Is it wrong to be racist?

[stepmanias]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

I can't stand how the white man is always portrayed as some heartless monster thats always picking on the poor black man or mexican etc. Where i'm from black people always make the assumption that just because you're white they can rip you off on drugs or that you're just a pushover pansy in general. Racism goes both ways, if you're going to stereotype white people then don't get mad when they do the same in return

but yeah judging a person just by the color of their skin is pretty ****ed

[Iam90]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

in middle of 2006 4.6% (+/- .1% i might be forgetting) of black men were in prison whereas .7% of whites were in prison

u might say But dude there poor!

24% of black people are under the poverty line

8% of white people are under the poverty line

7x as many blacks in prison
3x as many poor blacks

thats a bit of a discrepancy man

i dont look at every black person walking on the street and think theyre gonna steal my tv but sitting back and looking at it from a macro standpoint theres somethin goin on there

the relationship between poverty and probability of incarceration could be exponential to account for that discrepancy lol

[fido123]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

I think "modern black culture" could be responsible for that gap. A lot of rap music and rappers are always sending the message to "**** da popo" and having a "thug life" makes you cool or some ****. I see it all the time, especially in my private school where brown Indians thought this also applied to them and got all up in the "livin in the hood" bs although they went to a $10'000/yr school and usually lived in some awesome house. They would steal, get into fights, and all sorts of ****. Again, this DOES NOT in any way apply to all black people, I just find a lot tend to stick to this and I don't know if this is why there's that gap, but it makes me wonder.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

"Their situation at home might tell a different story though so instead of helping disadvantaged black kids why can't we just help disadvantaged kids?"

^This is a rather Utopian view.

The "obvious" solution is to simply give everyone the same access to resources so that everyone has the same shots at success. Give all the black kids the same sort of educational exposures that the white kids have, etc.

The problem is that you can't do this until you take care of everything that has happened up until the point you start offering equal opportunities. Much of it stems from home life, lack of funding, political pressures, information asymmetry, improper targeting, scaling effects, etc. But it's not as simple as "targeting disadvantaged people" as a way to eliminate racism in the end. If it were that easy, we wouldn't really see this as such a prevalent issue today.

I am saying that I agree with your views from a moralistic standpoint (and with Reach in terms of statistics). But you guys have to understand that the problem lies in the execution and practice. You guys are all approaching the subject from a noble standpoint, but it's a standpoint that a lot of people push forth as an "obviously correct" solution. It may be true in theory, but it just isn't that simple. Much of it, as I've stated throughout this thread, is an issue because there are certain truths behind racial differences that make it extremely difficult to reconcile the problems correctly.

[fido123]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

I don't understand how it's a Utopian view, but I understand it isn't an easy task, and I don't think a system that works will really ever be put in place especially when you look at how useless most of our politicians are in North America (in my opinion at least). I still don't understand in that last post where you're supporting your point. I still honestly don't see any reason why people should target people by race instead of the factors that are actively putting them at a disadvantage like you listed off.

If my views are seeming a bit Utopian, it might be because I'm just focusing on how to target people, rather than how to help them which I know is a near impossible task.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Perhaps we're in general agreement and mincing semantics/ideas or something. Eliminating racism isn't solvable by just targeting poor people and giving everyone equal access. There are fundamental issues that are largely inherent on a racial basis that cannot be merely handwaved away.

[Cavernio]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

"I.e. You help upper class blacks while hindering lower class whites."

In some cases, yes, but I'm guessing the more likely scenarios are that you help lower class blacks compared to upper class whites, which is its whole purpose I'm guessing. If, in general, you aren't helping impoverished people more than the unimpoverished, then the plan must be failing terribly. However, I'm also guessing that if we could figure out to some degree of certainty if its working as planned, that we have the resources to actually make it work so that it would be targeting the more general impoverished community.

Regarding aboriginal rights and issues, there's a whole can of worms in there that are only loosely connected to the topic of this thread, and I will say that, unpopular and as seemingly unlike me to hold such a position, aboriginals in canada at least, should be fully canadian. The past is the past. (Although the canadian government won't allow for a single unifying government or voice from all the aboriginals, or so I've heard.)

However, I see what Fido said in his last post is the basic stance I hear all the time. 'You have the opportunity to change, if you want to succeed, you can in our world, so if you aren't succeeding, clearly its all your own fault.' And all the counter arguments against such thought is that the world isn't fair, some people simply by the fact that they were born into poverty, have a much harder and further struggle than people who aren't, and it is only fair to try and equalize the playing field whenever possible. To equalize the playing field by using race as a measure because it correlates with poverty has its problems, but I think it is the better choice than to ignore the inequalities. And I suppose its a lot easier to check off a box stating your race than it is to delve into who really is the most disadvantaged.
[I'm not sure why you assume aboriginals with degrees don't live on reserves though, or they've somehow severed their ties to their original communities and their family. My use of the word 'aboriginal' is specifically for a person who lives in canada but aren't actually canadian because they live on a reserve. They most certainly do not live like aboriginals did 200 years ago, nor do I think most of them want to. Currently, many reserves have incredibly high suicide rates for teenagers, and are full of substance abuse ranging from cocaine to gasoline and other run-of-the-mill items that you can get high off of while you're still a kid. They're canada's slums, and have been since the 1940's when my parents were kids, and they're not getting any better.]

Ideally, I will agree that we should give people jobs and things on the basis of how good that person will do at the job. But that doesn't happen on a large scale unless there's large-scale intervention to make it happen that way, and it also ignores the fact that what society says is good or not is not necessarily good. There are countless reasons why qualified people aren't hired; they were trained outside the country, they have a criminal record, they've done drugs, they aren't a family member, they have a disability that would require them to miss more than the average amount of work, they weren't as physically attractive as the person who interviewed before them. And all these are irrelevant of their race, and some of these reasons are government supported.

I guess most of my post is not really on-topic, oh well.

[Cavernio]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

"I still honestly don't see any reason why people should target people by race instead of the factors that are actively putting them at a disadvantage like you listed off."

Yeah yeah, I said this in my huge block of text already, but to address it specifically, its easy to put a check-box on a form that says caucasian, black, hispanic, other. Its hard and time consuming to ask a barrage of questions to figure out who is most in need of the job.

[Reach]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

I am saying that I agree with your views from a moralistic standpoint (and with Reach in terms of statistics). But you guys have to understand that the problem lies in the execution and practice. You guys are all approaching the subject from a noble standpoint, but it's a standpoint that a lot of people push forth as an "obviously correct" solution. It may be true in theory, but it just isn't that simple. Much of it, as I've stated throughout this thread, is an issue because there are certain truths behind racial differences that make it extremely difficult to reconcile the problems correctly.

I do understand the problem lies in execution and practice. My point is more or less that we should not introduce systems such as AA which are, on basic theoretical grounds, a complete failure, especially when they run the risk of creating additional complications (I suggested some earlier).


I'm not claiming to have any answers to this problem. If it was easy to solve we would have solved it already. I'm merely claiming the current solution is blatantly incorrect.


I haven't read the whole thread, only parts of it, but nobody has even brought up one of the cruxes of this problem that has historically stirred more debate than anything else: The racial achievement gap appears not only in every standardized educational assessment but also equally in magnitude in every assessment of aptitude, e.g. IQ. In addition to this, every historical attempt to ameliorate these gaps has failed. Even drastic measures such as adoption into wealthy families has no effect on these gaps.

Nobody knows why they exist, but they surely tie into this issue critically and stir up a hell of a lot of debate.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Much of this thread is trollbait so don't get too much into the rest of the thread, haha.

Regarding your last point though, it's basically been implicit in much of the argument put forth so far, unless you're referring to something else that I am misunderstanding? The trends have always been pretty clear in terms of the achievement gaps, and the explanations behind them have (in my opinion) been pretty straightforward.

[Reach]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Much of this thread is trollbait so don't get too much into the rest of the thread, haha.

Regarding your last point though, it's basically been implicit in much of the argument put forth so far, unless you're referring to something else that I am misunderstanding? The trends have always been pretty clear in terms of the achievement gaps, and the explanations behind them have (in my opinion) been pretty straightforward.

Well, it is implicit, but the aptitude gap brings up an issue that hasn't been discussed, unless i haven't read enough of the thread. It probably shouldn't be discussed by the majority of people here though, since it's a sensitive issue.

But, there are well documented hereditary links to aptitudes such as IQ.

Which begs to question whether there are genetic differences between racial groups that could be exacerbating current trends.

If this is the case it would be impossible to ever fix the achievement gap.

(To prevent the potential for any slandering, I am not espousing the belief that racial differences are entirely causally the result of genetic differences. To be clear, there is actually no evidence that this would be the case.)

[fido123]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

However, I see what Fido said in his last post is the basic stance I hear all the time. 'You have the opportunity to change, if you want to succeed, you can in our world, so if you aren't succeeding, clearly its all your own fault.' And all the counter arguments against such thought is that the world isn't fair, some people simply by the fact that they were born into poverty, have a much harder and further struggle than people who aren't, and it is only fair to try and equalize the playing field whenever possible.

Sorry I thought I was clear on this. I agree that people born into an impoverished life have it harder, but I don't think we should simply hand things over to them more easily. At most I'd only like to see people taking into consideration how much harder it was for them to get what qualifications they have, and see that as initiative but that's it. It's simply judging the merits of a person and how well you think they will preform as an employee. I agree with everything else you said except why not just look at their annual income bracket instead of race? Just as easy.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Okay, but therein lies the issue.

So we can acknowledge that someone from a poorer background has it harder. What then? We can judge someone's merits and see that it was harder for them to achieve a certain level of qualification, but again, what then? At the end of the day we still need to DO something with these observations.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Well, it is implicit, but the aptitude gap brings up an issue that hasn't been discussed, unless i haven't read enough of the thread. It probably shouldn't be discussed by the majority of people here though, since it's a sensitive issue.

But, there are well documented hereditary links to aptitudes such as IQ.

Which begs to question whether there are genetic differences between racial groups that could be exacerbating current trends.

If this is the case it would be impossible to ever fix the achievement gap.

(To prevent the potential for any slandering, I am not espousing the belief that racial differences are entirely causally the result of genetic differences. To be clear, there is actually no evidence that this would be the case.)

How were these gaps evaluated? I can see the explanation as being easy to see if, say, we are looking at children raised in certain families. If we gauge the IQ of a black kid raised in a black family (opportunities, resources, and parenting inclusive), on average we should expect a different result than if we gauged an Asian kid's IQ when that child was raised in an Asian family (opportunities, resources, and parenting inclusive). But I would expect certain results if we raised, say, a black kid in an Asian household and vice-versa (assuming comparable genetic health beforehand).

Otherwise, the only genetic differences I can think of would be the result of natural selection, but I question whether or not enough time has passed for that kind of progression to be substantial (natural selection being rich/power surviving over the poor/unintelligent dying out from inability to leverage resources as readily), but this would still result from a sort of "artificial selection" through humans in a sort of sick, morbid way (considering that during slavery, people were intentionally kept "dumb," and intelligence was often punished, even by death).

[fido123]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Okay, but therein lies the issue.

So we can acknowledge that someone from a poorer background has it harder. What then? We can judge someone's merits and see that it was harder for them to achieve a certain level of qualification, but again, what then? At the end of the day we still need to DO something with these observations.

I understand that, I'm just saying going about it by hiring unqualified minorities isn't the way to go about it. It's a hard question to answer. What can you do?