Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

No. 21 pages in and it's still NO.

And after 21 pages where you've admitted that not all black Americans need to be compensated, and numerous arguments that other groups of Americans were hurt economically by slavery in the US, you still cling to the idea that skin color is a valid discriminator.
( and I'm not counting the deaths incurred by the Union in the war against Confederates; 110000 combat and 250000 other. Are their families owed reparations ? )

TheVat makes some interesting points about responsibility.
There has to be societal, as well as personal responsibility.
I can teach a man to fish, that is societal responibility, and it provides him with opportunity; if he has personal responsibility, he will fish and feed himself for life.
If I simply give him the fish, he eats as long as the fish last.
That is equal outcome, but only for a time; without personal responsibility, he will eventually go hungry again.

Which approach is better ?

[Phi for All]

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

And after 21 pages where you've admitted that not all black Americans need to be compensated, and numerous arguments that other groups of Americans were hurt economically by slavery in the US, you still cling to the idea that skin color is a valid discriminator.

I did NOT claim all black Americans need to be compensated for government sanctioned redlining practices. My claim is that all black Americans who were victims of government sanctioned redlining practices need to be compensated. YOU keep claiming that means we're only using skin color to determine who was victimized, and YOU keep ignoring that we have records of the cities where this type of discrimination was practiced. And YOU keep moving the goalposts on my argument to include the Civil War and other incidents where reparations are being discussed. Again, I wish we could have a focused discussion on JUST the issue of redlining, where I don't think your "you can't use skin color or it's racist" argument holds any water at all.

[StringJunky]

55 minutes ago, iNow said:

We are 100% aligned here. I support moving in this direction. Fully.

I'm just trying to be realistic. It's an idealized outcome unlikely to be achieved, IMO. It's a state of perfection, and focus on this tends to prevent us from reaching a state of "better." I don't want to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect. 

100% correct, but not in the United States, which is where I've thus far been focusing my own comments in support of reparations. 

Glad we agree  

Or I paid off my student loan debt, why can't you!?

At least we agree on that.  Africa is important to me, but bringing that in makes it too complicated.

I'm not a Republican, so that does not apply.

[MigL]

Is English your first language ?
Because this

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If we somehow discovered we'd been systemically discriminating against people with albinism, those with almost no melanin, denying them the potential to prosper because of the way they look, what other factors do you want to consider besides those that make them albino?

sound to me like you want to use skin color as the only discriminator.
Not whether the had actually suffered an injustice or not.

While now,

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I did NOT claim all black Americans need to be compensated for government sanctioned redlining practices. My claim is that all black Americans who were victims of government sanctioned redlining practices need to be compensated. YOU keep claiming that means we're only using skin color to determine who was victimized,

you make a different claim, and say I'm at fault for not understanding.

I suppose you're right; I don't understand inconsistent and incoherent arguments.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Wonder if one reason the debate over theft v reparation never resolves is a basic tension between the conservative and progressive philosophies.  Conservatives emphasize personal responsibility and prog/liberals lean more on community responsibility.  So cons are more liable to view paying for someone else's need (if they themselves did not personally cause that need) as a theft from them.  That feeling informs their views on a range of public amenities which they may object to.  E.g. I get to work on my own so why should I fund a mass transit bond?  Or, my kids go to private school so why should I fund a public school system?  Or, I didn't get you addicted to drugs so why should I help pay for a drug treatment center in my city?

The prog rejoinder to such views usually boils down to Society should try to help lift everyone up; that creates a more livable and safer community which benefits everyone.

This difference in perspective is very hard to resolve.  In America especially where so many idealize the mythos of the rugged individualist and the Self-Made Man.  

One corollary from that is that some folks focus on specific and individual damages, but overlook systemic challenges (such as long term impact of getting removed from economic and other benefits, invisible but baked in racialized policies, where color-blind application would perpetuate those harms,  confinement in underdeveloped areas and so on). A second is that often these issues are seen as a weird zero-sum game. I.e. it seems that the argument is that systematically excluding one group from economic and societal gains is somehow the same as bringing them up to the same level. I.e. as long as the factor that did the division is brought up to remove the suppression, it is equivalent to suppression. Without removing all context, I just fail to see it as a symmetric proposition.

I will also say that it is a bit dangerous to generalize these racialized policies based on the case of reparations. That one is something that can and should be more targeted, as there are ways to trace issues in an individualized way.

However, general racialized policies cannot be tracked down to individuals (that is just not what policies are) and it is critical identify demarcation lines. For example, universities strive to create a diverse learning environment, but the question is how to recruit them. If we ignore race, the student body tends to be largely income based, resulting in a composition that represents well-off part of the population mostly.

Providing stipends for low-income students bolsters that part of the composition, but looking at racial composition, we see that often low-income minorities do not benefit from it much. There are various reasons, starting at which schools they are, and what kind (if any) counseling they get, for example.  So targeting those students and schools specifically can bolster the recruitment of minority students and to create the desired teaching environment. 

What has been shown in the US is that a color-blind application of stipends and benefits, the enrolment of minorities drop (and just to be clear, race would be just one of many factors used for admissions). Thus, the application of a color-blind policy results in racial inequity. And considering the impact of college on future income, it has knock-on effects of future trajectories. In other words, (and as the other articles I have posted) being color-blind can result in racial inequality, the very thing that color-blindness supposedly should end, but which in reality it just promotes (under the current system). I do agree that if we magically resolved every form of racism and racialized policies and dismantled all the systems that create inequality, then we may be able to switch to a color-blind perspective. 

However, starting with the latter is hitching the cart before the horse and is not getting us anywhere.

 

 

 

 

[mistermack]

I wonder if our American friends would like to make full reparations to the Palestinian Arabs, who have had the very earth beneath their feet stolen, on the basis not just of skin colour and ethnicity, but of religion too. 

How much would it cost to put right that modern atrocity, which is still happening, and doesn't even have the dubious mitigation of "oh well, nobody knew better in those days".

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I wonder if our American friends would like to make full reparations to the Palestinian Arabs, who have had the very earth beneath their feet stolen, on the basis not just of skin colour and ethnicity, but of religion too. 

How much would it cost to put right that modern atrocity, which is still happening, and doesn't even have the dubious mitigation of "oh well, nobody knew better in those days".

Why don't you open a thread on that topic and find out?

[mistermack]

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Why don't you open a thread on that topic and find out?

The comment was about reparations. I think it's relevant here. 

What would make more sense, to try to make it right for the descendants of Palestinians, in 200 years time, or to stop the atrocity now? People seem to be very selective about what deserves reparation, and what can be ignored. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

People seem to be very selective about what deserves reparation, and what can be ignored. 

That comment isn't really germane to the issue of Palestinian reparations. It seems like you are more interested in fighting than discussing. I don't think I'll take the bait.

[MigL]

That seems to be a problem with these types of discussions.

You can make reasoned arguments, but someone comes along and wants to derail the thread by considering everything in the world that he personally considers an injustice, or some other inane argument, and you end up getting lumped in with them.

We are discussing reparations to American people due to the effects of slavery and racism.
Thank you.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

We are discussing reparations to American people

Right. Because it only matters if it's happened to Americans. That's a fairly entrenched view in the States. But it's not exactly moral. 

Vietnamese people can be bombed with Napalm, Phosphorus, and Agent Orange, and waterboarding isn't torture, if it's done to foreigners. It's called double standards. 

[iNow]

Stop trying to derail the thread

[StringJunky]

8 hours ago, mistermack said:

I wonder if our American friends would like to make full reparations to the Palestinian Arabs, who have had the very earth beneath their feet stolen, on the basis not just of skin colour and ethnicity, but of religion too. 

How much would it cost to put right that modern atrocity, which is still happening, and doesn't even have the dubious mitigation of "oh well, nobody knew better in those days".

As I said earlier to iNow, let's keep the subject to America. This massively complicates the discussion and it does fall in 'whatabout' territory

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

We are 100% aligned here. I support moving in this direction. Fully.

I'm just trying to be realistic. It's an idealized outcome unlikely to be achieved, IMO. It's a state of perfection, and focus on this tends to prevent us from reaching a state of "better." I don't want to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect

And I accept that, pursuit of perfection can (does) often hinder progress. This is true however if you only focus on and accept perfection as the only goal. If though you set out realistic goals along the journey towards the perfection you seek that does not hinder your pursuit and accept each of those as an achievement within itself then you can quickly make progress, especially so if action is taken and not delayed towards each step. 

I worry that knowing that perfection is an unrealistic goal, we may give up in our pursuit and accept something much less, thus missing out on potential we never thought was possible. Especially if in doing so we end up taking steps back or at best sideways. 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

No. 21 pages in and it's still NO.

If we somehow discovered we'd been systemically discriminating against people with albinism, those with almost no melanin, denying them the potential to prosper because of the way they look, what other factors do you want to consider besides those that make them albino? Seriously, this objection has NEVER made any sense to me.

If a judge determines a thief who stole my money must pay that money back, is the judge practicing thievery by using money as a factor?

Ok, we are in disagreement then.

Crudely put my point is - A system that assumes that all people black have suffered injustice directly or indirectly, and therefore, all black people, no matter each individual case, shall be compensated, is a racist system by definition.  

 

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I did NOT claim all black Americans need to be compensated for government sanctioned redlining practices. My claim is that all black Americans who were victims of government sanctioned redlining practices need to be compensated. YOU keep claiming that means we're only using skin color to determine who was victimized, and YOU keep ignoring that we have records of the cities where this type of discrimination was practiced. And YOU keep moving the goalposts on my argument to include the Civil War and other incidents where reparations are being discussed. Again, I wish we could have a focused discussion on JUST the issue of redlining, where I don't think your "you can't use skin color or it's racist" argument holds any water at all.

In this case then fine, there is a common denominator for the injustice that as occurred, and these people should be compensated on individual or group cases . No one is arguing this. 

But it has been mentioned many times about reparations for people who's ancestors suffered injustices, especially focused around all black people. Intermating that justice should be so that all living black people should be compensated even if/ or not it's for past injustices dating back hundreds of years.  In which case the system is using a blanket racial positive discrimination tactic which may not really be fair justice for all. 

Referring back to iNow's point about the pursuit of perfection, maybe a blanket system is the sensible approach. From my perspective I don't agree. I still stand by my opinion that invoking a system that uses any form of racial discrimination tactic will in the long run add fuel to the fire. 

Those who are arguing against a blanket system by giving examples of injustices both past and present across many cultures are just offering you the opportunity to consider perspectives. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, we are in disagreement then.

Crudely put my point is - A system that assumes that all people black have suffered injustice directly or indirectly, and therefore, all black people, no matter each individual case, shall be compensated, is a racist system by definition. 

OMG, this is a disgusting response to what I said. Fallacy much?? I won't insult your reading abilities the way MigL does with mine, but you can shove this strawman appropriately.

I'll wait for a better thread, or start one myself. Thanks for engaging, FWIW.

[StringJunky]

Here's a lesson  when positive action becomes discrimination. The whistleblower was a female RAF Group Captain:

Quote

RAF diversity targets discriminated against white men

Initiatives to increase the numbers of women and people from ethnic minorities in the RAF led to illegal positive discrimination, an inquiry has found.

The head of the RAF has admitted some men were discriminated against.

The internal inquiry was sparked by the resignation of a female RAF Group Captain who told her superiors the policy penalised white men.

The inquiry found she had faced significant and unreasonable pressure to meet diversity targets.

These targets were set by the last Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Mike Wigston, to increase the proportion of women and people from ethnic minorities in the RAF.

But the unnamed senior female RAF recruitment officer told her superiors that fast tracking women and ethnic minorities was contrary to the equality act and discriminated against white men.

The inquiry, conducted by the Ministry of Defence, found the pressure to meet those targets led to illegal, positive discrimination.

The RAF had argued its policies were not unlawful and amounted to positive action, not discrimination.

The new head of the RAF, Sir Richard Knighton, has now admitted that some men were discriminated against, and apologised.

They include a group of 31 who were held back in training, who have now been compensated.

The RAF has also admitted its target for 40% of the force to be female and 20% from an ethnic minority background by 2030 is unrealistic.

However no individual has been named or blamed for trying to implement the policy.

The female Gp Capt who first blew the whistle and resigned is still expected to take the RAF to an employment tribunal....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490

 

[CharonY]

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Here's a lesson  when positive action becomes discrimination. The whistleblower was a female RAF Group Captain:

 

Yes, that is an issue with using specific target or hard quotas. Institutions with more experience on that matter have implemented a softer form of affirmative action (i.e. using same brackets rather than holding specific folks back).

There was a bit on it in an Atlantic article that is interesting:

Quote

Did white men suffer as a result of affirmative action? That turns out to be a difficult question to answer. “There is very little hard evidence to prove that a minority hire almost always took place at the expense of a better-qualified white person,” Urofsky says. He also tells us that there are “no reliable data” on whether men were shut out of jobs that were offered to women.

 

“Almost always” would indeed be hard to prove. Obviously, just by the nature of the policy, some significant number of whites and males who would have been admitted or hired before affirmative-action programs were in place were not. But, since no employer or admissions officer ever says, “You were not hired because you’re white” or “You were admitted because you’re black,” proving discrimination is complicated. Americans have come to accept that race and gender are always in the mix, but we can’t be certain that either one made the difference in any particular case.

Urofsky’s view is that, over all, white men did not go without jobs or the chance to attend college. Turned down by one place, they went someplace else. The number who were “victimized” by affirmative action, he says, is “minuscule.” Certainly this is true in the case of college admissions. Most colleges accept almost everyone who applies, so when we talk about race-conscious admissions we are talking about policies that affect a relatively small number of people. Urofsky borrows from Thomas Kane, of the Brookings Institution, an analogy to handicapped parking spaces: a driver looking to park who does not have a permit might feel “excluded” driving past an empty handicapped spot, but he or she usually finds a place to park.

 

[MigL]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I won't insult your reading abilities the way MigL does with mine

I'm sorry I made you feel that way; I assure you that was not the intent.

I did not insult your reading abilities, but took issue with your inconsistent posts, so maybe you should go back and re-read that post, before I have a change of heart with regards to your reading abilities.

You have consistently been confrontational with me  for years now, simply for having a perceived difference of opinion ( I still recall the 'closet Trumpet' descriptor ).
Now you want to accuse me of being the bad guy ?
Give it a rest already.

[iNow]

On 6/17/2023 at 10:15 PM, iNow said:

Sigh…

And THAT, boys and girls, is why Jez and other internet cum stains like him actively post to sites like these (or setup bots and AIs to do it for them) all just to pour gasoline on to the topic dumpster fire which is racism and reparations … and why? Bc without fail it manages to split apart friends, families, and entire communities into us/them tribes blind to the humanity in those horrid putrid “others.” Because it keeps us fighting instead of fixing. Distracted… But that’s OT.

Any weak fool can knock the barn down, but it takes courage and strength to build ‘em up.

 

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

OMG, this is a disgusting response to what I said. Fallacy much?? I won't insult your reading abilities the way MigL does with mine, but you can shove this strawman appropriately.

I'll wait for a better thread, or start one myself. Thanks for engaging, FWIW.

I'm sorry this upset you that was never my intent. It was nothing personal. 

I was giving you an example of how discrimination by skin color both positive and negative can be perceived as racist. 

This is my point and has been throughout the thread. If you want to expel racial attitudes then you have to stop focussing on skin color for discriminating purposes, good or bad.   

9 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm sorry I made you feel that way; I assure you that was not the intent.

I did not insult your reading abilities, but took issue with your inconsistent posts, so maybe you should go back and re-read that post, before I have a change of heart with regards to your reading abilities.

You have consistently been confrontational with me  for years now, simply for having a perceived difference of opinion ( I still recall the 'closet Trumpet' descriptor ).
Now you want to accuse me of being the bad guy ?
Give it a rest already.

Sorry @Phi for All

But I have to agree with MigL on this because I have experienced the same on numerous threads from a few long standing members. 

I keep posting though because I do enjoy the discussions and even though we don't always share opinions I get to engage with like minded folk across many cultures. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[StringJunky]

Even black SC judges don't agree on AA. Our discussion is a microcosm of the problem, so let's take note of that and hang back a little when it gets too hot...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-justices-jackson-thomas-illustrate-heated-us-debate-race-2023-06-29/

Edited June 30, 2023 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Even black SC judges don't agree on AA. Our discussion is a microcosm of the problem, so let's take note of that and hang back a little when it gets too hot...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-justices-jackson-thomas-illustrate-heated-us-debate-race-2023-06-29/

What's the colour of their skin got to do with it?

Quote

Jackson and Thomas, reflecting a deep divide in the United States, diverged on how race must be treated in the law. Jackson promoted its use to reduce entrenched inequalities. Thomas contended that the U.S. Constitution is colorblind.

It's just a relection of our thread, the defence coming up with excuse after excuse to do nothing, or at least the bare minimum;  the U.S. Constitution is colorblind, is a doozey. 🙄

When all we keep saying is, let's at least "reduce entrenched inequalities".

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But I have to agree with MigL on this because I have experienced the same on numerous threads from a few long standing members. 

 

[iNow]

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Even black SC judges don't agree on AA. Our discussion is a microcosm of the problem,

Your point is noticed and acknowledged, though...

Justice Thomas has long been strident in his opposition to affirmative action, but even his colleagues on the court suggest that he's too often arguing against strawmen and nonexistent bogeymen. He's attacking a fantasy and hyperbole more than real world problems.

I was thankful to see Justice Jackson calling him out on it (from Salon):

Quote

"Justice Thomas ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here," she wrote.

Jackson, the first Black woman to serve in the high court, wrote that the ruling was "truly a tragedy for us all."

"With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces 'colorblindness for all' by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life," she wrote.

 

Again here, however, we're not talking about reparations in the US anymore. 

[StringJunky]

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your point is noticed and acknowledged, though...

Justice Thomas has long been strident in his opposition to affirmative action, but even his colleagues on the court suggest that he's too often arguing against strawmen and nonexistent bogeymen. He's attacking a fantasy and hyperbole more than real world problems.

I was thankful to see Justice Jackson calling him out on it (from Salon):

 

Again here, however, we're not talking about reparations in the US anymore. 

That part about him did cross my mind, but I still thought it was relevant. If you knew about neither, that's how it would look, I think.

Here's a story from today of a UK teen abusing in a gender-neutral school toilet. Do you think this is handled well?

Quote

A boy has been arrested by police investigating reports of serious sexual assaults in a gender neutral toilet at a school.

Essex Police said it was working closely with the school and local authorities while inquiries continued.

The boy, under the age of 16, has been bailed with conditions.

Essex County Council confirmed it was working with police and relevant authorities on a "safeguarding matter" at a school.

"We are supporting the leadership at the school and will provide additional support to the school community if required," a spokesman said.

"The school have communicated with parents and carers and have offered support.

"As this is an ongoing police investigation, we are not able to comment further at this time."

An Essex Police spokesperson said in a statement: "We are currently investigating reports of serious sexual assaults, which are believed to have occurred at a school in north Essex.

"A boy, under the age of 16, has been arrested and since been bailed with conditions.

"We are working closely with the school and local authorities whilst enquiries for this investigation continue."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66052546

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Thinking through how else we might approach this without explicit focus on race. 

Possibly we could enact a universal basic income program indexed to current wealth and income. Means tested. More for lower incomes, less for higher incomes. 

It addresses concerns of new racism, but since wealth among non-white Americans is orders of magnitude lower it has the potential to address the same core issues without the semantic baggage. It naturally seems more fair.