeks to overcome systemic and overt discrimination by imposing the correction on an individual white applicant. The minority who was denied the job in the past isn't compensated.

I think affirmative action is the wrong answer for a problem that needs a solution.

I think you're going too far with accusations of white supremacy.

 

I said no such thing. Golem demanded there is no such thing as race while simultaneously saying "black people" should get special treatment for being "black". I was the one saying if any such treatment should occur it should be based on income level, social status, education level, etc.

I have concern over the growing segment of the left who pretend to be "anti-racist" while encouraging everyone to base core identity on skin colour, and demanding different treatment based on it, and using it as a proxy for wealth, opportunity, etc.

 

Groups don't have needs. Individuals do. If you don't have a need and already have more than others, you shouldn't get more at their expense just because others who happen to be the same race, gender, etc as you do have the need.

There may be some needs that are core to a trait like gender (and maybe race?). Most are not. And it can be very dangerous to push the perception that they are. Being poor is NOT inherent to race. Nor is being uneducated, etc. That idea has fuels white supremacy style racism (and learned helplessness in some black folks) and we should never encourage it, especially since we can address wealth and education level, etc directly, and more efficiently and accurately without racist proxy.

The answer to overt and systemic discrimination is to find and end it, not to create more of it with new targets, pretending the hardships and injustices of individuals somehow balance out just because it's been obscured when looking at group level differences.

 

One will get the job, and one won't. Affirmative action (referring to the job market) is not about individuals. It's about the fact that for decades businesses have given preference to white applicants. So there is an incentive in the system to hire white people. Affirmative action COMPENSATES for that.

It doesn't! Or, let's put it this way: In every job there may be multiple candidates with equal qualifications. One will get the job, the rest won't. Claiming that those who didn't get the job are discriminated AGAINST, strictly speaking might be accurate, but it's ridiculous. But this is what "discriminating against" would mean in this context. It's just splitting hairs to call it "discriminating against..."

I don't think anything can be done about overt racism. But at least this compensates a bit for systemic racism.

Would it be better if the discrimination were imposed on the non-white applicant?

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point.

So what is the solution to the fact that it's so easy to get a job if you're white, and so difficult when you're black, even when both candidates are equally qualified?

 

Exactly. It just layers injustice on top of injustice, and then pretends it fixed things instead of making them worse. The first injustice has not been compensated merely by giving something to somebody who isn't the original victim, just because of a shared skin colour. It has merely been obscured when looking down from a group level.

 

....

Golem, meet Golem.

Personally I think hiring based on race isn't good, but you do you.

 

Well now, let's go back and check....

Sounds like you did. It most DEFINITELY makes a difference for the reasons I outlined in that same post.

So ethnicity does "...make a difference" after all.

This is what confuses the debate. You shift from one position to the opposite... which is fine. But we should at least get a warning.

 

Clearly you are having a tough time understanding what systemic racism is.

Which may be a good thing. Maybe you don't have any in Canada. But terrible for communicating in a debate if we expect it to be serious.

 

Systemic racism is when a system favours some over others according to race (race, which you say does not exist; so I had to say ethnicity when you called "black" that).

Where we can find systemic racism, we can attempt to fix it by changing the system. We should not presume it simply due to differences in group averages, and we should be mindful not to create more of ii, by calling for special treatment for any entire race of people

 

So if systemic racism draws companies to hire white folk only, how would you "change" the system?

Why is giving tax incentives, for example, to companies whose personnel count is representative of the population's ethnic composition not acceptable?

Group averages are the symptom. Not the cause.

 

Check further, and try to be honest with yourself. You refused to talk about race and insisted on saying "ethnicity" while calling for special treatment for "black people". I have been talking about Individual need, income level etc, and you only pivot to that now.

If you can finally agree that income level, education level, etc is what we should base help on, regardless of skin colour, and not using skin colour for it then that's great. You are making progress and I applaud it.

Income, adversity, education level, and lack of opportunity does. That isn't skin tone. The people I have expressed concern about, and who you pretend don't matter (the "woke") say it is.

No, I do not. You only think that because you don't consider what I actually say and pretend I push the views of your right wing villains. You have said so repeatedly. It makes conversation with you pointless.

 

By making it not ok to have colour as a hiring criteria. Having criteria transparent is one way to do that. Blind hiring is another where that is feasible. You can blot out names on resumes and look at accomplishments only. You can look at test scores. When giving help, you can look at income levels, etc.

And you can push into the culture that race is a stupid thing to care about, race doesn't equal ability or worth, or destiny etc. We WERE going in that direction on the left and making progress against holdouts on the right, until the "woke" showed up to try to push the reverse.

Because it discriminates between individuals not on merit but on colour, gender, etc. It is wrong to exclude any individual based on their gender or skin colour. It is frankly shocking to me that anybody who imagines themselves anti-racist, progressive, or liberal can't see that. Two wrongs don't make things right.

Not necessarily always a symptom either. A red flag to call attention to a possible problem, yes. But not always a problem of systemic discrimination. Sometimes it's interest based or something else (more women than men being nurses and teachers come to mind). Group level view often obscures what's going on at the individual level.

 

You still don't get it do you?

NO!!!! You want to talk about "ethnicity". When you talk about income level, education, etc... THAT's what you are referring to. Not race. Ethnicity!!!

"Race" means "skin tone". Ethnicity can include "skin tone" but ALSO education, financial status, ... etc.

Maybe if I leave it here you'll get the point.

 

You said that you want special treatment for "black people". Black is skin tone, not wealth, education level, etc.