2 2
winsor

Equal Rights, Equal Responsibilities. No More, No Less

Recommended Posts

The law of unintended consequences applies to a variety of things, high on the list are such things as 'Critical Race Theory,' 'Social Justice" and sundry other dogmatic stances.

Champions of anti-racism are given to saying the most racist things I have ever heard in all seriousness.

Proponents of social equality are shameless in their active espousal of class distinction.

People railing against selective reporting by the media are the most active censors one might imagine.

This all goes with my observation that, if someone feels the need to tell you about their wonderful qualities, they tend to be singularly lacking in them.  The  person who tells you how honest they are is likely to be a liar and a thief.  The country that labels itself "The Free, Happy People's Democratic Republic of ..." is likely quite totalitarian.  A 'Religion of Peace; is likely peopled by followers of murderous psychopath.  Someone who says how non-racist they are is likely to follow up with an entirely race-based argument for something or another.

Dr. Martin Luther King's goals would get someone labeled an Oreo these days,.

T'was ever thus.

 

BSBD,

Winsor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

A very broad statement of ideas and grievances. With absolutely no examples and no real justifications. At least you got some of your anger out. But it leaves me to ask, WTF are you talking about?

From an acute standpoint, BLM, Antifa and anything 'woke' come to mind.

Chronic issues are manifold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winsor said:

The law of unintended consequences applies to a variety of things, high on the list are such things as 'Critical Race Theory,' 'Social Justice" and sundry other dogmatic stances.

Champions of anti-racism are given to saying the most racist things I have ever heard in all seriousness.

Proponents of social equality are shameless in their active espousal of class distinction.

People railing against selective reporting by the media are the most active censors one might imagine.

This all goes with my observation that, if someone feels the need to tell you about their wonderful qualities, they tend to be singularly lacking in them.  The  person who tells you how honest they are is likely to be a liar and a thief.  The country that labels itself "The Free, Happy People's Democratic Republic of ..." is likely quite totalitarian.  A 'Religion of Peace; is likely peopled by followers of murderous psychopath.  Someone who says how non-racist they are is likely to follow up with an entirely race-based argument for something or another.

Dr. Martin Luther King's goals would get someone labeled an Oreo these days,.

His goals, no. Some of his methods got him labeled as too timid in the 1960's; ergo Malcolm X and the Black Panthers (who started as a Black rights and self-help organization). 

You paint with a very broad brush here, and are ignoring the fact that while there is technically equality of opportunity, there is not equality of access (which is based on connections and money, both of which are correlated with "race"), and there is not equality of one of the most important measures in capitalist America: wealth. 

It is not wrong to say that redlining was wrong, and that it robbed African-Americans of collective wealth in the form of rising real estate prices. Even now, if a house has pictures of black family members, the appraised price can be lower than if it has pictures of white ones.

People tend to see what they perceive as losses as more significant than equal gains. There's a lot of experimental data to back that up (see Kahnemann's Thinking, Fast and Slow). So if those white people see their connection-based access to jobs being reduced because all of a sudden black people have access to them, it's not about the white people -- it's about the jobs. It's about the real estate. It's about the financing availability. There's a semi-finite pie of some of this; one has to base the evaluation on the size of the pie itself, not on the size of the piece you're used to getting, or the fact that you've pretty much always gotten first pick in the past.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

So when you say you are not racist......

 

Yeah, pretty much.

I have been spoiled by spending a lot of my life in an environment where race is not a factor.  If someone is here because their PhD dissertation is key to our business, it doesn't really matter if they're from Osaka, Lagos or Minsk.  It is also is not a factor what your idea of romance is.

The opposite of love is not hate but indifference, and the same is true of 'racism' and 'fascism.'  BLM is all about race, and Antifa has all too much in common with true fascism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 minutes ago, winsor said:

Yeah, pretty much.

I have been spoiled by spending a lot of my life in an environment where race is not a factor.  

And yet you don't give a single flying fuck that race is a factor in deciding who reaches your environment in the first place.

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, winsor said:

Yeah, pretty much.

I have been spoiled by spending a lot of my life in an environment where race is not a factor.  If someone is here because their PhD dissertation is key to our business, it doesn't really matter if they're from Osaka, Lagos or Minsk.  It is also is not a factor what your idea of romance is.

The opposite of love is not hate but indifference, and the same is true of 'racism' and 'fascism.'  BLM is all about race, and Antifa has all too much in common with true fascism.

 

I have a feeling you aren't recognizing that for a person of colour to reach that level is much harder than for a white person to reach that level in many western countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, winsor said:

I have been spoiled by spending a lot of my life in an environment where race is not a factor.  If someone is here because their PhD dissertation is key to our business, it doesn't really matter if they're from Osaka, Lagos or Minsk. 

Yep.  Unfortunately, the odds that someone, somewhere has a thesis that would be key to your business, but will never be able to write or defend that thesis because they are the wrong race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or nationality for admission to secondary/postgraduate education is very high.  Thus your business suffers - although may never be aware of it, since you don't/can't see that.
 

Quote

The opposite of love is not hate but indifference

What an odd thing to say.  Is the opposite of black gray?   Is the opposite of hot room temperature?  Is the opposite of acceleration coasting?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, winsor said:

BLM is all about race

Yeah, how dare they protest the killings of unarmed black men by police. They should stop complaining and keep dying.

26 minutes ago, winsor said:

I have been spoiled by spending a lot of my life

Well glad you're doing alright, we can all stop trying to fix any injustices since you're not suffering. Good news, everybody! We can stop the entire movement now since winsor's doing okay!

</sarcasm>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real equity would have them in the stadium, too.

Wendy P.

Edit to add: Actually, to clarify, the assumption that a black family can only watch a baseball game from outside is kind of exactly what we're talking about with that access thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Yeah, how dare they protest the killings of unarmed black men by police. They should stop complaining and keep dying.

Well glad you're doing alright, we can all stop trying to fix any injustices since you're not suffering. Good news, everybody! We can stop the entire movement now since winsor's doing okay!

</sarcasm>

I object to making a big deal about the race of the person subject to horrible injustice.  Protesting injustice, fine, protesting injustice on a racial basis, not so much.

Sitting around the barracks reading a book, I wound up conversing with someone else about favorite authors, their early vs. later work, the change in their perspective and so forth. 

A group of other soldiers came in and he changed modes immediately "Yo, yo, wattidiz!" and engaged in the 'DAP' until they drifted out.

I asked what that was all about, and he said that the reality was that he would never be fully accepted by white society so it behooved him not to alienate black society.  In school he had brought his books home in a gym bag so as not to be labeled an Oreo.

He said he was not crazy about the situation, but that it was a reality with which he had to cope.

One of the things I found offensive is that he was being victimized by his 'brothers' as much as anyone.  Similarly the statistics regarding young black men being shot are wildly at odds with the narrative put forth by 'activists.'

If a young black man is shot, there is something like a 95% chance that he was shot by another young black man.  If a black man is shot by a cop, the likelihood is much greater if the cop is black than white.

None of this is good, but the narrative that is peddled by the people seeking 'change' is patent nonsense.  Victimization and low expectations do not address the problem, they exacerbate it.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 minutes ago, winsor said:

I object to making a big deal about the race of the person subject to horrible injustice.  Protesting injustice, fine, protesting injustice on a racial basis, not so much.

Why, if the inustice has happened because of race?

 

You make a big deal about being part of a field that only deals with facts, so why do you demand that everyone else ignores reality?

Quote

One of the things I found offensive is that he was being victimized by his 'brothers' as much as anyone. 

Why do you find that offensive? Why does their race have anything to do with him being victimised? Why did his race have anything to do with him being victimised? Why are you even talking about either of their races when you object to race being discussed?

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, winsor said:

One of the things I found offensive

Yeah right, because black culture isn't perfect and one person was victimised, means they don't get to complain that they're getting killed disproportionately!

They can only complain if they are perfect, right?

15 minutes ago, winsor said:

If a young black man is shot, there is something like a 95% chance that he was shot by another young black man.  If a black man is shot by a cop, the likelihood is much greater if the cop is black than white.

I think this is 2 things:

  1. The number is complete bullshit and pulled out of your arse, however the percentage is indeed high
  2. One of the reasons for this is because young black men don't get enough opportunities, making crime relatively more lucrative (and traps them)

 

So when you learn how to account for statistical biases and other controlling factors, come back and we can have a more reasonable discussion.

20 minutes ago, winsor said:

Victimization and low expectations do not address the problem, they exacerbate it.

No, idiots who oppose things getting better for a certain group because they themselves are okay are the ones not addressing the problem. They exacerbate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

To shorten it: Equal rights, equal responsibilities, where there are equal opportunities and equal consideration. So address those last to, and then the first two will come.

Wendy P.

Everybody gets the same chance to run 100 meters under the same conditions. And all those who run it in less than 10 seconds will be given $10 million. All those who cannot will be jailed until they are able to meet the equal standard for all.

Equal opportunity, equal consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

To shorten it: Equal rights, equal responsibilities, where there are equal opportunities and equal consideration. So address those last to, and then the first two will come.

Wendy P.

Well according to winsor it should be the other way around. When black people stop the victimisation and become better citizens like he is, then they can maybe ask politely about not being killed or discriminated against so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

Man, I wish I had the confidence to declare, "racism isn't a thing any more so don't talk about race", like that just makes it so. It seems so easy, why didn't we think of this sooner?

It's a common approach to racism.  "There's no such thing as racism, so I don't have to care about it."  Neatly solves their problem.  it's a solution that people have been using for 160 years.

"There's no racism here!  They're free now.  What else do they want?  Why get greedy?"
"They have their own schools.  Separate but equal.  Heck, their schools are BETTER.  What's their problem?"
"They can marry white women now.  They have every right they could ever want, even if it goes against every standard of decency.  They won't stop until WE are the slaves."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, billvon said:

It's a common approach to racism.  "There's no such thing as racism, so I don't have to care about it."  Neatly solves their problem.  it's a solution that people have been using for 160 years.

"There's no racism here!  They're free now.  What else do they want?  Why get greedy?"
"They have their own schools.  Separate but equal.  Heck, their schools are BETTER.  What's their problem?"
"They can marry white women now.  They have every right they could ever want, even if it goes against every standard of decency.  They won't stop until WE are the slaves."

I'll credit you with being obtuse or using a straw man argument.  None of that is what I said or meant.

It is instructive to define your terms, since people will routinely use vastly different meanings in a discussion, and 'racism' means different things to different people.  Let us allow for the awareness of different races, nationalities, tribal identities and cultures without implying bias.  One can be aware of the differences between, say, Lithuanian and Hmong without favoring one over the other oh the basis of anything but individual ability, integrity and what have you.

Also, to conflate Kikuyu, Yoruba, Zulu, Atlanta gang bangers and Palo Alto coders is disingenuous, as would be equating Navajo, Cheyenne, Iroquois and Aztec.

Part of unintended consequences is that by perseverating on the racial divide it tends to reinforce said divide, which is a bad thing to my way of thinking.  Treating people differently because of who they are and where they come from is as unacceptable if one is a 'legacy' admission to Harvard or an 'affirmative action' admission without  the tools to succeed.

In the long run, graduating people who got a pass on grades and knowledge tends to backfire.  As an example, United Airlines decided to achieve 'diversity' by hiring any female pilots they could find with 1,200 hours, and they then had all too many First Officers that could never upgrade to Captain.  This was a great disservice to the women who had every bit as much skill and dedication as their male counterparts (if not more), and I shouldn't have had to stick up for pilots who were absolutely superb - and had achieved success in spite of being stunning.

Thus, a black engineer is more likely to require a P.E. or advanced degree to dispel the notion that they received the degree without meeting standards that would apply to anyone else.  I have worked with people from all backgrounds who were downright dangerous, and have been told not to fail a student when doing so would bring pressure groups to bear, so I've seen it from a number of sides.  To have policies in place that reinforce the expectation of incompetence in a particular group is counterproductive.

My main point is that although some peoples have been screwed royally, one should be careful how to address the issue. As a Jew, the concept of 'Special Treatment' sends chills up my spine.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winsor, that's all well and good in a vacuum, or in a company that removes the names (which can be hints) and the universities (which can also be hints) on job applications, to evaluate people solely on the contents of their degrees. However, people like categories, and they like being able to make quicker decisions; too many people in the US and much of the rest of the world use "like me" and "unlike me" as quick decision makers. Whether it's the Texas Aggie manager who gives preference to other Aggies, the manager who can always find something wrong with the woman's approach, while finding reasons for the problems with a man's approach, or anything else like that, the world isn't fair. 

Waiting for people in power to lose that power so that people who don't have power will gain some access is probably not the way to go. Russian and other Jewish ancestors suffered for generations based on their religion -- is that a good thing? It's only in the last 70 years or so that being Jewish wasn't an automatic disqualifier for a LOT of things in the US. The range is down now.

The thing about going outside one's usual hiring practices is to find out where they're wrong. Every company hires some duds; if you go with your usual practices, it's "well, that one didn't turn out." If you go with a new approach, it's "that approach hasn't produced superior candidates in all cases, therefore it's back to the status quo." 

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, winsor said:

The law of unintended consequences applies to a variety of things, high on the list are such things as 'Critical Race Theory,' 'Social Justice" and sundry other dogmatic stances.

Champions of anti-racism are given to saying the most racist things I have ever heard in all seriousness.

Proponents of social equality are shameless in their active espousal of class distinction.

People railing against selective reporting by the media are the most active censors one might imagine.

This all goes with my observation that, if someone feels the need to tell you about their wonderful qualities, they tend to be singularly lacking in them.  The  person who tells you how honest they are is likely to be a liar and a thief.  The country that labels itself "The Free, Happy People's Democratic Republic of ..." is likely quite totalitarian.  A 'Religion of Peace; is likely peopled by followers of murderous psychopath.  Someone who says how non-racist they are is likely to follow up with an entirely race-based argument for something or another.

Dr. Martin Luther King's goals would get someone labeled an Oreo these days,.

T'was ever thus.

 

BSBD,

Winsor 

WOW - Way to light it up, Winsor! I've missed you both here and at the WFFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2