Tired of being called a racist

[gowlerk 1,901]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

The goal of 'diversity' as an end in and of itself is absurd.  If you dispute that, I challenge you to wager on an NFL team with quotas for women, short skinny people and a dog's breakfast of ethnicities to win the Super Bowl. I'll gladly take that bet.

I'll take the black people. They seem to do well at football. And there are lots of poorer ones willing to risk their brains for their chance at glory and riches. As long as they are led by a white QB, head coach, manager, and owner that is. BTW, diversity in society does not mean the same thing that you are seeming to think it does. Racism, sexism and hatred or just dislike of the other has always existed. It is part of the progress of man (in the non-sexist meaning of the word) to do our best to limit it and to give everyone equal opportunities. Which is at the heart of at least part of your message.

The other part of your message is a reluctance to admit or agree that some people have systemic disadvantages that are unfair. And you clearly hold onto the resentment that some of the majority culture who do not suffer from this unfairness have against any effort to remediate this. All I can say is too bad, suck it up. In the end the amount of help being given or proposed is far smaller than the harm that has been done over the years. It is not a zero sum game. You do not lose when others get help. Everyone gains, although perhaps not evenly.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

Having said that, if someone chooses to make a big deal of their particular category, I can't see how they can bitch if someone else accepts their decision to be defined by said distinction - it either matters or it doesn't.

Yeah, like if you dress like a slut, you should be fine with being treated as a slut. Wear a skirt that short and have a few drinks, you deserve to be raped.

 

3 hours ago, winsor said:

The goal of 'diversity' as an end in and of itself is absurd.  If you dispute that, I challenge you to wager on an NFL team with quotas for women, short skinny people and a dog's breakfast of ethnicities to win the Super Bowl. I'll gladly take that bet.

Why would society be like an NFL team? The comparison is so asinine, it makes me wonder if there is any sincerity in the statement. Or if it simply just an excuse to justify your own behaviours. The equivalent of, I am not a homophobe I have a gay friend. But he isn't too flamboyant.

[winsor 185]

22 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'll take the black people. They seem to do well at football. And there are lots of poorer ones willing to risk their brains for their chance at glory and riches. As long as they are led by a white QB, head coach, manager, and owner that is. BTW, diversity in society does not mean the same thing that you are seeming to think it does. Racism, sexism and hatred or just dislike of the other has always existed. It is part of the progress of man (in the non-sexist meaning of the word) to do our best to limit it and to give everyone equal opportunities. Which is at the heart of at least part of your message.

The other part of your message is a reluctance to admit or agree that some people have systemic disadvantages that are unfair. And you clearly hold onto the resentment that some of the majority culture who do not suffer from this unfairness have against any effort to remediate this. All I can say is too bad, suck it up. In the end the amount of help being given or proposed is far smaller than the harm that has been done over the years. It is not a zero sum game. You do not lose when others get help. Everyone gains, although perhaps not evenly.

You make a big deal about race. QED on that point.

I call bullshit on the rest.

[winsor 185]

10 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Yeah, like if you dress like a slut, you should be fine with being treated as a slut. Wear a skirt that short and have a few drinks, you deserve to be raped.

 

Why would society be like an NFL team? The comparison is so asinine, it makes me wonder if there is any sincerity in the statement. Or if it simply just an excuse to justify your own behaviours. The equivalent of, I am not a homophobe I have a gay friend. But he isn't too flamboyant.

You are being intentionally obtuse.

Perhaps you are projecting your world view on me under the assumption that I subscribe to any of it. I don't.

[billvon 2,379]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

If someone is not on the menu, their sexual orientation should not be an issue.

If someone is the best candidate for a position, their sex or ethnicity should not be a concern.

 

Agreed.  Thus it is unfortunate that for a quite a long time, being black meant you could not get hired - and even now is a big issue for some.

Quote

The goal of 'diversity' as an end in and of itself is absurd. 

What do you think the "goal of diversity" is?

Quote

The idea that 'everyone is the same' is demonstrable nonsense. By the same token that the genetic differences in canines are on a par with the genetic differences between people, only an idiot would consider a bloodhound to be interchangeable with a Chihuahua, or a Doberman . . .

Of course, and that is not the issue.  The issue is that because of homophily, we all (and that includes you and me) are more comfortable with people who look, talk, behave, think and act like we do.  It's innate.  Thus there is a tendency for a white male American business owner to hire white male Americans for his company.  That is bad from a societal perspective, because (for no good reason) it creates a subclass of non-white, non-male people who have more trouble getting jobs and have all the problems associated with that.  (Poverty etc.)  Yes, it would be nice, as you said, if all that stuff didn't matter, and people just hired the best employees (or football players) regardless of race, or sexual orientation, or appearance.  Homophily tends to prevent that.

The goal of diversity is to counter that tendency towards homophily.  A good diversity program counterbalances the trend towards homophily so that things like recruiting, college admissions, hiring, housing etc is equally available to everyone.

Not enough effort put into diversity?  Then you have homogeneous populations in companies, sports teams, housing, communities etc and that's bad.

Too much effort put into diversity?  Then you have populations where the selection criteria get all screwed up, and you (for example) hire an unqualified woman just because you don't have enough women.

The goal is to get the balance right.

Quote

Equal rights and responsibilities, regardless of who you are or where you came from?  I'm fine with that.

As am I.  And diversity programs help you reach that goal.

[jakee 1,254]

4 hours ago, winsor said:

... an NFL team with quotas for a dog's breakfast of ethnicities...

Say what?

 

Quote

The idea that 'everyone is the same' is demonstrable nonsense.

Whose idea is that?

Quote

By the same token that the genetic differences in canines are on a par with the genetic differences between people,

Are they?

[nigel99 143]

A friend of mine is a software engineer. In  Uni they had a black guy who he studied with. This black guy got good marks but had a Nigerian name (this was in the UK). Everyone else got employed as it was late nineties and the whole dot.com boom, but this guy didn’t even get called for interviews. Now this guy was ‘smart’, he changed his name through the legal system to Bill Gates, from memory he was employed within the week. 

Granted as a software engineer it was a really attractive choice for employers and people, but it shows the bias we have. He was no more or less competent with a different name.

[winsor 185]

18 hours ago, billvon said:

The goal is to get the balance right.

As am I.  And diversity programs help you reach that goal.

I have to call bullshit on this one.

'Affirmative Action' all too often addresses discrimination by being indiscriminate.  The unintended consequence is that it reinforces the suspicion that someone only got hired because of their ethnicity or sex ('gender' is a grammatical construct, 'sex' is biological).

I have worked in places where people were hired to fill one quota or another, and one was drawn to the conclusion that they got their degree because it was easier for the professor to pass them than to have to defend failing them, and that they got hired because nobody qualified was available to mollify the EEOC.  I have then heard more than a few complaints from hard working and competent members of their 'oppressed' category that their years of hard work were rendered suspect by these folks.

I am a fan of the Juilliard audition, where the panel can't see the performer and must evaluate on the basis of the performer itself.  The P.E. exam similarly weeds out people who got the necessary grades but not the understanding.

I am lucky to work in an environment where sex and ethnicity is largely immaterial.  We don't have any employees from Antarctica or Australia, but that's about it.  The one common factor is that the bulk of employees qualify for Mensa.

If forced 'diversity' was inflicted on us as a 'goal,' it could well put us out of business.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 2,379]

5 hours ago, winsor said:

'Affirmative Action' all too often addresses discrimination by being indiscriminate.  The unintended consequence is that it reinforces the suspicion that someone only got hired because of their ethnicity or sex ('gender' is a grammatical construct, 'sex' is biological).

You are confusing two things here.

The goal of affirmative action was to force white businesses, schools and housing development who prohibited blacks to hire them.  Until such places were dragged, kicking and screaming, into hiring blacks, they would not hire anyone who was not white.  They truly believed that blacks were shiftless, had no work ethic, were inherently unintelligent and had criminal leanings.  (Examples of such claims abound.)  This generated a lot of hatred and animosity, but was necessary to break down centuries of governmental and societal racism.  It was a way to force racists to be less racist.

The goal of diversity programs is to overcome homophily; people who are not racist/sexist (or who are not very racist/sexist) but have an unconscious tendency to choose people who look like them. 

An example of affirmative action were the forced desegregation of schools in the 1950's.  People were forced, sometimes at the end of a gun, to accept black students.  Companies were forced to hire blacks, even when they thought they were not qualified.

An example of a diversity program was MIT's effort to attract more women in the 1990's.  They spent a few million on summer programs for women, on high school outreach and on support programs at MIT itself.  Admission standards were not changed.  As a result, it went from a male:female ratio of 70:30 to 55:45.

They are two very different things.

Quote

I have worked in places where people were hired to fill one quota or another, and one was drawn to the conclusion that they got their degree because it was easier for the professor to pass them than to have to defend failing them, and that they got hired because nobody qualified was available to mollify the EEOC.  I have then heard more than a few complaints from hard working and competent members of their 'oppressed' category that their years of hard work were rendered suspect by these folks.

Yes, I had a flight instructor that was one of the worst pilots I've ever flown with, hired because she was a black woman.  She was a CFI for only a few months before being snapped up by an airline.  That's affirmative action.

Had that FBO had a day where women and minorities could fly for free for half an hour with an instructor - that would have been a diversity program.

Quote

I am a fan of the Juilliard audition, where the panel can't see the performer and must evaluate on the basis of the performer itself. 

Congratulations!  You support a diversity program.

 

[winsor 185]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

 

Congratulations!  You support a diversity program.

 

Not hardly.  If I had a job description where Mongolian ladies were vastly superior to all other applicants, I'd hire the Mongolians without a second thought.

'Diversity' as most programs would have it, would voice anguish that somehow other ethnic groups were underrepresented.

I am wildly indifferent to the ethnicity, sexual preferences or other parameters that get so much press, so long as it does not impact the work.  I am with Dr. King in that the content of character is what matters, period.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[SkyDekker 1,120]

13 minutes ago, winsor said:

Not hardly.  If I had a job description where Mongolian ladies were vastly superior to all other applicants, I'd hire the Mongolians without a second thought.

'Diversity' as most programs would have it, would voice anguish that somehow other ethnic groups were underrepresented.

I am wildly indifferent to the ethnicity, sexual preferences or other parameters that get so much press, so long as it does not impact the work.  I am with Dr. King in that the content of character is what matters, period.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Thankfully policy is generally not based on the self-assessment of one individual.

[jakee 1,254]

10 hours ago, winsor said:

I have then heard more than a few complaints from hard working and competent members of their 'oppressed' category that their years of hard work were rendered suspect by these folks.

I am a fan of the Juilliard audition, where the panel can't see the performer and must evaluate on the basis of the performer itself. 

But presumably the place you work does not use a Juilliard audition, right? The universities you co-workers went to probably didn't either, right? And the reason you like the Juilliard audition must be because you realise that the visual appearance and identity of the performer can impact how the performance is judged, right?

 

So, don't your hard working and competent colleagues ever wonder that their years of hard work are rendered suspect by the fact that they may not have been the best candidates in the first place? That conscious and unconscious biases may have helped them skip the line for college places and in the job hunting world? Do they ever wonder if it matters whether that process was entirely fair?

[billvon 2,379]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

Not hardly.  If I had a job description where Mongolian ladies were vastly superior to all other applicants, I'd hire the Mongolians without a second thought.

 

The Julliard program allows selection of the best candidates without knowing whether they are Mongolian or not (or white, or gay etc.)  And that generally results in a more diverse workforce, because it overcomes the inherent bias we all have.  So good for you, you support programs that help ensure diversity.

Quote

'Diversity' as most programs would have it, would voice anguish that somehow other ethnic groups were underrepresented.

Perhaps.  Because in the real world, it would be likely that the selection committee has a bias towards Mongolians.  (Just as if the program hired all whites, or all blacks, or all transgender Iranians.)   But the reaction to that would not be "get rid of the Mongolians" - the reaction would be "why is everyone else not represented in the pool of good applicants?  What are we missing?  Maybe we better do some outreach to the predominantly white, Indian and black communities.  And maybe we might check to see if the Mongolian who is running HR has a bias."

Quote

I am wildly indifferent to the ethnicity, sexual preferences or other parameters that get so much press, so long as it does not impact the work.  I am with Dr. King in that the content of character is what matters, period.

As am I.  When diversity programs are used to ensure that the entire process is indifferent to the ethnicity of the candidates (as in the Julliard program you mentioned) that is achieved.

[winsor 185]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

As am I.  When diversity programs are used to ensure that the entire process is indifferent to the ethnicity of the candidates (as in the Julliard program you mentioned) that is achieved.

One of the problems we have is the tendency to talk past each other.  As you are aware, there are various types of definition - lexical, stipulative, precising, technical, legal, medical and so forth - so two people can use a word and mean entirely different things.

'Diversity' as presented in every Government-approved course I have endured makes a big deal out of group membership.  The Julliard audition does not.

There are skill sets that are peculiar to those from a particular background, where they can do things blindfolded that I could not if my life depended on it.  Thus, the Mongolian example I gave referred to a level of excellence that would pass a double-blind evaluation.

The principle of 'E Plurbus Unum' or 'from many one' is fine by me. 

Celebrating how we come together? Great.

Celebrating our differences? Not so good.

There are only two kinds of people on this earth - us and them.  Whether you are one of us or them is largely up to you.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[gowlerk 1,901]

21 minutes ago, winsor said:

There are only two kinds of people on this earth - us and them. 

There are three kinds then. You left out allies.

[yoink 321]

On 8/7/2019 at 6:11 AM, winsor said:

It would be nice if one could be actively indifferent to the various lines of demarcation that exist in society and focus on the issues at hand.

If someone is not on the menu, their sexual orientation should not be an issue.

If someone is the best candidate for a position, their sex or ethnicity should not be a concern.

Having said that, if someone chooses to make a big deal of their particular category, I can't see how they can bitch if someone else accepts their decision to be defined by said distinction - it either matters or it doesn't.

There are different calendars for Hindus, Catholics, Buddhists and Muslims.  If availability is critical on the Festival of Baal for a particular position, a candidate who cannot work on said dates should be pointed at a different role.

The goal of 'diversity' as an end in and of itself is absurd.  If you dispute that, I challenge you to wager on an NFL team with quotas for women, short skinny people and a dog's breakfast of ethnicities to win the Super Bowl. I'll gladly take that bet.

The idea that 'everyone is the same' is demonstrable nonsense. By the same token that the genetic differences in canines are on a par with the genetic differences between people, only an idiot would consider a bloodhound to be interchangeable with a Chihuahua, or a Doberman or a Collie or St. Bernard or a basenji and so forth, and the differences are similarly significant between Kikuyu, Arapaho, Ainu and Magyar - or between men and women.

None of this has to do with 'better' or 'worse,' but to challenge the fact that measurable differences exist is an exercise in denial.

Equal rights and responsibilities, regardless of who you are or where you came from?  I'm fine with that.

One group or another getting to play by a different set of rules?  Not so good.

My observation is that the people who define themselves primarily by race are the most likely to call others racist, and those who are focused on their sex are the most likely to accuse others of sexism.  From where I sit, both groups are assholes.

 

 

BSBD,

Winsor

This is a good post. There ARE measurable differences in things like strength between sexes, or aggression based on testosterone levels. I agree that diversity for the sake of it is frustrating and that no person should get special rules just because they’re a member of a particular group. Even if that group is white, male and privileged.

 

[normiss 619]

30 minutes ago, yoink said:

This is a good post. There ARE measurable differences in things like strength between sexes, or aggression based on testosterone levels. I agree that diversity for the sake of it is frustrating and that no person should get special rules just because they’re a member of a particular group. Even if that group is white, male and privileged.

 

I'm curious when equal treatment under the law was removed.

That's all pretty much any of those types of groups seek, after years of receiving the complete opposite.

Much like what's being supported here.

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

10 hours ago, normiss said:

I'm curious when equal treatment under the law was removed.

That's all pretty much any of those types of groups seek, after years of receiving the complete opposite.

Much like what's being supported here.

 

Well, to be accurate, "Equal Treatment Under the Law" has never really happened.
It's been mandated, but never implemented. Not really.

One of the reasons that 'diversity' is required is to give minorities who have been discriminated against for centuries a better chance to reach equality. When leadership roles in pro football are staffed by minorities at anywhere near the percentage of players, then maybe the "Rooney Rule" can go away. 

 

And to Winsor's "Super Bowl team" comment:
There's nothing wrong with physical qualification requirements. A person needs to be able to do the job. But to exclude people who meet the requirements for other reasons is discrimination.

For example, to say to someone "You are 5 foot 1 inch tall, and 105 lbs. You cannot be a firefighter because you cannot lift and carry a 150# weight the required distance in the required time, and cannot drag a firehose up 3 flights of stairs. Those are requirements to be hired" is fine.

However, to say "You met or exceeded all of the requirements in our physical testing. You are more capable than many of the guys currently on shift. But we still aren't going to hire you because you are a woman (black, gay, Jewish, ect)" is discrimination. 

 

To pretend there's no difference between the two, or to pretend that the second doesn't happen on a depressingly regular basis is ignoring reality. (generally, civil service jobs are pretty clear cut, and discrimination has been greatly reduced. The firefighter example was just an easy one to clarify 'qualifications' vs 'discrimination')

[billvon 2,379]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

For example, to say to someone "You are 5 foot 1 inch tall, and 105 lbs. You cannot be a firefighter because you cannot lift and carry a 150# weight the required distance in the required time, and cannot drag a firehose up 3 flights of stairs. Those are requirements to be hired" is fine.

I don't think so.  I think the only criterion should be whether or not you can do those things - no matter what size you are. 

And if the lack of short people in firefighting bugs you, then a good solution would be to explain to short people that they CAN become firefighters as long as they pass the test, and give them some suggestions as to what workout regimen might let them pass the test.  Explain to them that short people HAVE become firefighters.  Introduce them, and let those short firefighters tell them they'd be welcome there, as long as they can pass the test (like all of the firefighters have.)

And that's a diversity program - not affirmative action.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

I guess I didn't make it clear enough. The hiring refusal was not due to height.

It was due to the person being unable to complete the tasks.

[billvon 2,379]

3 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I guess I didn't make it clear enough. The hiring refusal was not due to height.

Ah, OK.  When you start off telling someone why they can't be a firefighter with the phrase "You are 5 foot 1 inch tall, and 105 lbs" people might think that's part of the reason.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

Yeah, I see that now.

I was trying to give a reason (very small person) that they couldn't do the tasks.

I'd love to see someone that size lift and carry a 150lb dummy the distance a firefighter has to in order to pass*. Not that it couldn't be done.

 

* - Many moons ago, I was aware of what the qualifications for the physical tests for firefighter & cop were. They may well have changed.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

I don't think so.  I think the only criterion should be whether or not you can do those things - no matter what size you are. 

And if the lack of short people in firefighting bugs you, then a good solution would be to explain to short people that they CAN become firefighters as long as they pass the test, and give them some suggestions as to what workout regimen might let them pass the test.  Explain to them that short people HAVE become firefighters.  Introduce them, and let those short firefighters tell them they'd be welcome there, as long as they can pass the test (like all of the firefighters have.)

And that's a diversity program - not affirmative action.

Firefighting is a perfect example in Canada, specially in a city like Toronto. The fire department is notoriously difficult to get hired into. The rumour is that you need to know somebody on the force to get hired. The fire houses are predominantly white male. In a city as diverse as Toronto it is impossible for that to be accidental.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

* - Many moons ago, I was aware of what the qualifications for the physical tests for firefighter & cop were. They may well have changed.

Hi Joe,

Many moons ago I was a firefighter.  This was in 1964.  The tests were 2-phase.  A written test & physical tests.  After you qualified via the written test, you were allowed to take the physical tests.  The physical tests IMO had little to do with the actual duties of firefighting; remember, this was mid-60's.  The physical tests were such things as minimum number of pushup in one minute, minimum number of pullups in one minute, etc, etc.

After I passed, I went outside & puked into the street gutter.

At that time there were no blacks or women in the Portland Fire Bureau.  And I did not change that status.

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

Hi Jerry,

My recollection is from the mid-80s (and may well be faulty).

While a part of it was basic PT (sit ups, push ups, pull ups, ect), much of it was at least somewhat practical.

Carrying a weighted dummy a specified distance in a specified time. Carrying a weight up several flights of stairs, that type of activity.