Synco
Lucio's #1 Fan
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2014
- Messages
- 6,459
I'm sure others will.I'm not sure I understand
I'm sure others will.I'm not sure I understand
I'm sure that's kind of you. I wouldn't know.. carry onI'm sure others will.
Will you just feck off from here...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?
What are you on about? When I tried to have a discussion you ignored it.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.
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.
Wow. That is hilarious and close to unforgiving. Sorry!What are you on about? When I tried to have a discussion you ignored it.
Feel exceptionally stupid here, so just going to concede to you. I'm in agreement to most of that!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.
Fair play, it's not often you see people online (well, anywhere really) concede a point.Feel exceptionally stupid here, so just going to concede to you. I'm in agreement to most of that!
I literally got nothingFair play, it's not often you see people online (well, anywhere really) concede a point.
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?Is this a strategy? Claim strawman, then use strawman. It happens over and over in these discussions
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.
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.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.
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.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
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?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?
That's 663 wordsSorry, 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.
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.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.
You should watch it.. the rest of your post, nazis and what not. blehThe 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.
Great post.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.)
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 should watch it.. the rest of your post, nazis and what not. bleh
You're a true wordsmith.the rest of your post, nazis and what not. bleh
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?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.
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?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'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?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?
Sorry, short-winded isn't really my thing.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.
The meaning of words, but I'm sure we agree more than one might think.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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How to get rich(er) in America :
In other news, city investigation confirms ice is frozen water.NYPD used excessive force during George Floyd protests, city investigation finds
NEW YORK - The New York Police Department used excessive force during the wave of protests across the city this summer against police brutality and racism, according to a report published on Friday morning by New York City’s Department of Investigation.Mayor Bill de Blasio asked for the investigation in May as social media became deluged with cellphone videos showing police officers dousing protesters, elected officials and journalists with chemical irritants, shoving and hitting them while they struggled on the ground and, in one instance, driving police vehicles into them.The report said the NYPD’s response was excessive in part because most police officers involved had not received “relevant training” in policing protests.“The NYPD’s use of force and certain crowd control tactics to respond to the Floyd protests produced excessive enforcement that contributed to heightened tensions,” the Department of Investigation said in the executive summary of its 111-page report.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ge-floyd-protests-city-investigation-n1251688
Report PDF: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2020/DOIRpt.NYPD Reponse. GeorgeFloyd Protests.12.18.2020.pdf
Yes it didn't come as the most shocking news.In other news, city investigation confirms ice is frozen water.
I figured it was huge from photos of people on the street during recent protests, but I didn't realize it was that well aligned with the White House. Well done.I was just wasting a bit of time looking at satellite shots of monuments, and saw this:
I knew that 'Black Lives Matter' had been painted onto the street. But I didn't realise it was visible on Google Maps.
I thought it was pretty cool that you could actually see an unfolding current event from space.
Google Maps isn’t showing ours yet.I was just wasting a bit of time looking at satellite shots of monuments, and saw this:
I knew that 'Black Lives Matter' had been painted onto the street. But I didn't realise it was visible on Google Maps.
I thought it was pretty cool that you could actually see an unfolding current event from space.