Protests following the killing of George Floyd

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
This probably passes for liberalism in 2020. Bravely fighting the religion of anti-racism with facts and logic.

This part is the best:
I'm not sure I understand
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
Yes, just like all those Germans who voted for the Nazis because of their economic policy. Their reasons didn't matter for the end result.
I have to excuse myself, there's too many to properly respond to now.

I mean wtf. Really. Nazism! Are we killing Jews again now?
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
Also this is one of those (paraphrasing Dave here) "you should be grateful we're the least racist, but the least racist is still racist.".
That’s really dishonest and spinelessness. If you can’t stand up for yourself or concede, don’t join in a discussion. You’re just wasting peoples time.
 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
11,423
I have to excuse myself, there's too many to properly respond to now.

I mean wtf. Really. Nazism! Are we killing Jews again now?
Will you just feck off from here...
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
9,851
Location
Addis Ababa
That’s really dishonest and spinelessness. If you can’t stand up for yourself or concede, don’t join in a discussion. You’re just wasting peoples time.
:lol: What are you on about? When I tried to have a discussion you ignored it.
What's debatable? That a significant part of the population in several western countries are OK with racism? I didn't say people voting for, say, the tories, Trump, the Danish social democrats or whoever are necessarily racist themselves. I said that the people voting for them are OK with their racism. I don't see why non-white voters have anything to do with it.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
What's debatable? That a significant part of the population in several western countries are OK with racism? I didn't say people voting for, say, the tories, Trump, the Danish social democrats or whoever are necessarily racist themselves. I said that the people voting for them are OK with their racism. I don't see why non-white voters have anything to do with it.
Feel exceptionally stupid here, so just going to concede to you. I'm in agreement to most of that!
 

Cheimoon

Up-and-comer
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,724
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
Is this a strategy? Claim strawman, then use strawman. It happens over and over in these discussions
Sorry, what do you mean? I am saying that it's a strawman argument to refer back to humanity's long history to indicate that changes in discrimination are happening really quickly, because change could only start happening in the last century or so, as discrimination was accepted thinking before that. How do I introduce my own strawman there?

If that works better for you, let's do this without the strawman bit: I don't think humanity's long history matters in this context, as discrimination was accepted thinking until just over a century ago. Change could have only happened since then, so its pace is not quick, it's quite slow. Plus there is a clear lack of 'walking the talk': if people in leading positions who disavow discrimination of any kind were serious about that, we'd see much more change. (A lot of change has to be forced to install a new normal in society - like requesting a certain percentage of women and men on board's of companies that are on stock exchanges.)

I think your following comments all belong together:
You seem to be saying this is somehow unjust and needs rectifying. Different groups, populations, ethnicities, even genders, can't seek different outcomes.
It's not obviously discrimination. If you're going to claim this discrimination, you have to claim it for every instance the outcome is not equal.
No. I can't tell you 10, 5, 1% of the population is racist. There is no evidence for or against such a claim. There is racism. I don't see racism anywhere in my life. I see dumb, ill informed, ignorant people, sure. But they don't have to be racists. 60 years ago it was normal. Claiming a vote for some far right politics is the same as racism is wrong. It can be correct, but there are also other reasons for voting far right. or right in general.
It looks to me like you think it's only discrimination if someone openly and knowingly discriminates. That's indeed fairly rare today (although @JPRouve had a good point on support for openly racist parties). But I think that you are thus completely overlooking unconscious bias as a factor in society - while it is in fact a huge factor. It's the sort of thing that stops people from hiring women or non-white because 'the candidate doesn't feel right', 'maybe wouldn't fit the team as well', or 'doesn't give the right vibe from their CV'. Or it leads people to abandon career paths, because they keep receiving only lukewarm support from supervisor who 'don't really see it in them' and ask 'is this what you really want?' It's these vague statements where people can't quite put their finger on it, but something's off, and let's go with this other person.

That's why people seek different career paths; people of East-Asian origin are not naturally more predisposed to working in science and information technology, and black people are not naturally more athletic. (Genetically, this is impossible. Race is literally skin-deep, and no more. See here, for example.) That doesn't mean that I think everybody is capable of the same things and should want the same things. But capability and career wishes now run along clear societal fault lines (gender, ethnicity, disability), and that makes no sense in terms of human genetics. (For if those fault lines are correct, you would have to assume genetic characteristics behind them.)

My impression, then, is that you would not count these dynamics as discrimination because they are unconscious (your 'dumb, ill-informed, ignorant people'). But this very much is discrimination, cause it results in discrimination. What else could we call it? Unfortunately, unconscious bias cannot always be proven very clearly and explicitly, and that's why statistics matter. If a social group is strongly present at one level and does not exist the next level up, it is possible that there is something practical that these people have just never learned; but that's rare. Unconscious bias (which does not just inform decisions from people hiring, but also societal pressures to do X and not Y) is the more likely factor. (I did a quick search; if you're curious here are some links on the definition of unconscious bias, some science and examples, and how this can work out in the workplace.)

The thing is, though, that people are not born with these biases. They develop them because they exist in society, and so people 'grow into' them. That means that, if you don't do anything about it, unconscious biases would only disappear very slowly, as small percentages of each generation slowly wise up. But if change is imposed (quote for women, non-whites, etc.), it will be clear more quickly to more people that the unconscious bias is unfounded, and change can happen more quickly.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,724
Location
France
No. I can't tell you 10, 5, 1% of the population is racist. There is no evidence for or against such a claim. There is racism. I don't see racism anywhere in my life. I see dumb, ill informed, ignorant people, sure. But they don't have to be racists. 60 years ago it was normal. Claiming a vote for some far right politics is the same as racism is wrong. It can be correct, but there are also other reasons for voting far right. or right in general..

Also, racism has a definition. If you change it, you have to let those you talk to know about it. Give me an example of racist policy these 10% are voting for. And then, even if you can show this, find some other political opinion in this group you claim to be racist and see if that can explain the same thing insted of racism
That's pure obfuscation, you make claims about the non existence of racism in the west, admit that you have no proof of it, don't bring even the beginning of a tangible explanation and ask me to give you more proof than people voting for on openly racist party. Also no one told you that it was normal today, I told you that it wasn't non existent and fairly mainstream in politics.

Now regarding FN, I will give you the example of the "Grand Remplacement" which is a theory that specifically targets North Africans and muslims and oppose to their immigration or the idea that they come to a new neighbourhood in particular businesses because there is supposedly a great replacement going on, theorized by Renaud Camus around 2010. On Le Pen father, he believes in the inequality of races and FN believes/believed in the superiority of the whites and french culture over others, on that topic in 2016 the CNDCH estimated that 8% of french believe that certain races are superior to others.

I won't mention their links to the GUD, Fdsouch, Bloc Identitaire and various french neo nazis groups.
 

nimic

Curvy gay
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
20,472
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
I have to excuse myself, there's too many to properly respond to now.

I mean wtf. Really. Nazism! Are we killing Jews again now?
The Nazis weren't killing Jews until they started killing Jews either. They too were dismissed as clowns who you shouldn't take seriously, who would be controlled by the proper conservatives and moderates. Did you miss the rally where white supremacists were chanting "Jews will not replace us", and the President of the US said there were good people on both sides? Or the several far-right terrorist plots that have been foiled in the US in the Trump era? Or even recently, when the President of the US told far-right street toughs to "stand back and stand by" in the election, after again and again implying he would not necessarily accept a peaceful transfer of power?

You're either blind or ignorant if you don't think the American far-right is growing in numbers and threat.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
Sorry, what do you mean? I am saying that it's a strawman argument to refer back to humanity's long history to indicate that changes in discrimination are happening really quickly, because change could only start happening in the last century or so, as discrimination was accepted thinking before that. How do I introduce my own strawman there?

If that works better for you, let's do this without the strawman bit: I don't think humanity's long history matters in this context, as discrimination was accepted thinking until just over a century ago. Change could have only happened since then, so its pace is not quick, it's quite slow. Plus there is a clear lack of 'walking the talk': if people in leading positions who disavow discrimination of any kind were serious about that, we'd see much more change. (A lot of change has to be forced to install a new normal in society - like requesting a certain percentage of women and men on board's of companies that are on stock exchanges.)

I think your following comments all belong together:



It looks to me like you think it's only discrimination if someone openly and knowingly discriminates. That's indeed fairly rare today (although @JPRouve had a good point on support for openly racist parties). But I think that you are thus completely overlooking unconscious bias as a factor in society - while it is in fact a huge factor. It's the sort of thing that stops people from hiring women or non-white because 'the candidate doesn't feel right', 'maybe wouldn't fit the team as well', or 'doesn't give the right vibe from their CV'. Or it leads people to abandon career paths, because they keep receiving only lukewarm support from supervisor who 'don't really see it in them' and ask 'is this what you really want?' It's these vague statements where people can't quite put their finger on it, but something's off, and let's go with this other person.

That's why people seek different career paths; people of East-Asian origin are not naturally more predisposed to working in science and information technology, and black people are not naturally more athletic. (Genetically, this is impossible. Race is literally skin-deep, and no more. See here, for example.) That doesn't mean that I think everybody is capable of the same things and should want the same things. But capability and career wishes now run along clear societal fault lines (gender, ethnicity, disability), and that makes no sense in terms of human genetics. (For if those fault lines are correct, you would have to assume genetic characteristics behind them.)

My impression, then, is that you would not count these dynamics as discrimination because they are unconscious (your 'dumb, ill-informed, ignorant people'). But this very much is discrimination, cause it results in discrimination. What else could we call it? Unfortunately, unconscious bias cannot always be proven very clearly and explicitly, and that's why statistics matter. If a social group is strongly present at one level and does not exist the next level up, it is possible that there is something practical that these people have just never learned; but that's rare. Unconscious bias (which does not just inform decisions from people hiring, but also societal pressures to do X and not Y) is the more likely factor. (I did a quick search; if you're curious here are some links on the definition of unconscious bias, some science and examples, and how this can work out in the workplace.)

The thing is, though, that people are not born with these biases. They develop them because they exist in society, and so people 'grow into' them. That means that, if you don't do anything about it, unconscious biases would only disappear very slowly, as small percentages of each generation slowly wise up. But if change is imposed (quote for women, non-whites, etc.), it will be clear more quickly to more people that the unconscious bias is unfounded, and change can happen more quickly.
That's 663 words :(

My argument was 60 years is a blink of an eye in terms of the timescale. The point wasn’t “see where we are now, it was much worse 200.000 years ago” obviously…, rather now vs 60/200/2000 years ago. Emphasis on 60. In the west there has been a complete turnaround in backward thinking in that time period. This type of thing don’t happen in a generation. It happens in generations.

I’d argue change is rapid. Unprecedented, in fact. The last 75 years have seen change never paralleled in history. I might be in favour of some sort of quota in higher positions. But I am very undecided. It has to be competence in the end deciding.

Discrimination is a real thing. Unconscious or not. Bias is ever present, every decision we take. But to claim discrimination, just because, I’m not sure, it exists? I don’t agree with that. Me hiring someone to work with, every day, I promise you I will have a bias on type of person. That do not equal discrimination. Discrimination and bias are two vastly different concepts in my head.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
That's pure obfuscation, you make claims about the non existence of racism in the west, admit that you have no proof of it, don't bring even the beginning of a tangible explanation and ask me to give you more proof than people voting for on openly racist party. Also no one told you that it was normal today, I told you that it wasn't non existent and fairly mainstream in politics.

Now regarding FN, I will give you the example of the "Grand Remplacement" which is a theory that specifically targets North Africans and muslims and oppose to their immigration or the idea that they come to a new neighbourhood in particular businesses because there is supposedly a great replacement going on, theorized by Renaud Camus around 2010. On Le Pen father, he believes in the inequality of races and FN believes/believed in the superiority of the whites and french culture over others, on that topic in 2016 the CNDCH estimated that 8% of french believe that certain races are superior to others.

I won't mention their links to the GUD, Fdsouch, Bloc Identitaire and various french neo nazis groups.
Obfuscation, that’s a big, strong word! I never said it’s non-existent, but fine I’ll let you have it and I’ll backtrack. It even was a dumb and random thing to say. I promise you it’s not the last time it happens. 8% is about the population of Denmark or Norway, all being racist in France? Seems a bit much to be honest, but yes, that is not non existent. Consider distribution of intelligence in any population. 10-15% will be below, like at the bottom, (and above) the “average”. That is a scary number. Drive down the street tomorrow and think about that number. Or do anything involving some risk with a group of strangers involved.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
The Nazis weren't killing Jews until they started killing Jews either. They too were dismissed as clowns who you shouldn't take seriously, who would be controlled by the proper conservatives and moderates. Did you miss the rally where white supremacists were chanting "Jews will not replace us", and the President of the US said there were good people on both sides? Or the several far-right terrorist plots that have been foiled in the US in the Trump era? Or even recently, when the President of the US told far-right street toughs to "stand back and stand by" in the election, after again and again implying he would not necessarily accept a peaceful transfer of power?

You're either blind or ignorant if you don't think the American far-right is growing in numbers and threat.
You should watch it.. the rest of your post, nazis and what not. bleh
 

UweBein

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
2,452
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
But most forms of discrimination have long been accepted. Look at the 19th century: a lot of white men openly considered women and non-whites inferior. In that climate, you cannot expect change. So the 200,000-years timeline is a strawman argument, in my view. Only in the last few decades have the tides on those opinions definitely turned. But the actual reversal of discrimination in practice is lagging far behind. People aren't walking the talk. So yes, I do think change is coming far too slowly.


I think that, in your examples, you are looking too much for explicit discrimination. A lot of discrimination, however, plays out on a subtler, societal level.

Consider coding: my pre-teen daughter currently loves to code: there are kids websites to learn coding, and she can spend hours on that. But as she grows older, she will experience a society where coders are nearly exclusively men, and where women are supposed to have different interests. This will shape her opinion on coding, and she might shift into something else. (As much as we might try to not let these things influence her.)

Or top jobs: the social environment at the top of many companies is very male-centric, in the sense that people are expected to have personality characteristics that are more common in men and that social forms often focus on behaviour most common among men. The argument 'do women really want it' does not consider that, and thus enters the discussion one stage too late. As a result, rather than considering whether the work climate is appropriate for all of humanity, the argument implicitly accepts that it's a white-man's world (pretty much saying 'it's just like that, what can you do?'), and takes it from there.

(Obviously, these are not cases of racism, but other types of discrimination; but I think the societal dynamics are the same.)
Great post.

As for the job market - there is still widespread discrimination of all kinds. I have worked in hiring across Europe... and the stories are the same. In Spain they prefer Spanish candidates, in England English candidates, in Sweden the Swedish candidates, in France they prefer the French candidates (and someone from Marseille automatically qualifies as non-French)... etc. Discrimination against women is still there, but there are some companies that have significantly changed that trend. Discrimination against ethnic minorities is still at the highest level.
 

nimic

Curvy gay
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
20,472
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
You should watch it.. the rest of your post, nazis and what not. bleh
Did you mean to post a video where Trump's answer to the question about "both sides" is to talk about how violent the left is, or was that a mistake? Because it seems you just made my point for me.

the rest of your post, nazis and what not. bleh
You're a true wordsmith.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,724
Location
France
Obfuscation, that’s a big, strong word! I never said it’s non-existent, but fine I’ll let you have it and I’ll backtrack. It even was a dumb and random thing to say. I promise you it’s not the last time it happens. 8% is about the population of Denmark or Norway, all being racist in France? Seems a bit much to be honest, but yes, that is not non existent. Consider distribution of intelligence in any population. 10-15% will be below, like at the bottom, (and above) the “average”. That is a scary number. Drive down the street tomorrow and think about that number. Or do anything involving some risk with a group of strangers involved.
You said that it's near non-existent which is wrong. The rest of your post is again obfuscation which isn't a big word but the one describing what you are doing in this post. I don't have to consider any level of intelligence, someone very smart can be a racist as can someone really dumb, it's an irrelevant point to make in a conversation about the existence of racism in the west. Also why would I care about the population of Denmark or Norway, it's a useless point to make would you apply that same logic to the population of China?
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
Did you mean to post a video where Trump's answer to the question about "both sides" is to talk about how violent the left is, or was that a mistake? Because it seems you just made my point for me.



You're a true wordsmith.
I assumed your comment about good people on both sides was just that. Not how violent the left is. I don't pride myself as a wordsmith. I try to articulate thoughts the best I can. It's not always easy. Apologies if I leave you wanting more.. I'm sure we wont have big disagreements concerning Trump. Lets just leave it here?
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
You said that it's near non-existent which is wrong. The rest of your post is again obfuscation which isn't a big word but the one describing what you are doing in this post. I don't have to consider any level of intelligence, someone very smart can be a racist as can someone really dumb, it's an irrelevant point to make in a conversation about the existence of racism in the west. Also why would I care about the population of Denmark or Norway, it's a useless point to make would you apply that same logic to the population of China?
I'm not sure what's left to argue here. I'm pretty sure I conceded whatever points you made. Except maybe the size of words, but I'll leave you to your opinion on that. Should we end this?
 

Cheimoon

Up-and-comer
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,724
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
That's 663 words :(

My argument was 60 years is a blink of an eye in terms of the timescale. The point wasn’t “see where we are now, it was much worse 200.000 years ago” obviously…, rather now vs 60/200/2000 years ago. Emphasis on 60. In the west there has been a complete turnaround in backward thinking in that time period. This type of thing don’t happen in a generation. It happens in generations.

I’d argue change is rapid. Unprecedented, in fact. The last 75 years have seen change never paralleled in history. I might be in favour of some sort of quota in higher positions. But I am very undecided. It has to be competence in the end deciding.

Discrimination is a real thing. Unconscious or not. Bias is ever present, every decision we take. But to claim discrimination, just because, I’m not sure, it exists? I don’t agree with that. Me hiring someone to work with, every day, I promise you I will have a bias on type of person. That do not equal discrimination. Discrimination and bias are two vastly different concepts in my head.
Sorry, short-winded isn't really my thing. :)

I think a full reply to your post would take us in circles, so I'll make a few short comments and then I'll leave it at that. So:
  • 'Competence deciding': if you are not aware of your unconscious biases, then the first step in your decision-making process (weeding out candidates) will largely be based on discrimination. See my earlier posts, and @UweBein's just above. The competence argument is indeed what stops women from reaching top positions; and there is a library of research showing that it's nonsense in terms of actual capacities.
  • You are right that bias is not discrimination; bias is a mindset, discrimination is an action. But bias is the mindset that leads to discrimination. I mean, what else is discrimination based on, if not on biases (synonym in this context: stereotypes) regarding population groups.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
Sorry, short-winded isn't really my thing. :)

I think a full reply to your post would take us in circles, so I'll make a few short comments and then I'll leave it at that. So:
  • 'Competence deciding': if you are not aware of your unconscious biases, then the first step in your decision-making process (weeding out candidates) will largely be based on discrimination. See my earlier posts, and @UweBein's just above. The competence argument is indeed what stops women from reaching top positions; and there is a library of research showing that it's nonsense in terms of actual capacities.
  • You are right that bias is not discrimination; bias is a mindset, discrimination is an action. But bias is the mindset that leads to discrimination. I mean, what else is discrimination based on, if not on biases (synonym in this context: stereotypes) regarding population groups.
The meaning of words, but I'm sure we agree more than one might think.

I have no argument against the competence of women. Or any other group.

I'll keep my ever changing biases though :)
 

Redplane

Full Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
7,243
Location
The Royal Kingdom of Trumpistan


They didn't seem to be humiliated as they happily passed out signed copies of the photo to people.
How to get rich(er) in America :

1. Be a massive asshole about something that can be spun politically
2. Wait for media blitz
3. Embrace the crazies agreeing with your "right" to be an asshole. Profit.
3. When 3 starts running dry - start complaining how hard your life has been because you were an asshole
4. Wait for people to come to you who think you developed a conscience. Profit.