Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

No.
As usual, your posts make little sense.

You're probably right, nobody wants to be associated with the bad Samaritan, as demonstrated by @Jez (us), who refuses to accept it even has a relavance to this topic.

I've said it before and I'll, no doubt, say it again, "if you're unsure about my meaning, ask me to clarify".

We ALL like to think we're a good Samaritan, like the bloke in the pub who says "if I ever saw an innocent woman (possibly child) getting raped, I'd be straight in there; I'd soon batter detain that lowlife" and on his way home sees a woman (possibly child) struggling with an insistent man's advances, and turns and walks the other way muttering "look at the way she was dressed, she clearly wants some... and did you I see the size of that bloke!!!".

Besides, did you really not understand that that post was basically a synopsis of this topic?

I thought the hospital reference, firmly nailed it to current events, even beyond this thread/topic.

The route problem is fear, I really want to help us, but I'm afraid that help will put me in that shit pit instead of them; if you can find a way to insure my shit pit liability, I'm all your's... 😉 

Edited June 11, 2023 by dimreepr

[Jez]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

I've said it before and I'll, no doubt, say it again, "if you're unsure about my meaning, ask me to clarify".

 

I did ask you to explain how the features of the story represented an analogue of what you were saying, and you declined. You said it was a 'parabol'.

I can see no analogue equivalence to what has been discussed.

I say that the equivalent analogue would be this;

 

The Samaritan sees an alien injured and goes to help.

The alien explains on their planet they get beaten up by other aliens, they've been dumped there, and shows the Samaritan a photo of one of these other aliens.

The Samaritan looks at the photo and says 'you look exactly the same'.

'The same!!' blasts the alien, 'Look at that colour of green, it is a different shade to mine!.

The Samaritan says 'well, it doesn't matter, let me help you and make sure you are safe and well'.

The alien says 'What!? You dare say it doesn't matter! No, no, I don't want help off anyone who can't see the difference. I'll wait for someone that can see the difference.'

The Samaritan says, 'well, let me have that photo and I will tell everyone that this one beat you up', and the alien says 'oh, not, not this one, I don't know if this one beat anyone up, but someone of the same shade as him did'.

 

Does that sound mad? That's what the last 5 pages worth has come across to me as.

 

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

I've said it before and I'll, no doubt, say it again, "if you're unsure about my meaning, ask me to clarify".

 

I did ask you to explain how the features of the story represented an analogue of what you were saying, and you declined. You said it was a 'parabol'.

I can see no analogue equivalence to what has been discussed.

I say that the equivalent analogue would be this;

 

The Samaritan sees an alien injured and goes to help.

The alien explains on their planet they get beaten up by other aliens, they've been dumped there, and shows the Samaritan a photo of one of these other aliens.

The Samaritan looks at the photo and says 'you look exactly the same'.

'The same!!' blasts the alien, 'Look at that colour of green, it is a different shade to mine!.

The Samaritan says 'well, it doesn't matter, let me help you and make sure you are safe and well'.

The alien says 'What!? You dare say it doesn't matter! No, no, I don't want help off anyone who can't see the difference. I'll wait for someone that can see the difference.'

The Samaritan says, 'well, let me have that photo and I will tell everyone that this one beat you up', and the alien says 'oh, not, not this one, I don't know if this one beat anyone up, but someone of the same shade as him did'.

 

Does that sound mad? That's what the last 5 pages worth has come across to me as.

 

 

Did you watch the short clip I put in this post? I recommend you do if you want to understand the side of the discussion that differs to your own.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131660-physical-revue-says-whiteboards-are-racist/page/7/#comment-1241641

 

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Jez said:

The alien explains on their planet they get beaten up by other aliens,

Way to miss the point, but then that was always your intention; why does an alien need another planet???

[CharonY]

While I am repeating myself here, I just want to illustrate again why power differentials are integral to the discussion here.

Assume two populations (A and B) with similar composition and access to power, money etc. Also introduce racism (or bigotry or whatever form of discrimination) against each other. Under this scenario, individuals may suffer from local discrimination, for example if an A has a discriminating B as boss and vice versa. However, while the society as a whole may be problematic, on average the population of A would have a similar outcome as B. 

This is because there would be a similar likelihood of a an A being a boss (having power) over an B as the reverse. This could result in segregated populations, but as long as power, access to resources etc. remains the same, the outcome (wealth, health etc.) between the populations would be similar.

But this is not how most forms of segregation are in history. Rather, almost always there is a group with power over the other, enforcing the segregation. In that scenario, the group with more power and resources can create a segregated system that can isolate the other group from access to the same. So in other words, only if we have an imbalance in power between populations do we expect differential outcomes on the population level due to discrimination (again, it is not about the individual as such). 

In other words the claims that these are only semantics and/or that racism is the issue and not the system basically misses a key element that actually causes injustice and inequality. Conversely, it is not discrimination or racism as such that causes (large scale) inequalities, it is the interphase with power that causes it (i.e. when they create a system of sorts that can create this outcome). 

[MigL]

Agree with most of your post except this

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

only if we have an imbalance in power between populations do we expect differential outcomes on the population level due to discrimination

Power imbalance is a factor, but the larger factor is the inherent racism.
Both need to be there to create the different outcome situation of the two populations.

Power imbalance is something people work at. They try to better themselves by working harder, to get more money, which in a semi-capitalist society equates to more power.

Racism, however, is based on the lottery of birth. You are born with a different skin color, or in another country, and there's nothing you can do to change it.

I would think, then, that the factor to be eliminated is racism.
But nobody wants to discuss that option.

[CharonY]

No, power imbalance alone creates differential outcomes. That is the very definition of it. It is the mechanism through which it works. On which levels these outcomes are affected, depends on things like racism (which can but does not have to create differential racialized outcomes), class, gender etc.

Ask yourself this, do you think minorities and non-white folks are inherently less racist? If not why are the outcomes better for white folks than e.g. black folks. If racism was the dominant factor, the rest would not matter, would it? The reality is it does, and there is tons of lit on it. Denying it simply would not further the discussion as it simply be separate from reality. Like discussing a spherical cow in vacuum to explain basic physiology.

Also, perhaps worse, it is not actionable. Racism won't be eliminated. As we have seen through history, what really happens is people keep redefining racism in order to avoid accountability. This is where the real semantic part of the discussion is.

Folks (including folks on the progressive side) pat themselves on their shoulders by not saying the N-word and call it a day. The realization that these measures do virtually nothing has created the notion of anti-racism (e.g. trying to level out the playing field actively) as opposed to just pretend to be non-racist or color-blind and then hope that for the first time in history things will work out better without any effort (same mindset that has been prevalent in terms of fighting global warming, btw.).

It is basically like saying, oh in order to reduce poverty and hunger, we should just be nicer to each other. There, problem solved.

 

[MigL]

I work with a few Indian engineers, and they are the first to admit India is a very racist society.

There was very little power inbalance in the 50s, when the British left, yet there was the 'caste' system in their society that controlled social position.
It has led to the current imbalance, as only people of higher caste can become politicians, get advanced schooling, etc.
So which do you think comes first ?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I work with a few Indian engineers, and they are the first to admit India is a very racist society.

There was very little power inbalance in the 50s, when the British left, yet there was the 'caste' system in their society that controlled social position.
It has led to the current imbalance, as only people of higher caste can become politicians, get advanced schooling, etc.
So which do you think comes first ?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that folks first had discriminatory attitudes and without any power imbalance, some decided to get put into lower caste and this is what created the imbalance?

Or do you think that the caste system was implemented because the British left? Can you explain what you mean?

[CharonY]

But let's take the caste system as an example. Imagine the system is horizontal as in all castes had the same rights, same benefits and same power, yet folks get sorted into them. Do you think the issues would be the same as in the hierarchical system where some enjoy power and others do not?

[MigL]

Very simply, CharonY, the power imbalance is built into the 'racial' caste system, with some actually having no opportunity at all.

"Those at the bottom of the hierarchy, who fall outside the four main categories of Brahmins (priests and teachers), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (traders and merchants) and the Shudras (laborers), are considered “untouchables” or Dalits."

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Very simply, CharonY, the power imbalance is built into the 'racial' caste system, with some actually having no opportunity at all.

"Those at the bottom of the hierarchy, who fall outside the four main categories of Brahmins (priests and teachers), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (traders and merchants) and the Shudras (laborers), are considered “untouchables” or Dalits."

I think we have fundamental misunderstanding here. As you point out yourself, the system is built on power imbalance between the castes, not the fact that there are castes to begin with. If Dalits had the same influence as Brahmins, for example, there would not be a hierarchy to begin with.

I.e. if we take power imbalances out of the equation folks would, on average not suffer differently. If you were right, white folks would on average suffer similarly as black folks, but they don't. Why is that?

As a last attempt for an example, do you think that a white supremacist would be able to cause a similar racial impact if he was confined to a trailer in the middle of nowhere, compared to a developer who builds a toxic waste dumps in the cheapest available locations, but because of all the systemic issues, these locations also happen to be where mostly black folks live. Does the latter situation create less racialized impact, just because there were no racist intentions behind it? Does it not cause disproportionate harm to a racialized group, just because there were no racist tendencies in enacting these developments? 

As long as your proposals do not explain or predict these real situations, it is not much of an explanation, is it? Anyway, I think we are circling the same issue repeatedly without coming to an understanding.

I will just end with mentioning that while these issues are still under investigation, consensus has started to form maybe in the last one or two decades or so. Accordingly, there is a large body of studies to look into and I while just leave a magazine article here as a starting point: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/

 

[Jez]

It makes me very disappointed and sad to think that people think I am deliberately trying to misunderstand anything, when almost every other thread I am asking what the actual propositions are that people are making.

As far as I can make out, these are the propositions that have arisen, away from the OP;-

1) That there exist people in the black group that have suffered losses from discrimination.

2) That there exist people in all groups that have suffered losses from discrimination.

3) That people who have suffered losses from discrimination should be compensated in a manner free of further discrimination.

4) That people from the black group who have suffered losses from discrimination should be preferentially compensated.

5) That the means of compensation should not be specified.

6) That the means of compensation should be the establishment and use of legal means, if necessary funded by legal aid.

7) That the means of compensation should be to preferentially draw money from people in the white group.

 

As far as I can tell;

A) There are no further propositions regarding remedies for discrimination, is that correct?

B) No-one argues with (1) & (2), is that correct?

C) I, and others, are arguing (3), and we are in contest with others who are arguing (4)

D) Most others arguing (4) are also arguing (5). I argue that (5) is pointless and an answer to nothing at all.

E) Most arguing [NOT (5)] are arguing (6), I am included.

F) It remains very unclear to me if anyone is seeking to argue (7), it seems to have been partially implied earlier, I just can't tell. I do not agree with (7), which is incompatible with (3).

 

Have I reflected the propositions and positions correctly? If not, I am not trying 'not' to understand, can someone please provide clarity on what they think is in contention?

[Intoscience]

On 6/10/2023 at 4:20 PM, Phi for All said:

I disagree. Compensation is the surgery AND the physical therapy to help heal the patient to hospital standards. Just changing the laws is the plaster, but both are necessary.

 

On 6/10/2023 at 3:54 AM, StringJunky said:

Compensation is equivalent to putting plasters on the problem and systemic change is the surgery.

I would argue that you need to cut the water supply off first. This would the initial stop. Then I would argue that you can patch the hole short term. This would be well defined easy to fix compensations. Then I would look at swapping the pipe out for new. This would be long term law changes and possibly more complex compensations.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Jez said:

Have I reflected the propositions and positions correctly? If not, I am not trying 'not' to understand, can someone please provide clarity on what they think is in contention?

No, it has inbuilt bias'.

This sums things up quite well... 

 

[Jez]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, it has inbuilt bias'.

This sums things up quite well... 

 

 

 

I've no idea what that means in relation to my last post.

 

It seems a complete set of possibilities that either;

a) the propositions above is a complete set of propositions mentioned, or

b) it isn't (a)

 

If (b) [(that is, NOT (a)]) then what have I missed?

Or I've missed nothing, but (a)∧(a')≠1?

[Intoscience]

On 6/10/2023 at 3:21 PM, iNow said:

I reckon the best approach is to ignore Jez, accept that he’s not now nor ever will be an ally in this effort, and for the rest of us to just move along

 

On 6/11/2023 at 1:27 AM, iNow said:

I have never had any problem with you, MigL, nor Intoscience. I just push against you hard when you’re wrong.  

When we are wrong or when we don't agree or align with your point of view? 

(Just to be clear, Personally I don't ignore people and I don't give negative reps even if i find a post offensive or distasteful, obviously what you do is your prerogative).   

[dimreepr]

35 minutes ago, Jez said:

 

 

I've no idea what that means in relation to my last post.

 

It seems a complete set of possibilities that either;

a) the propositions above is a complete set of propositions mentioned, or

b) it isn't (a)

 

If (b) [(that is, NOT (a)]) then what have I missed?

Or I've missed nothing, but (a)∧(a')≠1?

It means you're using racism to muddy the waters, to validate an "all lives matter" type of dismissal.

3 hours ago, Jez said:

6) That the means of compensation should be the establishment and use of legal means, if necessary funded by legal aid.

This, for instance, my chances of getting legal aid, for compensation, depends on a clear and present case, and that aid comes in form of a "no win no fee" contract, that isn't what it says on the tin because the chances are, there's a clause in the contract, that if you don't win, they will want compensation... 

My only other chance of legal aid is if I shoot the fucking lawyer and deny it. 

[Intoscience]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It means you're using racism to muddy the waters, to validate an "all lives matter" type of dismissal

I interpret Jez's posts as the opposite... that racism, or rather skin colour, is often used to muddy things. 

But hey ho... I'm more than happy to stand corrected if otherwise.  

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

When we are wrong or when we don't agree or align with your point of view?

That depends on how well you defend your position.

21 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I interpret Jez's posts as the opposite... that racism, or rather skin colour, is often used to muddy things. 

But hey ho... I'm more than happy to stand corrected if otherwise.  

OK, this for instance:

4 hours ago, Jez said:

3) That people who have suffered losses from discrimination should be compensated in a manner free of further discrimination.

How is that possible?

Someone has to pay the piper...

Ultimately we're talking about, how the rich can monetise poverty; in "The Grapes of Wrath" it was the Okies that were black.

Edited June 12, 2023 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

I'm just trying to get my head around what we are agreeing & disagreeing on.

Points we all seem to agree on.

• People have been negatively discriminated against because of their skin colour
• These among many others currently and throughout history have been unfairly treated due to race
• People unfairly treated should be compensated in some form

Points we which there seems to be disagreement on.

• Current and historical data surrounding the levels and directly to who the unfair treatment has occurred and not been compensated for. 
• Level of compensation (who gets what and what is fair) 
• At what cost to who and how should compensation be paid (who takes responsibility)
• What would be appropriate justice (at what point would a satisfactory conclusion be acceptable)  
• How, when and by what mechanism/system to stop all racial discrimination should be conducted

There maybe more and finer details, but we can all agree that racism should stop and where possible those unfairly treated compensated accordingly. 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm just trying to get my head around what we are agreeing & disagreeing on.

What book do you want to read? 😉

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

When we are wrong or when we don't agree or align with your point of view? 

Yes

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

we can all agree that racism should stop and where possible those unfairly treated compensated accordingly. 

Some here have agreed to both parts, but not all. Many it seems, both here and elsewhere across society as a whole, still seek to obfuscate and obstruct progress toward the latter in any way they can and at every turn available. 

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

when and by what mechanism/system to stop all racial discrimination should be conducted

No such mechanism is possible, let alone accessible for deployment… IMO.

[Jez]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

we can all agree that racism should stop and where possible those unfairly treated compensated accordingly. 

 

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Some here have agreed to both parts, but not all. Many it seems, both here and elsewhere across society as a whole, still seek to obfuscate and obstruct progress toward the latter in any way they can and at every turn available. 

Everyone has agreed with that, as far as I can tell, without exception. What you just put there seems materially wrong in its assertion. Can you provide a concrete example to demonstrate what you've just claimed?

The difference lies in those that believe seeing 'black' versus 'white' is part of the solution, and the other see it as part of the problem.

 

---------

@dimreepr has 'claimed' that they are willing to help explain something they have said if asked, but I keep asking and no response but 'oh, you have biases, that's why you don't understand'.

Well, of course I do!

We just went through several pages where everyone agreed we all had biases. Surely we are blind to our biases, else they'd not be biases. So there's no point telling someone they have biases thus are always wrong, because we'd all be wrong all of the time if that were true, so you have to spell out what their biases are.

I have spelt out what I believe are your biases you are blind to, but if you don't accept you have biases they it makes you unwilling to listen. I've accepted that, willing to have my biases explained, have asked, and .... zip. Nothing but catching the rocks you guys are throwing at me.

I have no concept of what you are arguing. You seem to be saying that racial discrimination is the problem here to fix, but there is no fix, but that if there were a fix then it'd be to discriminate the victims by racial profile. Makes as much sense as making a gearbox out of marshmallows. Everyone is talking in riddles, except those of us who recognise the legal system is a route to some level of restorative justice, and is actually doing that already, could be improved. That is concrete help to those victims. 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Jez said:

has 'claimed' that they are willing to help explain something they have said if asked, but I keep asking and no response but 'oh, you have biases, that's why you don't understand'.

No, I said your post was full of bias' and I went on to explain why, on a couple of points, in subsequent posts.

Just saying I understand that we're all subject to bias, does not mean you understand your own (hence the reason for double blind studies); which you clearly don't, given your history in this thread.

 

2 hours ago, Jez said:

Surely we are blind to our biases, else they'd not be biases.

Why? 

How do we know a bias exists, if we're blind to them?

Sure, some biases we hide from ourselves for a variety of reason's, that's why it's important to recognise the difference between an excuse and a reason.

The reason for an excuse is to hide the reason.

 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Jez said:

I have no concept of what you are arguing. You seem to be saying that racial discrimination is the problem here to fix, but there is no fix, but that if there were a fix then it'd be to discriminate the victims by racial profile. Makes as much sense as making a gearbox out of marshmallows. Everyone is talking in riddles, except those of us who recognise the legal system is a route to some level of restorative justice, and is actually doing that already, could be improved. That is concrete help to those victims. 

Jeez, do I have to explain the legal system as well?

"I have no concept of what you are arguing." I agree, but then, I'm not responsible for your understanding; tell me which part is tripping you up, and I'll do my best to explain it to you