The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: arebelspy on April 07, 2014, 08:55:44 PM
-
One of the tenets of my generation is the idea to not judge, and many of us have bought into this idea.
The NYT had an interesting Op-Ed piece on this called "My So-Called Opinion (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/my-so-called-opinion/)" (Try this cached page (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Aopinionator.blogs.nytimes.com%2F2014%2F04%2F06%2Fmy-so-called-opinion%2F) if it's asking you to log in).
Snippet:
By “pluralism,” I mean a cultural recognition of difference: individuals of varying race, gender, religious affiliation, politics and sexual preference, all exalted as equal. In recent decades, pluralism has come to be an ethical injunction, one that calls for people to peacefully accept and embrace, not simply tolerate, differences among individuals. Distinct from the free-for-all of relativism, pluralism encourages us (in concept) to support our own convictions while also upholding an “energetic engagement with diversity, ” as Harvard’s Pluralism Project suggested in 1991.
I'm curious what other Mustachians think of the piece, especially in light of the "don't judge" being a viewpoint we see a lot here on the forums.
Here's a post, for example, from a few minutes ago:
It is truly different for everyone & all of us (including myself) should never judge what is important to others as long as people are living within their means & saving $. If that is not happening then judge away!!
My "Kitten Killing YouTube" business* is definitely allowing me to live within my means, so thanks for not judging! ;)
*No animals were harmed in the making of this satire.
-
I think that the younger generations are better at not judging then baby boomers (me) & my parents generation (WWII). My 3 kids are definitely better at it then me. My oldest son & his wife are educated but tend to work for a few years & then travel for a year. They are very frugal-travel frugally (more then I want too) but are happy with their lives. I never judge them but others have including my parents because they are not living a typical life. Actually none of my kids although well educated are following the traditional path which I am fine with. I never interfere as my parents did not interfere with us. It will be interesting to see how things turn out and if they are happy in retrospect with their decisions. I think they will be as they are not into things as much as experiences. Now as I am older I am definitely into experiences versus things. My kids range in age from 34-40. My oldest son's wife is from Poland and is very grounded financially. I think that has much to do with the culture although she says many in that culture are as big of spendthrifts as in the USA. I am glad that they are following their dreams.
-
Of the things I'd like to teach my kids, high on the list is "the ability to make good decisions in the face of limited or excessive information." In other words, making good judgments. To that end, the more one exercises the judgment process the better one is likely to judge. So I think people do a great disservice to themselves when they decline to judge.
Complementary to the above discussion, however, is the tact one ought to have when deciding what opinions to voice and when to voice them. Pedantry is not a useful behavior. Helping others ignore noise and concentrate on the truly important - that's useful.
-
In general avoiding passing judgment on unchangeable factors of someones being is a positive attribute. To judge someone based on the color of their skin or cultural background or handicap isn't just poor behavior - there is also no way to positively act on such a judgment- judged or not one cannot change their basic physical being. So I'm in agreement with the statement that judging "individuals of varying race, gender, religious affiliation, politics and sexual preference" is generally unhelpful. Embracing the Fact that there the world and most of our communities are made up of different religions, races and sexual preferences seems both prudent and a constructive way to live.
However, Judging others behavior and actions is a very helpful and constructive trait. From judging positive MMM traits like consuming less, worrying less and making the world a better place for you and your family to negative traits like aggression, conspicuous consumption or drink driving these judgments are the key to navigating society and fostering positive interactions. The mention of religion is interesting here- based on my interactions it seems that even thought someone's religion can change the more important thing to judge is how they act- are they a kind and loving Muslim, are they a fire and brimstone Christian or a bigoted Atheist? The sum of the actions should be judged not the title one takes on (thought sometimes it is a good indicator).
SO- I'd say - don't judge what someone looks like, judge their actions.
-
Interesting post pka. I'll have to think about that.
Thank you.
-
We anxiously avoid casting moral judgment. Because with absolute truths elusive, what claims do we have to insist that our moral positions are better than those of someone from a different nation or culture?
Quote from the article.
I think there is a difference between critical analysis and judgementalism regarding difference ( whether that be with regard to nationality, culture, religion, sexuality, skin colour etc).
However due to the above anxiety, critical analysis may be avoided out of fear of seeming judgemental. I think this may be a problem for millenials, if the net result is to turn their brains off because they feel they are not allowed to have either an emotional or cognitive response.
-
From my brief time here, the people seem a bit cliquish, and yes, they do judge. Whenever I've tried to introduce a new concept, they're quick to pile on and label me black or white, rather than being open to shades of gray.
-
So I'm in agreement with the statement that judging "individuals of varying race, gender, religious affiliation, politics and sexual preference" is generally unhelpful.
Huh, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that religion and politics are totally something a person can change. What's next, are we going to give consumerism a pass just because it often rises to the level of religion in this country?
-
Doesn't face punch = judgment?
-
In general avoiding passing judgment on unchangeable factors of someones being is a positive attribute. To judge someone based on the color of their skin or cultural background or handicap isn't just poor behavior - there is also no way to positively act on such a judgment- judged or not one cannot change their basic physical being. So I'm in agreement with the statement that judging "individuals of varying race, gender, religious affiliation, politics and sexual preference" is generally unhelpful. Embracing the Fact that there the world and most of our communities are made up of different religions, races and sexual preferences seems both prudent and a constructive way to live.
However, Judging others behavior and actions is a very helpful and constructive trait. From judging positive MMM traits like consuming less, worrying less and making the world a better place for you and your family to negative traits like aggression, conspicuous consumption or drink driving these judgments are the key to navigating society and fostering positive interactions. The mention of religion is interesting here- based on my interactions it seems that even thought someone's religion can change the more important thing to judge is how they act- are they a kind and loving Muslim, are they a fire and brimstone Christian or a bigoted Atheist? The sum of the actions should be judged not the title one takes on (thought sometimes it is a good indicator).
SO- I'd say - don't judge what someone looks like, judge their actions.
(Thanks for the question arebelspy - it represents some nice meat (or lentils) to chew on first thing in the morning).
Hey PKA, I like your take on this question and agree on the general framework.
To expand on your thoughts about judging or being critical through this article quote:
This assured expression of “I like what I like,” when strained through pluralist-inspired critical inquiry, deteriorates: “I like what I like” becomes “But why do I like what I like? Should I like what I like? Do I like it because someone else wants me to like it? If so, who profits and who suffers from my liking what I like?” and finally, “I am not sure I like what I like anymore.” For a number of us millennials, commitment to even seemingly simple aesthetic judgments have become shot through with indecision.
I am by nature argumentative - typically in the face of poorly constructed logic, tainted with biased views, resulting in porous conclusions. I wish I was more pure in my approach to argument in the face of these situations - by avoiding the numerous pitfalls; outlined nicely in YANSS or YANLD . While a laudable a goal it may be, it is largely unobtainable to avoid myself and to consistently detect in others. We are all flawed by believing the small amount of information we hold on any given topic or view is not only the reality, but forms the kernel of belief in others. Judgement of others based on their beliefs or actions in combination with your own knowlege on a given topic is not surprisingly a ground ripe for ridiculous arguments.
I think the Internet and its age of information (misinformation) is a fascinating experiment in progress. Its ability to spawn extremely awesome groupthink, solutions and positive outcomes is limitless. But ridiculous groupstupidity has the equal ability to rapidly instill even more poorly constructed logic, biased views, and porous conclusions about the world around us.
Just look at the comments of the linked article in the OP.
-
So I'm in agreement with the statement that judging "individuals of varying race, gender, religious affiliation, politics and sexual preference" is generally unhelpful.
Huh, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that religion and politics are totally something a person can change. What's next, are we going to give consumerism a pass just because it often rises to the level of religion in this country?
Yes, I agree. We are all born into certain cultures. That does not give us a pass to be lazy and simply accept everything that we have been taught.
We are all flawed by believing the small amount of information we hold on any given topic or view is not only the reality, but forms the kernel of belief in others. Judgement of others based on their beliefs or actions in combination with your own knowledge on a given topic is not surprisingly a ground ripe for ridiculous arguments.
I think the Internet and its age of information (misinformation) is a fascinating experiment in progress. Its ability to spawn extremely awesome groupthink, solutions and positive outcomes is limitless. But ridiculous groupstupidity has the equal ability to rapidly instill even more poorly constructed logic, biased views, and porous conclusions about the world around us.
True.
-
We anxiously avoid casting moral judgment. Because with absolute truths elusive, what claims do we have to insist that our moral positions are better than those of someone from a different nation or culture?
Quote from the article.
I think there is a difference between critical analysis and judgementalism regarding difference ( whether that be with regard to nationality, culture, religion, sexuality, skin colour etc).
However due to the above anxiety, critical analysis may be avoided out of fear of seeming judgemental. I think this may be a problem for millenials, if the net result is to turn their brains off because they feel they are not allowed to have either an emotional or cognitive response.
(Emphasis added.)
But one would only be afraid to seem judgmental if being judgmental is a bad thing. No one is afraid of appearing affable.
The question is: Is being judgmental a bad thing? Your reply seems to inherently assume it is (or take for granted the fact that society as it is assumes it is).
The millennial being stuck in indecision is an extension that's not as interesting to me to discuss, and branches into other potential conflicting and conflated issues. The root of it through seems to start with the "accept, don't judge" philosophy.
SO- I'd say - don't judge what someone looks like, judge their actions.
After thinking about this more, it doesn't really help us out of the dilemma. It's fine and all, but our society, and the question I'm getting at, seems to say that pretty much all judging is bad.
Tribe in Africa does X - "Oh, that's a cultural thing, I shouldn't judge them" - there's a case where you say to judge their actions, many people of the younger generation wouldn't.
You say it's okay to judge an action. How about abortion? (This is obviously (unfortunately) going to get political, but hopefully people can not focus on the examples but the overall idea of "an action I don't agree with") Okay to judge for that? Okay to judge the action of one person kissing a member of the same sex? How about judging someone else for being a liberal arts major? For being a plumber? All okay?
are we going to give consumerism a pass just because it often rises to the level of religion in this country?
That's exactly the point - plenty of people would give that a pass. "Don't judge me for my spending, you don't know what I go through, etc. etc." The "walk a mile in their shoes" idea is great in theory for empathy, but was it taught too much? Because now it seems that yes, people are going to give a pass for nearly everything.
"Who am I to judge?"
-
This thread reminded me of a podcast I heard on Radiolab a few weeks ago, What's Left When You're Right: Lu vs. Soo
http://www.radiolab.org/story/lu-vs-soo/
-
This thread reminded me of a podcast I heard on Radiolab a few weeks ago, What's Left When You're Right: Lu vs. Soo
http://www.radiolab.org/story/lu-vs-soo/
Do you know if there is a transcript available anywhere?
Reading is much faster and more pleasurable than listening for me.
-
This thread reminded me of a podcast I heard on Radiolab a few weeks ago, What's Left When You're Right: Lu vs. Soo
http://www.radiolab.org/story/lu-vs-soo/
Do you know if there is a transcript available anywhere?
Reading is much faster and more pleasurable than listening for me.
Sorry, arebelspy. I don't know where to find a transcript. I did a quick Google search after reading your question...no luck. :(
-
Doesn't face punch = judgment?
I know! I have to laugh, I like facepunching but then I'm one of those judgey Boomers.
-
Sorry, arebelspy. I don't know where to find a transcript. I did a quick Google search after reading your question...no luck. :(
Okay. Well thank you for trying, that was nice. :)
-
Hmmm, my take on it is that for at least in the context of this forum judgement has to happen. We're directly asking for help, advice, and exchanging ideas. It'd be a pretty boring forum that had an eternal answer of "that's cool."
With that being said I do see the need for some aspects of culture to be unjudgeable. Much like pka mentioned some things are ok to judge others not. I don't know what that line is and I'm not as comfortable with drawing one.
So is being judgmental bad? No. It in of itself is not bad. It is just the conflict between your cultural values and someone/action who doesn't fit them. It is a test of does this block fit into my preconceived notion of what the square hole should be. Now sometimes those conflicts can bring harm and that harm is bad. But that scenario is very specific IMO, and even then I can imagine scenarios where judgement brings harm but may be appropriate.
But who am I to judge ;)
-
With that being said I do see the need for some aspects of culture to be unjudgeable. Much like pka mentioned some things are ok to judge others not. I don't know what that line is and I'm not as comfortable with drawing one.
Root into why you feel uncomfortable drawing that line, and I think you'll get closer to the heart of the question.
-
With that being said I do see the need for some aspects of culture to be unjudgeable. Much like pka mentioned some things are ok to judge others not. I don't know what that line is and I'm not as comfortable with drawing one.
Root into why you feel uncomfortable drawing that line, and I think you'll get closer to the heart of the question.
Hmm, after a *very* brief reflection it appears that my line is drawn once the action has the potential to harm someone else. The definition of "harm" though would be something to ponder, as indirect harm could be argued for just about any (in)action. I would assume that which types are harm are "worth" judging would depend on the values of the judger.
-
Root into why you feel uncomfortable drawing that line, and I think you'll get closer to the heart of the question.
I agree!
(my opinion alert): There should really only be true discomfort if/when you are criticising or judging with no basis in fact (ignorance is often ok - if you incorporate new information into your paradigm rather than exercise blatant confirmation bias). I think that anything else is fair game assuming it stays within the confines of the topic to be explored.
All other discomforts are those that you personally harbor based on your internal perceptions about societal norms/judgements.
In this regard...perhaps there are two lines. One is based on the 'rules of the game' the other is based on 'how you play the game'.
-
I think we judge every single interaction in every single day, and it's hugely important that we do.
"Judging" has taken on a negative connotation, but judging doesn't imply a negative - we judge people/situations both favorably and unfavorably; this is that "gut" feeling we get.
-
I think we judge every single interaction in every single day, and it's hugely important that we do.
"Judging" has taken on a negative connotation, but judging doesn't imply a negative - we judge people/situations both favorably and unfavorably; this is that "gut" feeling we get.
YOU ARE WRONG AND AN IDIOT FOR SAYING SO.
(http://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/judge_dees.jpg)
..too much judging? ;)
-
I see plenty of judging all over the place. Hello, thread about frugal living in CT (or wherever). Hello, the whole anti-mustachian wall of fame.
A little judgement is OK, there are things in the world that are *wrong*. However, I don't go looking to tear people apart as part of my daily routine or quest for self-esteem / validation of my way of living.
-
I think we judge every single interaction in every single day, and it's hugely important that we do.
"Judging" has taken on a negative connotation, but judging doesn't imply a negative - we judge people/situations both favorably and unfavorably; this is that "gut" feeling we get.
YOU ARE WRONG AND AN IDIOT FOR SAYING SO.
(http://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/judge_dees.jpg)
..too much judging? ;)
But, but, I'm a unique butterfly...
-
A little judgement is OK
And where do you draw the line?
-
With that being said I do see the need for some aspects of culture to be unjudgeable. Much like pka mentioned some things are ok to judge others not. I don't know what that line is and I'm not as comfortable with drawing one.
Root into why you feel uncomfortable drawing that line, and I think you'll get closer to the heart of the question.
So I've mentioned before on these boards an idea I've been chewing on for a long time. The idea that the internet has given rise to a cultural supermarket essentially. Where you can borrow and choose various cultural aspects and just apply them to your life. Find what fits and go with it.
Given that I'm uncomfortable because people have chosen some things for themselves and who am I to say their choice is a bad one if it does no harm to me and mine? I'm further uncomfortable with the concept of what exactly is included in me and mine? Is it just the body I have? The immediate air I influence? The web of people? My local community? The global community?
Our concept of cultural behavior (advent of the internet; could be argued that it started well before) has exploded right after our concept of our environment has (Silent Spring and all that). These dual explosions in a very short time frame have left us in a lurch trying to determine what boundaries are acceptable, given that we don't see these boundaries anymore (or rather that we see they are mutable) judgement seems wrong. Some people are very comfortable drawing their lines, defining their culture and their influence. It's probably easier to judge when you've done that.
-
Given that I'm uncomfortable because people have chosen some things for themselves and who am I to say their choice is a bad one if it does no harm to me and mine?
If your judgment does no harm to them and theirs, by your logic, why would you not 'judge'?
-
Given that I'm uncomfortable because people have chosen some things for themselves and who am I to say their choice is a bad one if it does no harm to me and mine?
If your judgment does no harm to them and theirs, by your logic, why would you not 'judge'?
Because it doesn't harm someone I should do it? That's a pretty poor criteria for an action or way of living.
That's fine that it is a logically consistent argument modus tollens and all that. And I'm not saying I never judge. I know I judge people all the time. But like I said I don't know exactly where that line is where I find it acceptable or not because it is constantly shifting in my head due to the fact that I view culture as a fluid construct.
-
A little judgement is OK
And where do you draw the line?
Where I judge is best.
-
I don't know whether judging is good or bad (lol get it??), but I do think it's intellectually lazy. Why try and understand and communicate the nuance that is present in nearly everything when you can just call it good or bad and be done with it?
-
I don't know whether judging is good or bad (lol get it??), but I do think it's intellectually lazy. Why try and understand and communicate the nuance that is present in nearly everything when you can just call it good or bad and be done with it?
While I agree that it's the case that preconceived notions often lead to judging, they aren't tied together.
You can reflect and analyze and then judge.
I think you're conflating things that aren't connected just because most people don't think, and then judge, but it's not the judging that's making them intellectually lazy, it just happens to occur after. B followed A, but is not caused by it.
So the judging can still be discussed separate from being intellectually lazy, IMO.
-
This thread reminded me of a podcast I heard on Radiolab a few weeks ago, What's Left When You're Right: Lu vs. Soo
http://www.radiolab.org/story/lu-vs-soo/
I listened. Not sure of the lesson, or how it relates. The Asian girl judges and sometimes that's good and sometimes it's bad?
-
I think about this a lot. Within my profession (social work) the concept of unconditional positive regard is stressed, especially as it relates to interactions with clients. Social workers' clients are often seen as the lowest of the low in society (child abusers, sex offenders, drug addicts, etc.), and I agree with the notion that you can't work effectively with clients if you're radiating an inherent dislike.
Because of that training, if I find myself judging someone I automatically start asking myself why. What it is that is triggering that response: do I feel unsafe in the situation, am I sad for their children, do I just find their personality abrasive?
In my world there are two different forms of judgement (as noted by previous posters): 1. the helpful kind, which informs your decisions and keeps you safe as you move through life, and 2. the worthless kind, built upon assumptions and unnecessary fears.
I never, ever feel bad about using my judgement in relation to keeping myself safe, even if it turns out that my judgement was ill-formed or flat out wrong. But I do feel bad if I'm judging just for the sake of it. Though it sounds trite, I really don't know what the person in front of me has gone through in life. Some of my absolute "worst" clients had stories that will stay with me forever, and I'll always be glad that I was able to offer them that positive regard in the moment.
As it relates to this forum, well, most folks here are asking for opinions/judgement. They lay out their finances and decisions, and ask others opinions on how they can improve their situation, cut excessive spending, increase their wealth, etc. Those opinions can either be acknowledged as helpful or seen as too heavy-handed, but it seems like they're almost always solicited by the original poster.
-
I don't know whether judging is good or bad (lol get it??), but I do think it's intellectually lazy. Why try and understand and communicate the nuance that is present in nearly everything when you can just call it good or bad and be done with it?
While I agree that it's the case that preconceived notions often lead to judging, they aren't tied together.
You can reflect and analyze and then judge.
I think you're conflating things that aren't connected just because most people don't think, and then judge, but it's not the judging that's making them intellectually lazy, it just happens to occur after. B followed A, but is not caused by it.
So the judging can still be discussed separate from being intellectually lazy, IMO.
bolded for emphasis. If someone reflects and analyzes and then judges I would still call that lazy. "good" and "bad" are some of the least descriptive words someone can use. e.g. "driving cars uses more limited natural resources per mile than biking" vs. "driving is bad"
I understand that with limited mental resources, judging can be a way to file away a decision you've already made while consuming minimal storage space. I see this as lazy the same way I see habits as lazy. Doesn't mean it doesn't have its place of course.
-
This thread reminded me of a podcast I heard on Radiolab a few weeks ago, What's Left When You're Right: Lu vs. Soo
http://www.radiolab.org/story/lu-vs-soo/
I listened. Not sure of the lesson, or how it relates. The Asian girl judges and sometimes that's good and sometimes it's bad?
Yes, I think you are right. There is no clear lesson. There are different ways to see the world. Some people judge more than others. There is both good and bad in that. I don't really think that people having a fear of being perceived as judgmental is a new problem, definitely not a problem limited to a generation. I think that societal ills have almost always been slow to change; bad things happen because good people let them happen, that sort of thing. But too much change happening too quickly can cause problems as well. So, I guess I am basically saying that it's complicated.
-
hmmm, so many good comments here! (or, well, comments I agree with and therefore judge to be good :))
I don't know whether judging is good or bad (lol get it??), but I do think it's intellectually lazy. Why try and understand and communicate the nuance that is present in nearly everything when you can just call it good or bad and be done with it?
While I agree that it's the case that preconceived notions often lead to judging, they aren't tied together.
You can reflect and analyze and then judge.
I think you're conflating things that aren't connected just because most people don't think, and then judge, but it's not the judging that's making them intellectually lazy, it just happens to occur after. B followed A, but is not caused by it.
So the judging can still be discussed separate from being intellectually lazy, IMO.
I think judging the actions of others, or being "judgmental," is only bad if it is associated with being closeminded. look at all the stories on here about parents, inlaws, friends, etc. being "judgmental" about a more mustachian lifestyle. it's certainly their prerogative to judge your lifestyle, but by doing so too quickly, they are closing themselves off from a new idea. for another example, think of a group of high school kids being "judgmental" about a new kid because he "dresses weird" or whatever shit kids (and adults) superficially judge each other on. maybe they would actually have a lot in common with him, and could have made a new friend, but they'll never find out.
on the other hand, if you observe someone's behavior, think about how it aligns with your own values/worldview, reassess those values/worldview and make sure you still agree with yourself :), and then judge the behavior as good/bad, right/wrong, prudent/imprudent, etc... I think exercising that kind of judgment is crucial. what I got out of the article is that fear of making the former types of judgments is scaring millenials off from making the latter.
-
I think it's okay to exercise judgement. There are some things that are clearly bad, like clitoral mutilation, and you can't just go "well, that's their culture" and be done with it.
The problems start, I think, when people hold onto their judgements regardless of new information coming to light. Like, many hold a judgement like this: "poor people are just lazy and need to get moving if they want a better life" ... regardless of situation or circumstance. But if you sat with Norrie for a month at her work, I guarantee you will hear of situations and circumstances that should change or at least add nuance to that particular way of judging.
So ... Yeah, judge all you want with the best information you have today. But be willing to chuck it all out and change your judgement criteria as you learn and develop through life. We have to be willing to judge our own ways of judging and let them go as we learn. Anything less leads to prejudice and stagnation and stupid, outdated generalizations like "rap is bad" or "poor people are lazy."
-
I think it's okay to exercise judgement. There are some things that are clearly bad, like clitoral mutilation, and you can't just go "well, that's their culture" and be done with it.
The problems start, I think, when people hold onto their judgements regardless of new information coming to light. Like, many hold a judgement like this: "poor people are just lazy and need to get moving if they want a better life" ... regardless of situation or circumstance. But if you sat with Norrie for a month at her work, I guarantee you will hear of situations and circumstances that should change or at least add nuance to that particular way of judging.
So ... Yeah, judge all you want with the best information you have today. But be willing to chuck it all out and change your judgement criteria as you learn and develop through life. We have to be willing to judge our own ways of judging and let them go as we learn. Anything less leads to prejudice and stagnation and stupid, outdated generalizations like "rap is bad" or "poor people are lazy."
yes!! very well put.
-
I don't know whether judging is good or bad (lol get it??), but I do think it's intellectually lazy. Why try and understand and communicate the nuance that is present in nearly everything when you can just call it good or bad and be done with it?
While I agree that it's the case that preconceived notions often lead to judging, they aren't tied together.
You can reflect and analyze and then judge.
I think you're conflating things that aren't connected just because most people don't think, and then judge, but it's not the judging that's making them intellectually lazy, it just happens to occur after. B followed A, but is not caused by it.
So the judging can still be discussed separate from being intellectually lazy, IMO.
bolded for emphasis. If someone reflects and analyzes and then judges I would still call that lazy. "good" and "bad" are some of the least descriptive words someone can use. e.g. "driving cars uses more limited natural resources per mile than biking" vs. "driving is bad"
I understand that with limited mental resources, judging can be a way to file away a decision you've already made while consuming minimal storage space. I see this as lazy the same way I see habits as lazy. Doesn't mean it doesn't have its place of course.
Gotcha. I agree. All habits are bad, except the habit of reflecting. Judging is a habit. Good way to think of it.
There are different ways to see the world. Some people judge more than others. There is both good and bad in that.
I see now. Good point. Thanks. :)
-
Regarding the article:
This assured expression of “I like what I like,” when strained through pluralist-inspired critical inquiry, deteriorates: “I like what I like” becomes “But why do I like what I like? Should I like what I like? Do I like it because someone else wants me to like it? If so, who profits and who suffers from my liking what I like?” and finally, “I am not sure I like what I like anymore.” For a number of us millennials, commitment to even seemingly simple aesthetic judgments have become shot through with indecision.
emphasis mine
I'm glad cultural pluralism is taught/pushed in the U.S., as evidenced by my interest in a counter-hegemonic blog. Such analysis is what led me to MMM and keeps me skeptical and questioning. If the price of urging critical analysis of various points of view is some waffley millenials, I'm okay with that. Also, I disagree with the article's defeatist we-are-always-already-limited-in-our-ability-to-be-objective-so-we-might-as-well-give-up-trying-to-make-decisions-or-take-responsibility mentality.
Regarding judging others: Humans judge each other, situations, foods, whatever based on their defined values and tastes (as provided to them through culture and/or acquired through analyzing available data). Placing a value judgment (is it right or wrong) on being judgmental is of no consequence.
-
About 10 years ago, I moved through a certain lady-age where a few of my unmarried girlfriends decided they wanted to get pregnant RIGHT NOW. With each announcement, there was quite a lot of joy and congratulations being offered. I'm sure my silence spoke volumes because I was typically accosted with "you don't think it's a good idea", at which point, I felt the need to elaborate.
I usually just said "I grew up without a father, and I would never do that to a child ON PURPOSE". This is just MY OPINION. I survived and thrived and so have many others, but I still would not choose to do it. I offered to accept the choices of my friends, and would love their child no less, yet I am expected to AGREE WITH and not just ACCEPT the choices that my friends make. Invariably, our friendships were damaged. They think I am a judgemental "church-lady", and I think they are selfish and needy.
Yeah, I think we need a little more judgementalism in our society.
-
All habits are bad, except the habit of reflecting.
well... habits can be a way to streamline your life, but can also lead to complacency and other things most people don't want... would be a more descriptive way to put it. but that's what some people want and it is therefore "good" for them.
also https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/good-luck-bad-luck/
applies to a subset of good/bad judgements
-
All habits are bad, except the habit of reflecting.
well... habits can be a way to streamline your life, but can also lead to complacency and other things most people don't want... would be a more descriptive way to put it. but that's what some people want and it is therefore "good" for them.
Sorry, I have judged it as bad, and am putting no further thought into it!
Also Happy Birthday! I judge that as good.
-
Some people judge, some people judge less. Everyone does it to some degree, and the reason why we judge in the first place is probably due to some evolutionary impetus. But as with many of our human traits that made sense before technology and civilization, the question is, are they still relevant?
Earlier in the thread, someone else said something to the effect of your actions are all that matter. I think your actions, in combination with what you say, define your character. And a group of characters together define a culture. I agree with others than modern communication technology (particularly the Internet) has gone a long way to break down cultural barriers. A few generations ago, cultures I think were more rigidly defined, geographically, racially, politically, etc. Increasingly those things get blurred.
I'm looking at this question from the perspective of a judge, i.e. an employee of the legal system, the head of a courtroom. What does this person do? He judges whether or not a law has been broken, or at the higher levels, is the law even valid. But what are laws? At least in democratic-type societies like the USA, the laws are just encoded versions of social norms, the way most people want things to be. Every looked at some of those obsolete or ridiculous laws from 100 years ago? The reason they are obsolete or ridiculous is because they represented a very different culture. You don't even have to get into the "hard" philosophical/ethical/political stuff: take laws about horse-and-buggies. I'm just making assumptions here, but I'll bet there's at least a few counties that have laws on the books, and they presumably made plenty of sense at the time... but now they're just plain irrelevant since we no longer live in a horse-and-buggy culture.
As far as getting uncomfortable drawing the line as far as what's OK to judge and what's not... perhaps it has to do with how personal something is, and how it can be objectively it can be discussed. Abortion's a great example. I'll use my friend's mom as an example. She's hard-core anti-abortion, and certainly judges anyone getting abortions. And to her, it is an objective decision, because that's what her religion says; to her, religion is more fundamental than gravity or 1+1=2.
Compare that to an agnostic position, that says, we can't (yet) know if a soul really exists, and we don't have objective criteria for defining when a fertilized egg becomes "human" rather than a glob of cells, and given this, abortion is highly personal. Even if life begins immediately at conception and there is a soul, what if there's no question that the child will be born into a miserable life (extreme poverty, abuse, hunger, drugs, slavery, etc)? But what if the child rose above all that and came up with a cure for cancer? But what if it was found much later that that cure had some unforeseen consequence that was even worse than cancer?
Perhaps a less incendiary topic: do you judge fat people? I'll admit, I have a "gut" (get it?) reaction when I see an obese person, but then I think, what if this person has a glandular problem, or some congenital issue? Sure, a lot of fatties are of the lazy/over-eating type. But there are those who can't help it, despite doing all the right things.
I think people are hesitant to draw the line because it forces them to answer questions they don't want to ask themselves. And/or, they know that the topic itself is a big can of worms, and they simply don't want to go there.
Let me give another example: diet. Can of worms alert! You've got the USDA saying one thing, Dr Oz saying another, Gary Taubes with his opinion... As far as I can tell, the current "state of the art" can't answer the question, what is the optimal human diet? Even if you don't agree with Gary Taubes's conclusions, I think you have to agree about one of his points, and that is it's virtually impossible to conduct a "perfect" scientific study of human nutrition. You simply can't change just one facet of human diet; conclusions drawn from experiments where two or more variables are changed are always imprecise.
Being a technology guy, this analogy seems apt: say I have a computer that doesn't seem to work correctly. At the most basic level, it's fairly easy to troubleshoot: is it plugged it? Do the major components work if swapped in/out of another system? Say we go through all levels of tech support, and just can't pinpoint the problem. What if, one transistor (of more than a billion in a modern CPU) was of marginal tolerance, enough that it just barely passed quality control, and it just so happens that the "synergy" of the particular problematic system causes it to fall out of tolerance, such that it otherwise works fine in 99% of other systems out there? How many people out there are capable of drilling down to that level to figure out what's really wrong? But the CPU is a human invention, so there's somebody out there who knows.
But life on our planet is like this ultra-complex system that wasn't invented by humans, and nobody understands how it all works. With every breakthrough in understanding, there's a boatload of new questions to be answered. Some things are seemingly easier to study and understand, and some are harder, maybe completely intractable. Take Newtonian physics versus the ethics of abortion. Or even less dramatic, calculus versus human diet and nutrition.
If I don't have a position on something, I don't think it means I'm intellectually lazy or ignorant or unintelligent. Maybe it's a cop-out answer, but I think some things simply aren't knowable at this point, so how can I be anything but agnostic? And if I'm agnostic, how can I judge? Of course, I have my prejudices and biases like everyone else, and those lead to snap judgments. But I make an honest effort to recognize the preconceptions in myself, and avoid letting them drive my actual behavior. But, take any one (of literally countless) topic of human study, and you'll find people who have dedicated their lives to learning everything they can about it. And while they may be brilliant and make tremendous progress (e.g. Newton, Einstein), they still leave the field with just as many new questions as old questions they answered. Is there any field of study where it's case closed, we know everything there is to know? I don't think so.
So if you're not agnostic on a topic, I guess that gives you the "right" to judge. But how is it that your knowledge is so perfect and complete that you're not agnostic? Surely everyone here has seen a classic Internet flamewar on human diet and nutrition. "Dr Oz says this." "Yeah, but Gary Taubes says that." "Gary Taubes ignored study XYZ in his work." "Study XYZ was flawed." "Study ABC has been peer-reviewed a million times and says they're both wrong." And it goes on and on. Certainly nobody in the debate has perfect and complete knowledge on the topic---yet they argue it so passionately. Is arguing not another form of judging? An argument is basically saying, "I judge you to be wrong."
Certainly, you can judge in the face of ignorance, logical fallacies or simple misunderstandings. And for those things it's easy to draw a line. But when you get into the "heavy" stuff, everyone's knowledge is imperfect and incomplete, therefore it's impossible to draw a line in the sand. So, you make the best with what you have; you use the knowledge and intelligence you do have to draw a line---but not the line, as the next guy has different knowledge/experience/understanding/intelligence, so he draws a different line. The line you draw is part of your character, and groups of people with similar lines form a culture.
How passionate are you about your line? Maybe you're agnostic, and simply unwilling to even draw a line. Maybe you can't live with ambiguity, so you're compelled to draw a line, any line. And maybe that line is drawn from something so fundamental to you (such as religion) that you defend it fiercely, and segregate yourself from others with a different (or no) line.
Sorry, got rambling there.
This discussion made me think of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird... it had me off looking up Atticus Finch quotes.
-
Also Happy Birthday! I judge that as good.
yes, one year older
hello 23/2+7 < ladies < (23-7)*2
-
I loved this quote from the article. -
For instance, a student in one of my English classes was chastened for his preference for Shakespeare over that of the Haitian-American writer Edwidge Danticat. The professor challenged the student to apply a more “disinterested” analysis to his reading so as to avoid entangling himself in a misinformed gesture of “postcolonial oppression.” That student stopped raising his hand in class.
So the student was judged for not judging according to the professors preferences. To elaborate to choose a preferred style of writer, Steven King over Orson Scott Card is personal taste. To say that person was bias in their choice is arrogance. Sounds to me like the professors judged the student on his skin color.
-
Actually forming an opinion is something that costs me (a small amount of) mental energy to do, and very rarely gives me any benefit.
A previous poster (very insensitively! see, I made a judgement) referred to "fatties". How does making that judgement improve anyone's life? Every fat person is constantly told that they should try to not be fat, so telling them about it isn't going to help them. On top of that, I have literally no idea how I could benefit from making that judgement, unless I were of the (absolutely disgusting, there's another judgement) opinion that I could improve my life by selectively associating with people who aren't fat.
To summarise that, I think it's just not worth the effort of judging anyone for something that (a) harms them more than it harms everyone else, and (b) they are surely already aware of.
Where I think it is useful to make a judgement is when it might actually improve something. For example, on this forum we judge people (we even punch them in the face) for their financial decisions; generally, though, only when they are actually soliciting our opinions. Perhaps ironically, one of the things I do judge people for is being overly judgemental in a negative way; but when I raise the issue, often one of us does learn something out of it.
-
I have literally no idea how I could benefit from making that judgement, unless I were of the (absolutely disgusting, there's another judgement) opinion that I could improve my life by selectively associating with people who aren't fat.
Can you improve your life by associating with people who are good with money instead of bad with money?
Can you improve your life by associating with people with healthy eating and exercise habits versus unhealthy?
Can you improve your life by associating with people who portray trait X that you would value in yourself, and disassociating with people who do the opposite of X?
-
Can you improve your life by associating with people who are good with money instead of bad with money?
That one, quite possibly - I guess it depends on what counts as "associating". Anyway it's more likely that we'd just have too many personality differences to get on very well anyway.
Can you improve your life by associating with people with healthy eating and exercise habits versus unhealthy?
Can you improve your life by associating with people who portray trait X that you would value in yourself, and disassociating with people who do the opposite of X?
Sure, there are some values for X where this makes sense to do - I wasn't making a general statement, just a response to the post above which mentioned judging fat people. My argument is that there's almost never a possible benefit to judging somebody as fat. (Also, the word "fatties" is very rude, and strongly implies a judgement of fat people, although the poster was talking about trying not to judge. I'd argue that even if it is a result of overeating and laziness, it's still not our place to judge.)
For example, I judge racists and misogynists, and I find that a valuable use of an opinion. If I could tell somebody "I don't want to be your friend because X" to their face, and not feel like a dick, then it's a good enough reason. "I don't want to be your friend because you are fat" would be total dickishness, and to anyone who would ever say this without feeling like a dick, I don't want to be your friend because of that.
-
I'd argue that even if it is a result of overeating and laziness, it's still not our place to judge.)
For example, I judge racists and misogynists, and I find that a valuable use of an opinion.
Is there a particular reason you don't think people should place a value judgement on the character flaw of laziness but you do think it's ok to place a value judgement on the character flaw of racism? Is it just that one "feels" worse than the other? Or, is there an objective difference that we can extrapolate and use as a measuring stick for other examples?
-
is there an objective difference that we can extrapolate and use as a measuring stick for other examples?
(a) harms them more than it harms everyone else, and (b) they are surely already aware of.
Laziness primarily hurts the lazy, while racism primarily benefits racists. (It's true that some kinds of laziness do harm others, but in this context we're talking about people who don't exercise.)
-
is there an objective difference that we can extrapolate and use as a measuring stick for other examples?
(a) harms them more than it harms everyone else, and (b) they are surely already aware of.
Laziness primarily hurts the lazy, while racism primarily benefits racists. (It's true that some kinds of laziness do harm others, but in this context we're talking about people who don't exercise.)
So, it's not really the laziness or the racism, but rather you judge people hurting other people?
-
I suppose you could put it that way. Or hurting themselves, if there's a reasonable chance they will appreciate and act on your advice.
-
I wasn't making a general statement, just a response to the post above which mentioned judging fat people. My argument is that there's almost never a possible benefit to judging somebody as fat. (Also, the word "fatties" is very rude, and strongly implies a judgement of fat people, although the poster was talking about trying not to judge. I'd argue that even if it is a result of overeating and laziness, it's still not our place to judge.)
Just to be clear... I was trying to say that I have some "instinctive" judgments, as I believe all people do. So yes, they require energy, but like breathing, it just happens. But I try to recognize such judgments as unhelpful at best, hurtful/harmful at worst, so I certainly don't act on them. And to the extent possible, for every instinctive judgmental thought that pops into my head, I try to rationally think through where the judgment came from and why it's not helping me or anyone else. In time, I hope I can "train" these kinds of thoughts away.
I apologize if anyone took offense to the use of the word "fatties"... I threw it out there as a (failed?) attempt at ironic humor (or maybe just low-brow humor, you be the judge ;)). Perhaps I mis-judged my audience. Maybe my audience judges me as offensive rather than amusing?
Semi-seriously, though, that in and of itself is a little example of the point I was trying to make. How do you handle derogatory comments in general? How do you judge people that use them? What about in jokes? How do you judge how people react to hearing them? What if I threw out an obscure one like "touch of the tar brush" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs) (any Aziz Ansari fans here)? Where and how do you draw the line?
And let's look at the other side of slurs. Once everyone gets over the offensiveness, is there not some benefit to bringing up terms like this? Could they not be a stepping stone into social study? Why do these terms come about? What does their use say about us as people? Surely the answer to questions like that can be used to better understand the human condition. So you could judge their use as mean-spirited or ignorant or simply inappropriate; or you could judge it as an opportunity for intellectual pursuits.
Laziness primarily hurts the lazy, while racism primarily benefits racists. (It's true that some kinds of laziness do harm others, but in this context we're talking about people who don't exercise.)
If you have socialized (any group health insurance) medicine, laziness hurts other people who pay into it.
What if my laziness affects my health and I have dependents? I'm implicitly putting themselves at risk.
What about intellectual laziness? Or emotional laziness?
What if my kids want to play but I'm kinda tired, so I tell them to play by themselves. Am I lazy? If I always deny them, you could argue the quality of my nurture is less than someone who sucks it up and plays with his kids always, tired or not.
What if, at work, I could get this report done today instead of tomorrow, but no one is expecting it until tomorrow... but delivering it today means the project finishes sooner which means more revenue for the company.
How do you define laziness? The extremes are easy, but there's a huge grey area. What is the optimal point of being not-lazy such that everyone benefits maximally?
Even if you try to define it narrowly, such as with exercise: well, what is the optimal exercise frequency and intensity? What's the criteria for "lazy" or "not lazy"? I get up at 5:30am three times a week to lift increasingly heavy weights: what about someone who only does it twice a week? Or someone who does it four times a week? What if someone does the same thing but never increases the weights? What about a runner versus a CrossFitter versus a strength trainer? Just as a random example, I think few people would judge someone training for a marathon as lazy, but there's some evidence out there now that this kind of training, over the long term, is ironically unhealthy. So, just for the sake of argument, in terms of health risk, what if we come to find out it's a wash between being a couch potato and a lifetime marathoner? Then I judge the marathoner to be stupid, because he's doing an awful lot of work for no benefit. What if someone works out really hard a few times a week, but is clearly "lazy" the rest of the time?
Where do you draw the line?
-
I'd argue that even if it is a result of overeating and laziness, it's still not our place to judge.)
For example, I judge racists and misogynists, and I find that a valuable use of an opinion.
Is there a particular reason you don't think people should place a value judgement on the character flaw of laziness but you do think it's ok to place a value judgement on the character flaw of racism? Is it just that one "feels" worse than the other? Or, is there an objective difference that we can extrapolate and use as a measuring stick for other examples?
Laziness gets a bad rap. Aren't we all here because we don't want to work our entire lives?
I'm efficient, which means I don't work harder than needed. Some people see that as laziness, and judge it as a character flaw. I see their lack of being able to feel good about themselves without a 'job' as a character flaw.
As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world. As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman. I see both racism and sexism as cultural flaws (rather than character flaws), being encouraged by feel-good laws such as affirmative action and unbalanced media coverage.
-
I apologize if anyone took offense to the use of the word "fatties"... I threw it out there as a (failed?) attempt at ironic humor (or maybe just low-brow humor, you be the judge ;)). Perhaps I mis-judged my audience. Maybe my audience judges me as offensive rather than amusing?
Semi-seriously, though, that in and of itself is a little example of the point I was trying to make. How do you handle derogatory comments in general? How do you judge people that use them?
Earlier today, I heard some fat people say "that girl needs to eat a cheeseburger". The person they were talking about is naturally skinny, and has image concerns of her own. She's been called anorexic, twig, Olive Oyl, and who knows what else over the years.
Our society condemns the skinny girl if she calls them fatties, yet encourages the fat people to judge her as anorexic.
-
As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world. As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.
haha what?
EDIT: Everyone else, don't misconstrue my laugh and short reply to think that I don't realize this is one of the stupidest things ever written.
-
I apologize if anyone took offense to the use of the word "fatties"... I threw it out there as a (failed?) attempt at ironic humor (or maybe just low-brow humor, you be the judge ;)). Perhaps I mis-judged my audience. Maybe my audience judges me as offensive rather than amusing?
Semi-seriously, though, that in and of itself is a little example of the point I was trying to make. How do you handle derogatory comments in general? How do you judge people that use them?
Earlier today, I heard some fat people say "that girl needs to eat a cheeseburger". The person they were talking about is naturally skinny, and has image concerns of her own. She's been called anorexic, twig, Olive Oyl, and who knows what else over the years.
Our society condemns the skinny girl if she calls them fatties, yet encourages the fat people to judge her as anorexic.
Saying "it would be healthy for her to eat more" or "it would be healthy for them to lose weight" is different than insulting name calling, from either body type.
-
Just to be clear...
Yep, that's how it came across. Just generally, you aren't going to be able to use a word like that in a public setting without doing more harm than good.
If you have socialized (any group health insurance) medicine, laziness hurts other people who pay into it.
Nope, not buying that as a reason to judge other people; only a reason to promote exercise as a healthy lifestyle choice (which at least, the UK's government and health service do). It still hurts themselves more than anyone else. Also, I'm not sure that it's even true (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=2).
What if my laziness affects my health and I have dependents? I'm implicitly putting themselves at risk.
That's a trickier one, more of a grey area, but again I think it's wrong to judge people for this. Society is more likely to reap the benefits of widespread exercise if it's promoted in a non-judgemental way.
What about intellectual laziness? Or emotional laziness?
[...]
Where do you draw the line?
These are different kinds of laziness; in context, laziness meant "people who don't exercise". I didn't make a general statement about laziness, just that even if obesity is due to laziness, that's still not a good reason to judge somebody for it. For the general drawing of lines, I refer back to the "if it harms them more than anyone else, and they are surely already aware of it" test.
-
As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world. As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.
haha what?
It's so convenient when racists voluntarily identify themselves in public. (Judgement made!)
-
As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world. As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.
haha what?
One example of inequity is colleges offering scholarships to meet affirmative action quotas. I could go on with dozens more examples, but you can work it out from there.
Edit: See how quick I labeled a racist for pointing out that affirmative action is inheritantly racist? That's a perfect example of different standards at work.
-
I apologize if anyone took offense to the use of the word "fatties"... I threw it out there as a (failed?) attempt at ironic humor (or maybe just low-brow humor, you be the judge ;)). Perhaps I mis-judged my audience. Maybe my audience judges me as offensive rather than amusing?
Semi-seriously, though, that in and of itself is a little example of the point I was trying to make. How do you handle derogatory comments in general? How do you judge people that use them?
Earlier today, I heard some fat people say "that girl needs to eat a cheeseburger". The person they were talking about is naturally skinny, and has image concerns of her own. She's been called anorexic, twig, Olive Oyl, and who knows what else over the years.
Our society condemns the skinny girl if she calls them fatties, yet encourages the fat people to judge her as anorexic.
Girl probably needs Ironized Yeast Tablets
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld6tki2xk61qbkyddo1_400.jpg)
-
As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world. As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.
haha what?
One example of inequity is colleges offering scholarships to meet affirmative action quotas. I could go on with dozens more examples, but you can work it out from there.
Edit: See how quick I labeled a racist for pointing out that affirmative action is inheritantly racist? That's a perfect example of different standards at work.
You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?
-
Edit: See how quick I labeled a racist for pointing out that affirmative action is inheritantly racist? That's a perfect example of different standards at work.
You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?
He also genuinely believes that I responded to his point about affirmative action before he wrote it, so don't expect logic.
-
As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world. As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.
haha what?
One example of inequity is colleges offering scholarships to meet affirmative action quotas. I could go on with dozens more examples, but you can work it out from there.
Edit: See how quick I labeled a racist for pointing out that affirmative action is inheritantly racist? That's a perfect example of different standards at work.
You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?
If I have to pay higher tuition to support scholarships for people who were chosen based on race rather than merit, yes.
If I'm passed over for a cushy government job because it was given to someone based on race rather than merit, yes.
-
Not sure how well this analogy holds up, but I like to think of it in terms of the years I spent as an editor:
-There are some cut and dry grammatical errors. Everyone agrees these can be fixed. Things like mutilation, child abuse, slavery, etc.
-Sometimes it's very easy to see that there is something wrong or off with a sentence, but it's also difficult to prescribe a solution. Someone has clear lifestyle issues, but they've dug themselves an awful deep hole. So many things are screwed up, both because of circumstance and choice, that it's hard to simply say "do X"
-A solution is proposed, but the author disputes it. The resulting dialogue is constructive criticsm. I think the primary fail state of "judgments" and "judgmentalism" is the expression of the judgment in a non-constructive manner.
Okay, and here is where I feel the analogy falling apart, so I'm going to exercise my own editorial judgment and cut myself off.
-
Adding "If" hypothetical scenarios doesn't answer my question.
"If aliens came down and gave all black women raises, yes."
..alright.
Back to the question:
You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?
-
Adding "If" hypothetical scenarios doesn't answer my question.
"If aliens came down and gave all black women raises, yes."
..alright.
Back to the question:
You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?
If When I have to pay higher tuition to support scholarships for people who were chosen based on race rather than merit, yes.
If When I'm passed over for a cushy government job because it was given to someone based on race rather than merit, yes.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if when you're a supporter of affirmative action, you're supporting racism.
-
About 10 years ago, I moved through a certain lady-age where a few of my unmarried girlfriends decided they wanted to get pregnant RIGHT NOW. With each announcement, there was quite a lot of joy and congratulations being offered. I'm sure my silence spoke volumes because I was typically accosted with "you don't think it's a good idea", at which point, I felt the need to elaborate.
I usually just said "I grew up without a father, and I would never do that to a child ON PURPOSE". This is just MY OPINION. I survived and thrived and so have many others, but I still would not choose to do it. I offered to accept the choices of my friends, and would love their child no less, yet I am expected to AGREE WITH and not just ACCEPT the choices that my friends make. Invariably, our friendships were damaged. They think I am a judgemental "church-lady", and I think they are selfish and needy.
Yeah, I think we need a little more judgementalism in our society.
This is exactly the situation I think of, and thanks for speaking up.
I say, in this situation: I had a father who loved me and I adored him and I cannot imagine purposely denying my child that relationship. I don't hve children, but if I did I would not have gone off on my own to o that and beside I'm too lazy.
-
You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?
Fixer-upper provided his own first person reply, but the question seems interesting enough for a third person opinion.
If I interpret correctly, the question refers to an "at birth" scenario. In that case, if betting on "likely success of the child", I'd look more towards the economic and educational situation of the family and the behavioral aspects of the parents, and less to the child's race or sex. E.g. Mitt Romney's boys have an advantage over the average black girl born to a drug addicted single mother and destined for poor rural schools. Similarly, Barack Obama's girls have an advantage over the average white boy left in the sole care of an alcoholic father and destined for poor inner-city schools.
I understand the incredulity with which many have and will read fixer-upper's comment - but it does depend on assumptions overlaying the comment.
-
I think about this a lot. Within my profession (social work) the concept of unconditional positive regard is stressed, especially as it relates to interactions with clients. Social workers' clients are often seen as the lowest of the low in society (child abusers, sex offenders, drug addicts, etc.), and I agree with the notion that you can't work effectively with clients if you're radiating an inherent dislike.
Child abusers are the lowest of the low. I don't think I could be nice to one of them even if paid to do so.
I regret they aren't executed so it would save you the trouble and the rest of us the worry.
We have a passel of them in our neighborhood. Our school system, in it's infinite lack of wisdom, places elementary school bus stops in sight of houses full of them. Makes one wonder.
-
About 10 years ago, I moved through a certain lady-age where a few of my unmarried girlfriends decided they wanted to get pregnant RIGHT NOW. With each announcement, there was quite a lot of joy and congratulations being offered. I'm sure my silence spoke volumes because I was typically accosted with "you don't think it's a good idea", at which point, I felt the need to elaborate.
I usually just said "I grew up without a father, and I would never do that to a child ON PURPOSE". This is just MY OPINION. I survived and thrived and so have many others, but I still would not choose to do it. I offered to accept the choices of my friends, and would love their child no less, yet I am expected to AGREE WITH and not just ACCEPT the choices that my friends make. Invariably, our friendships were damaged. They think I am a judgemental "church-lady", and I think they are selfish and needy.
Yeah, I think we need a little more judgementalism in our society.
This is exactly the situation I think of, and thanks for speaking up.
I say, in this situation: I had a father who loved me and I adored him and I cannot imagine purposely denying my child that relationship. I don't hve children, but if I did I would not have gone off on my own to o that and beside I'm too lazy.
I was going to ignore BlueHouse's comment, since it goes off topic, but if people are chiming in to pat her on the back I have to ask: Are you really saying you would rather have never been born than to grow up without a father? Because, if I'm reading this correctly, the choice these women are making isn't "keep the daddy in child's life vs. not" it's "have baby w/o daddy or have no baby". Personally, all else being equal, I would prefer to exist without a father than not exist. Not to mention that these babies are clearly both wanted and planned (and given how expensive fertility treatments are, presumably afforded). We could delve further into whether it's right to have any babies (overpopulation, blah, blah, blah) but I think there is at least enough reasonable doubt about the scenario to suspend judgement.
-
I was going to ignore BlueHouse's comment, since it goes off topic, but if people are chiming in to pat her on the back I have to ask: Are you really saying you would rather have never been born than to grow up without a father?
Maybe, I don't know. I was born pretty damn lucky with parents who love me--trading that for something less , not sure I'd want to do that. Being null in the universe isn't bad, it's null. I wouldn't know. Its wouldn't bother me not knowing or being known.
-
About 10 years ago, I moved through a certain lady-age where a few of my unmarried girlfriends decided they wanted to get pregnant RIGHT NOW. With each announcement, there was quite a lot of joy and congratulations being offered. I'm sure my silence spoke volumes because I was typically accosted with "you don't think it's a good idea", at which point, I felt the need to elaborate.
I usually just said "I grew up without a father, and I would never do that to a child ON PURPOSE". This is just MY OPINION. I survived and thrived and so have many others, but I still would not choose to do it. I offered to accept the choices of my friends, and would love their child no less, yet I am expected to AGREE WITH and not just ACCEPT the choices that my friends make. Invariably, our friendships were damaged. They think I am a judgemental "church-lady", and I think they are selfish and needy.
Yeah, I think we need a little more judgementalism in our society.
This is exactly the situation I think of, and thanks for speaking up.
I say, in this situation: I had a father who loved me and I adored him and I cannot imagine purposely denying my child that relationship. I don't hve children, but if I did I would not have gone off on my own to o that and beside I'm too lazy.
I was going to ignore BlueHouse's comment, since it goes off topic, but if people are chiming in to pat her on the back I have to ask: Are you really saying you would rather have never been born than to grow up without a father? Because, if I'm reading this correctly, the choice these women are making isn't "keep the daddy in child's life vs. not" it's "have baby w/o daddy or have no baby". Personally, all else being equal, I would prefer to exist without a father than not exist. Not to mention that these babies are clearly both wanted and planned (and given how expensive fertility treatments are, presumably afforded). We could delve further into whether it's right to have any babies (overpopulation, blah, blah, blah) but I think there is at least enough reasonable doubt about the scenario to suspend judgement.
I don't want to put words in the mouth of BlueHouse, but there's a huge difference between wanting to have never been born, and not being excited for a friend knowing first hand the difficulties that child might endure. I agree though, I'd rather be born under the worst circumstances than not be born at all.
I'm a fairly judgemental person, including a pretty harsh judgement Warfreak deservedly called me out on yesterday, but I'm working on dialing it down a notch. I think it's innate in me to optimize, and when I see someone doing something "wrong", even if it's only my pre-conceived notion of right and wrong, I feeled compelled to call them out. When somone does this to me I find it annoying, so at the very least I hope to not annoy people with my judgemental tendencies.
-
Ironically, I think it's important to surround yourself with people who are like you in being openminded to be happy as an openminded person.
For example, I would not be happy in academia or the practice of law, where people constantly harp on about institutional prestige and look down on others for their lack of it.
-
Adding "If" hypothetical scenarios doesn't answer my question.
"If aliens came down and gave all black women raises, yes."
..alright.
Back to the question:
You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?
If When I have to pay higher tuition to support scholarships for people who were chosen based on race rather than merit, yes.
If When I'm passed over for a cushy government job because it was given to someone based on race rather than merit, yes.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if when you're a supporter of affirmative action, you're supporting racism.
oh dear god.
personally, I'm not in favor of affirmative action. I think we need to fix the underlying problems instead. if a significant number of smart disadvantaged (minority and/or poor) kids aren't getting the opportunity to go to college, why? let's fix that. I don't think there's a huge societal benefit to giving a leg up to a middle-class black kid who would have done well anyway.
I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.
and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country, you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.
-
If it were true that there were economic advantages to being a minority in the US then where are all the statistics showing us how rich they are and how low their unemployment is?
But back on topic... I'm suddenly feeling quite judgey.
I guess I can be more judgmental when it is something I identify strongly with or have very concrete opinions about.
-
If it were true that there were economic advantages to being a minority in the US then where are all the statistics showing us how rich they are and how low their unemployment is?
But.. but.. theoretical anecdotes! That's good enough.
-
If it were true that there were economic advantages to being a minority in the US then where are all the statistics showing us how rich they are and how low their unemployment is?
But back on topic... I'm suddenly feeling quite judgey.
I guess I can be more judgmental when it is something I identify strongly with or have very concrete opinions about.
haha! good point :)
-
Not if I cross out words and replace them. Then it's moved from theoretical to unverifiable claim.
If it were true that there were economic advantages to being a minority in the US then where are all the statistics showing us how rich they are and how low their unemployment is?
But.. but.. theoretical anecdotes! That's good enough reality.
-
I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.
and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country, you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.
Wow, what a loaded statement there. Goddammit do I hate it when the race card is played like that. The OP may be wrong, but being wrong does not make a person racist.
If you take a white male and a black female, both of whom come from similar backgrounds, similar education, similar in all ways you can think of, what gives a white man and advantage over a black woman?
Networking and bias. As uncomfortable as it is, people almost always associate with other people similar to themselves. I was talking to a black woman yesterday at work (I'm a white man, and were it not for work our social circles would not cross) about how housing is still very segregated across large swaths of Richmond (but less so in Chesterfield, the neighboring county). At the heart of our conversation was the simple fact that people tend to want to be around people that make them feel more comfortable - people that look like themselves. That is changing, but slowly. This definitely does give white males a very clear advantage when white males are still at the top of just about every field. The glass ceiling still exists in that way.
What the OP is trying to hit on is that as our culture becomes more enlightened people are realizing that homogenous workplaces that result from networking and bias just aren't a great idea. The need to diversify does present some (limited, IMO) opportunities to minorities that may not exist for just one more white guy looking to fill a slot.
By and large though, much better to have all the inherent advantages that a white man has just by being white and male.
-
Wow, what a loaded statement there. Goddammit do I hate it when the race card is played like that. The OP may be wrong, but being wrong does not make a person racist.
OTOH, being racist does. Also, there's no such thing as "the race card", it was invented by racists to make it sound as if it's unfair for them to be called out on their racism.
What the OP is trying to hit on is that as our culture becomes more enlightened people are realizing that homogenous workplaces that result from networking and bias just aren't a great idea. The need to diversify does present some (limited, IMO) opportunities to minorities that may not exist for just one more white guy looking to fill a slot.
I don't know who you mean by "OP"; at least, fixer-upper said nothing of the sort. He just plain asserted that black women are economically advantaged over white men - a ludicrous, racist fantasy that can only explain reality if white men are just so superior that they overcome their disadvantages to become, economically, extraordinarily more successful than black women who supposedly have the game rigged in their favour (or every other demographic, for that matter).
Honestly, even arguing that black women aren't economically disadvantaged would have the same problems. If white men aren't playing the game on easy mode (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/), how come they're overwhelmingly the winners?
As Louis C.K. sez, "if you're white and you don't admit that it's great, you're an asshole (http://poetry.rapgenius.com/Louis-ck-on-being-white-annotated)".
-
I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.
and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country, you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.
Wow, what a loaded statement there. Goddammit do I hate it when the race card is played like that. The OP may be wrong, but being wrong does not make a person racist.
If you take a white male and a black female, both of whom come from similar backgrounds, similar education, similar in all ways you can think of, what gives a white man and advantage over a black woman?
Networking and bias. As uncomfortable as it is, people almost always associate with other people similar to themselves. I was talking to a black woman yesterday at work (I'm a white man, and were it not for work our social circles would not cross) about how housing is still very segregated across large swaths of Richmond (but less so in Chesterfield, the neighboring county). At the heart of our conversation was the simple fact that people tend to want to be around people that make them feel more comfortable - people that look like themselves. That is changing, but slowly. This definitely does give white males a very clear advantage when white males are still at the top of just about every field. The glass ceiling still exists in that way.
What the OP is trying to hit on is that as our culture becomes more enlightened people are realizing that homogenous workplaces that result from networking and bias just aren't a great idea. The need to diversify does present some (limited, IMO) opportunities to minorities that may not exist for just one more white guy looking to fill a slot.
By and large though, much better to have all the inherent advantages that a white man has just by being white and male.
What you said "Nuanced examination which still comes to a conclusion that being white and male is advantageous" ≠
As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world. As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman. I see both racism and sexism as cultural flaws (rather than character flaws), being encouraged by feel-good laws such as affirmative action and unbalanced media coverage.
Also I'd raise a skeptical eyebrow that economic disadvantages comes down to networking and bias when there are clear systemic and institutionalized frameworks in place which are racist and prevent minorities from attaining equal footing hence policies like affirmative action to help mitigate those frameworks.
-
I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.
and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country, you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.
Wow, what a loaded statement there. Goddammit do I hate it when the race card is played like that. The OP may be wrong, but being wrong does not make a person racist.
maybe we are using different definitions of the word "racist." in my opinion, the belief that people of one race are, due to their race, superior in intellect and character to people of another race is racist. in my reading, fixer-upper implied that he held this belief. I would be glad to be shown that I'm wrong! I don't go around calling people racist lightly.
I also don't see how I'm "playing the race card." I'm just discussing race, in a discussion about race that fixer-upper started.
"out of your fucking mind" may have been unnecessarily harsh, though :) sorry!
other than that, I agree with everything you said, but like warfreak and matchewed, I do not see how you are agreeing with fixer-upper (assuming that's who you meant by OP).
-
Just to be clear...
Yep, that's how it came across. Just generally, you aren't going to be able to use a word like that in a public setting without doing more harm than good.
Again, though, I think this whole "judging" thing is cultural. MMM, on the main blog, liberally uses---and encourages others to use---words you can't say on TV. I'm pretty sure you can say "fatty" on TV, but you can't say "fuck". But if my post had used the latter instead, nobody here would blink an eye. In my mind, I judge "fatty" and "fuck" to be two sides of the same coin. Let me put it this way: they are both words I don't want my young children to hear or say. Again, it's culture/context: if I went onto a "skinny elite" forum, I'd probably find every other post contained the word "fatty". But on this forum, I know the community takes the use of cuss words lightly, so I assumed the same would hold for the use of a word like "fatty" (which, again, I intended for effect, not to shame the overweight).
How about this: what if I say, "We shouldn't judge people by their religion". On this forum, I'd expect almost complete agreement. But what if I said that on a Nazi forum? What do you think the world population at large thinks about that statement?
Again, that's why I think the whole judgment thing is cultural. There's still plenty of places in the world where religious intolerance is the norm. What if WW2 had a different outcome? What would everybody thing about religious choice under those circumstances?
The point is, these things simply aren't absolutes: religion or fatties or nazis or racists or motherfuckers or lazies. They all have "soft" definitions that are deeply rooted in cultural norms. So whether or not you judge these things---i.e. where you draw the line---isn't that just a matter of your character (and from that, the culture to which you belong)?
If you have socialized (any group health insurance) medicine, laziness hurts other people who pay into it.
Nope, not buying that as a reason to judge other people; only a reason to promote exercise as a healthy lifestyle choice (which at least, the UK's government and health service do). It still hurts themselves more than anyone else. Also, I'm not sure that it's even true (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=2).
I wasn't presenting a rationale to judge others. In fact I was trying to cast doubt on the idea that judgment is sometimes acceptable. Someone else was trying to justify the idea that, "It's OK to judge if you're judging a behavior that harms other people, and laziness only harms lazy people, so therefore it's OK to judge them as lazy." I was trying to say, no, laziness can harm others. And, more generally, I was trying to say that it's not so easy to draw a line for what constitutes "harming others". To what degree? And what about in the case of ignorance?
Society is more likely to reap the benefits of widespread exercise if it's promoted in a non-judgemental way.
Are you sure about that? So you're judging encouragement to be a better motivator than shame? To be fair, I probably agree with you... but I also think some people are more motivated by the carrot and others more so by the stick.
How about another example more relevant to this blog. Do you (the royal you, not any you in particular) judge me (and how so) if I drive my Hummer 5 blocks to the store to pick up a gallon of milk, when I could have just as easily walked or rode my bike (on a nice, warm sunny day, in the world's safest neighborhood)? You could say, well, I'm encouraging the destruction of natural resources, increasing air (and noise) pollution, so I'm hurting others more than I'm hurting myself... but am I? What if I'm just ignorant, what I've never read MMM or don't understand the side-effects of unnecessarily driving a gas-guzzler? And in fact, since it's only 5 blocks, the damage to everyone else is real, yet infinitesimally small. But the (financial) damage to me is easily calculated. So, it's basically just like laziness on my part, right? In that I'm hurting myself more than I'm hurting others. But isn't this contrived version of myself the "MMM anti-hero", the one constantly being judged? How is MMM judging people who drive unnecessarily to be clowns (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/22/curing-your-clown-like-car-habit/) any different than judging lazy people to be fatties?
-
Again, though, I think this whole "judging" thing is cultural. MMM, on the main blog, liberally uses---and encourages others to use---words you can't say on TV. I'm pretty sure you can say "fatty" on TV, but you can't say "fuck".
The difference is that "fatty" implies a negative judgement of fat people - it's a pejorative - while "fuck" is merely profane, unless you're saying something like "you fat fuck", in which case you're using it as a pejorative and then it's not OK.
if I went onto a "skinny elite" forum, I'd probably find every other post contained the word "fatty".
That hypothetical forum sounds like its userbase consists of judgmental fucks. I wouldn't visit it.
How about another example more relevant to this blog. [...] What if I'm just ignorant, what I've never read MMM or don't understand the side-effects of unnecessarily driving a gas-guzzler?
Then you fail (b) because of lack of awareness, so there's a clear possibility that telling you my opinion (that you're being wasteful and lazy) could help you.
How is MMM judging people who drive unnecessarily to be clowns (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/22/curing-your-clown-like-car-habit/) any different than judging lazy people to be fatties?
This is a good question, of course. I think being "silly" doesn't have anywhere near the stigma of being "fat" in our society, it's a much milder insult if it's an insult at all. On top of that, the thrust of the article isn't judging car drivers, but inviting them to judge themselves:
To cure the disease, you just need to change the way you feel about driving.[...]The goal here is not to create negative stress in your life. Just acknowledge that whenever you turn the key, you need to say, “Here we go. I’m being an asshole again”.
Of course, the message is wrapped in MMM's own judgement; "harsh judgement of things that are widely considered totally acceptable" is a common trope in comedy, and I think it's generally acceptable when the people being "attacked" are in a position of strength, and/or don't actually suffer from those judgements in real life. For example, jokes at the expense of the ruling class are in much better taste than jokes at the expense of those in poverty.
-
So you're judging encouragement to be a better motivator than shame?
Just gonna point this out since a few people have used "judge" this way in what seems to be a "fuck you everybody judges things I win"...
what nonjudgemental people try not to do is judge things as good or bad. that doesn't mean you can't have opinions. having the opinion "encouragement is a more effective motivator than shame" (especially if with the context of certain given circumstances) is quite different from saying "encouragement is good, shame is bad"
-
So you're judging encouragement to be a better motivator than shame?
Just gonna point this out since a few people have used "judge" this way in what seems to be a "fuck you everybody judges things I win"...
what nonjudgemental people try not to do is judge things as good or bad. that doesn't mean you can't have opinions. having the opinion "encouragement is a more effective motivator than shame" (especially if with the context of certain given circumstances) is quite different from saying "encouragement is good, shame is bad"
+1
We should make the distinction between normative and descriptive "judgements" here.
Descriptive: Saving money now leads to earlier retirement
Normative: Saving money is better than spending it
Descriptive: Eating too much leads to weight gain
Normative: People who are overweight should eat less
Descriptive: Having a child alone means the child will grow up fatherless
Normative: It is wrong to have a child alone
I assume most people here are fine with descriptive, factual statements. Those can be supported with evidence. The big question is: are normative statements ever (or even usually) helpful? I'm not sure...
-
I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.
and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country, you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.
Now that you (and others) have jumped on the bandwagon of labeling me as a racist simply because I'm white, let's go back to my original post here:
From my brief time here, the people seem a bit cliquish, and yes, they do judge. Whenever I've tried to introduce a new concept, they're quick to pile on and label me black or white, rather than being open to shades of gray.
What I didn't tell you is that I was born with congenital defects, struggle to walk (with Forrest Gump braces) most days, can't walk on others. My absentee dad is a verbally abusive druggie. I was raised in a poor rural area by a single mom without a college education.
At birth, I was certainly at a disadvantage to a typical black woman. The way I was reared, however, gave me an advantage. My mom didn't cut me any slack, and didn't coddle me. She expected me to fend for myself, and it made me the sort of person who figures out how to do things for myself rather than expecting special treatment.
You think I'm crazy for saying minorities shouldn't get special entitlements, but I know from personal experience that coddling the under-privileged isn't necessarily a good thing. Generations of welfare to indians have resulted in reservations being some of the poorest places in the US. Employers are afraid to hire cripples and minorities because they're afraid of being sued for BS infractions. By "protecting" me from discrimination, you've made me the target of it.
Multiple generations of providing special treatments to minorities has resulted in increased percentages of poor, incarcerated, broken families, and addicted members of those classes. You need a face punch if you think special treatment is helping minorities rather than hurting them. The fact that the laws are inherently racist is just an amusing side note.
-
"I can't be racist, I was born with congenital defects". Sorry dude, that's not how logic works. Being born with congenital defects surely sucks ass, but it doesn't give you a "get out of racism free" pass. Also, try being a black woman born with congenital defects.
The point you seem to be missing, when you're arguing against "special treatment" for minorities, is that overwhelmingly, it's white men who get the special treatment, as should be obvious from a cursory glance at reality.
-
"I can't be racist, I was born with congenital defects". Sorry dude, that's not how logic works. Being born with congenital defects surely sucks ass, but it doesn't give you a "get out of racism free" pass. Also, try being a black woman born with congenital defects.
The point you seem to be missing, when you're arguing against "special treatment" for minorities, is that overwhelmingly, it's white men who get the special treatment, as should be obvious from a cursory glance at reality.
What a bunch of rubbish! Black Americans (as a group example) hold themselves down by shunning education. They tease and shun oreos who want to make something of themselves. They play the race card, crying about how much harder they have it, and demand special treatment. They complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.
Demanding special treatment because of your race or sex is racist or sexist. Demanding equal treatment is not.
I don't accept special treatment, and treat people equally regardless of sex, color, or disability. Any person can choose to lift themselves up, if they have the pride to do so. Likewise, they can choose to whine while they hold themselves down. Blaming it on an *unfair advantage* falls under the latter category.
-
I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.
and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country, you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.
Now that you (and others) have jumped on the bandwagon of labeling me as a racist simply because I'm white, let's go back to my original post here:
From my brief time here, the people seem a bit cliquish, and yes, they do judge. Whenever I've tried to introduce a new concept, they're quick to pile on and label me black or white, rather than being open to shades of gray.
What I didn't tell you is that I was born with congenital defects, struggle to walk (with Forrest Gump braces) most days, can't walk on others. My absentee dad is a verbally abusive druggie. I was raised in a poor rural area by a single mom without a college education.
At birth, I was certainly at a disadvantage to a typical black woman. The way I was reared, however, gave me an advantage. My mom didn't cut me any slack, and didn't coddle me. She expected me to fend for myself, and it made me the sort of person who figures out how to do things for myself rather than expecting special treatment.
You think I'm crazy for saying minorities shouldn't get special entitlements, but I know from personal experience that coddling the under-privileged isn't necessarily a good thing. Generations of welfare to indians have resulted in reservations being some of the poorest places in the US. Employers are afraid to hire cripples and minorities because they're afraid of being sued for BS infractions. By "protecting" me from discrimination, you've made me the target of it.
Multiple generations of providing special treatments to minorities has resulted in increased percentages of poor, incarcerated, broken families, and addicted members of those classes. You need a face punch if you think special treatment is helping minorities rather than hurting them. The fact that the laws are inherently racist is just an amusing side note.
oh my god, it's like you didn't even read what I wrote, you read what you wanted to read. I didn't "label you a racist simply because you're white." to repeat:
and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country, you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.
in my opinion, the belief that people of one race are, due to their race, superior in intellect and character to people of another race is racist. in my reading, fixer-upper implied that he held this belief. I would be glad to be shown that I'm wrong! I don't go around calling people racist lightly.
so, no, it has nothing to do with you being white. you could be black, Asian, Latino, or IDGAF and if you implied that you believe that your race is inherently more intelligent and/or hardworking than another, I think that's a racist belief. from your posts, I deduced that you hold this belief. I could definitely be wrong.
What I didn't tell you is that I was born with congenital defects, struggle to walk (with Forrest Gump braces) most days, can't walk on others. My absentee dad is a verbally abusive druggie. I was raised in a poor rural area by a single mom without a college education.
At birth, I was certainly at a disadvantage to a typical black woman. The way I was reared, however, gave me an advantage. My mom didn't cut me any slack, and didn't coddle me. She expected me to fend for myself, and it made me the sort of person who figures out how to do things for myself rather than expecting special treatment.
I'm sorry to hear about the challenges you've had in your life. it's great that you've made it this far. but your personal experience does not mean that the average white male has it harder than the average black female in this country, which is what you implied in your previous posts (i.e. that you were worse off than the average black female because you are a white male, not because of congenital defects or growing up poor and fatherless).
You think I'm crazy for saying minorities shouldn't get special entitlements, but I know from personal experience that coddling the under-privileged isn't necessarily a good thing. .... You need a face punch if you think special treatment is helping minorities rather than hurting them. The fact that the laws are inherently racist is just an amusing side note.
once again, did you even read anything I wrote?
personally, I'm not in favor of affirmative action. I think we need to fix the underlying problems instead. if a significant number of smart disadvantaged (minority and/or poor) kids aren't getting the opportunity to go to college, why? let's fix that. I don't think there's a huge societal benefit to giving a leg up to a middle-class black kid who would have done well anyway.
so like I said before, I don't think we should hand out entitlements/scholarships/jobs/what have you on the basis of race, because there's no point in helping out middle- or upper-class racial minorities who don't need it. that help would be better targeted to those who are disadvantaged (by poverty, lack of parenting, etc.), like yourself, regardless of race. but I do think we have to look at statistics on racial minorities that end up with worse life outcomes (lower educational attainment, higher poverty rates, shorter lifespans, etc.), ask ourselves why that's happening, and work to amend it. this doesn't have to come at the expense of white people, except maybe in the way that some white people have only achieved the level of success that they have because of the systematic advantage of being white. does that make sense? I hope I'm being clear, but I'm concerned that you've taken my other points completely wrong.
-
I judge people who misspell the word "judgment". And the word "misspell". ;-)
-
I judge people who misspell the word "judgment". And the word "misspell". ;-)
And grey (or gray) areas like that are why people say not to judge ;-)
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/judgement-or-judgment/
-
I judge people who misspell the word "judgment".
I judge people that leave off vowels from perfectly acceptable spellings like "judgement" (stupid Webster and his stupid vowel deletion conspiracy).
-
Interesting topic.
I think if we can get to "a human is a human; they have properties like skin colour, gender, intelligence, education, laziness" and learn to discriminate based on the relevant properties (how hard they work, how well they work - for an employer), then we'll be doing pretty well.
I do agree that positive discrimination is discrimination. I also believe this: Just because the heads of companies tend to be middle aged white guys, not all middle aged white guys are automagically destined for greatness because of their sex and skin colour. It is very easy to look at white males and go: THEM! THEY'RE THE FUCKERS! THEY'RE STEALING ALL MY MONEY!! when it just isn't true. Look at Homer Simpson!
Also, at the child molester comment - just think about that for a second. You really think a 25 year old goes, ooh, what shall I do today. I know - I'll molest a child! While I totally accept personal responsibility is really really important, there are no doubt hundreds and thousands of people who are attracted to children but do nothing about it. They are sick. They don't deserve to be executed - it is not *their fault*.
Y'see, that's how it goes - the more you try and not judge, the more you go.. nope.. these people are just a bit fucked up.
We ALL do stupid things. Catching falling knives (literally.. ouch). Turning left when we could've turned right.
Letting your dog shit on my lawn is ignorant. Buying an SUV is ignorant. Being Christian is ignorant. Right? Who am I to say (apart from letting your dog shit on my lawn; that really makes me annoyed).
What we *lack* is responsibility for our actions. Money is our God, and with it we can do all sorts of harm - because other people want some of our God, and we - because we're trustworthy borrowers and spenders - would rather live convenient lives. Hanging out washing? Naw, just throw it in the dryer. Walk? Naw, just drive. Wait? Naw, NOW!
But again - who am I to judge? Just because I think something is ignorant, doesn't mean it is, and that I'm not. I am not God.
Fat people need help. They may not be breaking healthcare systems now, but give it 30 years? But it's not all their fault, either - marketing and advertising, sedentary lifestyles, the low price of all this stuff that years ago would've been scarce - animals will eat to get them through the lean times, and we in our lizard brains choose to do the same. There might not BE any ice cream tomorrow!
Who knows. I feel really bad for the (ex) Mozilla CEO. Did he make a personal contribution to a cause that is not politically correct? Sure. Does that have any impact on his ability to do his job? I think not. If I believed in a faceless, nameless all-powerful being that created everything.. does that make me more or less suitable to be president, or CEO, or cleaner?
So "we all" judge. Just make sure you don't judge differently to the people around you, or you might get lynched. Which says something, don't you think?
-
Black Americans (as a group example) hold themselves down by shunning education.
And you're telling me you're not racist?
They tease and shun oreos who want to make something of themselves.
Because ambition = "white on the inside", right? I get it! (Super racist!)
They play the race card, crying about how much harder they have it, and demand special treatment. They complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.
HOLY FUCK MY RACIST-OMETER EXPLODED.
I don't accept special treatment
OTOH, white men get special treatment whether they ask for it or not.
-
so like I said before, I don't think we should hand out entitlements/scholarships/jobs/what have you on the basis of race, because there's no point in helping out middle- or upper-class racial minorities who don't need it. that help would be better targeted to those who are disadvantaged (by poverty, lack of parenting, etc.), like yourself, regardless of race. but I do think we have to look at statistics on racial minorities that end up with worse life outcomes (lower educational attainment, higher poverty rates, shorter lifespans, etc.), ask ourselves why that's happening, and work to amend it. this doesn't have to come at the expense of white people, except maybe in the way that some white people have only achieved the level of success that they have because of the systematic advantage of being white. does that make sense? I hope I'm being clear, but I'm concerned that you've taken my other points completely wrong.
I don't think we should hand out entitlements/scholarships/jobs/what have you based or race, disability, or sex (and especially not for athletics). I embrace Darwinism, and believe we should let the cream rise to the top naturally rather than trying to force a homogenous mixture.
"The systemic advantage of being white" is complainypants justification for special treatment, and isn't to our benefit from an evolutionary standpoint. The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own) are the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species. Forcing them into a mixture of half and half prevents them from realizing their true potential.
-
The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own WHITE PEOPLE)
So you really do believe that white people are simply superior and that is why they are successful? You aren't even ashamed of being a white supremacist, you're actually going to admit it in public?
Forcing them into a mixture of half and half prevents them from realizing their true potential.
Straight up white supremacist bullshit.
-
The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own WHITE PEOPLE)
So you really do believe that white people are simply superior and that is why they are successful? You aren't even ashamed of being a white supremacist, you're actually going to admit it in public?
Forcing them into a mixture of half and half prevents them from realizing their true potential.
Straight up white supremacist bullshit.
You seem to be looking for racism.
Also - If you knew anything thing about fresh milk, you'd realize that the color (real cream is yellowish) rises to the top. Homogenization makes it all looks white.
-
Black Americans (as a group example) hold themselves down by shunning education.
And you're telling me you're not racist?
They tease and shun oreos who want to make something of themselves.
Because ambition = "white on the inside", right? I get it! (Super racist!)
They play the race card, crying about how much harder they have it, and demand special treatment. They complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.
HOLY FUCK MY RACIST-OMETER EXPLODED.
I don't accept special treatment
OTOH, white men get special treatment whether they ask for it or not.
1. Noting cultural traits is not racist. It's just non-delusional.
2. Oreo is a derogatory term used by black people against black people. The racism is theirs.
3. How many times has Obama played the race card to quiet his opponents? More than all other presidents combined.
4. Lets see some data. I'll start with U of Michigan giving 12 admission points for a perfect SAT, and 20 for not being white.
-
Is Bill Cosby racist? Saw this on imgur the other day.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/cosby.asp
-
"I can't be racist, I was born with congenital defects". Sorry dude, that's not how logic works. Being born with congenital defects surely sucks ass, but it doesn't give you a "get out of racism free" pass. Also, try being a black woman born with congenital defects.
The point you seem to be missing, when you're arguing against "special treatment" for minorities, is that overwhelmingly, it's white men who get the special treatment, as should be obvious from a cursory glance at reality.
What a bunch of rubbish! Black Americans (as a group example) hold themselves down by shunning education. They tease and shun oreos who want to make something of themselves. They play the race card, crying about how much harder they have it, and demand special treatment. They complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.
Demanding special treatment because of your race or sex is racist or sexist. Demanding equal treatment is not.
I don't accept special treatment, and treat people equally regardless of sex, color, or disability. Any person can choose to lift themselves up, if they have the pride to do so. Likewise, they can choose to whine while they hold themselves down. Blaming it on an *unfair advantage* falls under the latter category.
You are obviously so narrow minded that I wouldn't even bother to enlighten you. Suffice it to say that people born in poverty with parents who lack education and often live in bad neighborhoods have a hard time escaping that situation. Most never will. It's a fact of life in almost any society. It's human nature; people learn what they live. Those who have escaped those circumstances could point to specific intervention or influence that has led them out of their situation. Minorities live in areas where they are cut off from the rest of America in largely poor urban ghettos in which the cycle of ignorance and poverty is perpetuated. American society is unique in that it does not allow people born into those circumstances to easily move to the middle class because of the apartheid system of education and how education is funded. If you compare America's peers such as Canada you will find far more social mobility because education is a leveler. However, in inner cities, the schools are poorly funded because they rely mostly on local dollars. However, this is only part of the problem; the other issue is that these kids are surrounded by losers like themselves. It's remains a fact that poor children do better when they are integrated into schools that draw from various economic backgrounds to include middle class and upper middle class because they can see values that lead to success.
On another note, I have seen first hand where white are advantaged during the years I have lived in this medium size southern city. I work for a mega corp where the jobs go to people who know each other either because they grew up together or went to the same schools. Once they get into management, they look out for each others' family, friends and children. More often than not, their children are hired into the company as soon as they finish college. These are invariable white people.
As for judging, I think society has become too accepting of certain behaviors to the point where just about everything that's not outright illegal is considered normal and criticism makes you intolerant and could get you ostracized. People are afraid to come off as judgmental but I think judging others can be positive for society. Judging others' behavior can force someone to take a look at themselves and change or modify the behavior. Someone took offense to the use of the term fatties; unless you have a glandular problem, you are responsible for your weight. It's simple math; if you consume more than you expend, you will get fat. As a society we should call out gluttony. While eating habits are formed in childhood, it's not impossible to change although I recognize that the legacy your parent left you is hard to change. Isn't this forum all about judging? Why are we on this board if we didn't think MMM has a better alternative to the over consumption in society? Do we not judge others for the overconsumption?
-
Someone took offense to the use of the term fatties; unless you have a glandular problem, you are responsible for your weight. It's simple math; if you consume more than you expend, you will get fat. As a society we should call out gluttony.
It's an insult, a slur, it contains a negative judgement. If somebody knows that their diet and exercise regime are responsible for their weight (although unusual things like glandular problems are hardly the only biological factors), then it's their own decision and they aren't going to inconvenience or harm anyone more than they inconvenience or harm themselves, if at all. The judgement that everyone should want to be slim is useless at best.
I want to eat lots of delicious cake, and I'm fortunate that my metabolism permits it without my belly protruding. However, it would be rather rude for me to say to somebody else, "better not have that slice of cake, you'll be fat" as if I am somehow more aware of the effects on their own body than they are; or as if I am somehow better than them at balancing their own preferences for eating cake and being slim.
Now, if somebody probably doesn't know about the effects of diet and exercise, then we can educate them in a non-judgmental way; and we do, when they are children, for instance. But offering your opinion to people who have surely heard the same opinion many times before, is not going to help anybody.
-
Suffice it to say that people born in poverty with parents who lack education and often live in bad neighborhoods have a hard time escaping that situation. Most never will.
This is true, and yet I escaped. Much of my "help yourself" attitude comes from watching those who didn't even try.
American society is unique in that it does not allow people born into those circumstances to easily move to the middle class because of the apartheid system of education and how education is funded.
BS - Go to India if you want to see people held back. Even the poorest inner-city American is worlds above the untouchables.
It's remains a fact that poor children do better when they are integrated into schools that draw from various economic backgrounds to include middle class and upper middle class because they can see values that lead to success.
Quite true, regardless of race. Poor people tend to hold themselves down rather than lift themselves up...but is being a minority a symptom or cause? Fresh immigrants tend to do very well regardless of skin color.
Have you ever considered that providing scholarships based on race is the equivalent to providing work bonuses based on race? The minorities wouldn't work harder because they'd be assured of a bonus. The whites wouldn't work harder because they'd get screwed out of it regardless.
Providing scholarships for a perfect SAT score or GPA, on the other hand, would encourage kids of all races to work hard.
On another note, I have seen first hand where white are advantaged during the years I have lived in this medium size southern city. I work for a mega corp where the jobs go to people who know each other either because they grew up together or went to the same schools. Once they get into management, they look out for each others' family, friends and children. More often than not, their children are hired into the company as soon as they finish college. These are invariable white people.
Nepotism is universal, yet only condemned when it is done by white people. Mormons hire Mormons, blacks hire blacks, Latinos hire Latinos, etc. Rather than complaining, shouldn't minorities be starting businesses of their own?
Someone took offense to the use of the term fatties; unless you have a glandular problem, you are responsible for your weight. It's simple math; if you consume more than you expend, you will get fat. As a society we should call out gluttony. While eating habits are formed in childhood, it's not impossible to change although I recognize that the legacy your parent left you is hard to change.
The same logic applies to climbing out of the slums, regardless of your race.
-
On another note, I have seen first hand where white are advantaged during the years I have lived in this medium size southern city. I work for a mega corp where the jobs go to people who know each other either because they grew up together or went to the same schools. Once they get into management, they look out for each others' family, friends and children. More often than not, their children are hired into the company as soon as they finish college. These are invariable white people.
What you say does happen. I see it more in small business. But it is not so black and white. The Mega corporations I have worked with like to have a diversified workforce, at least a picture of one, or a defense against affirmative action law suits. Those corporations are very happy to hire in a mixed workforce and promote non-white men up the ladder. There are pros and cons on both sides of the coin.
edit corps to corporations, oops.
-
Those corps are very happy to hire in a mixed workforce and promote non-white men up the ladder. There are pros and cons on both sides of the coin.
I think you mean non-white men and women. Duh.
See, that "duh" is me getting judgey
-
Those corps are very happy to hire in a mixed workforce and promote non-white men up the ladder. There are pros and cons on both sides of the coin.
I think you mean non-white men and women. Duh.
See, that "duh" is me getting judgey
The and women is your add. I have seen women (all races) and minority men promoted/hired over white men.
In the 1930's, 40's, and 50's being a white man was a tremendous advantage. We live in the 22nd century. It is not so clear cut. Look at the changes in our society. Sports, Hollywood, business, housing, education.
If I did not answer your question please clarify what you were asking.
-
Those corps are very happy to hire in a mixed workforce and promote non-white men up the ladder. There are pros and cons on both sides of the coin.
I think you mean non-white men and women. Duh.
See, that "duh" is me getting judgey
The and women is your add. I have seen women (all races) and minority men promoted/hired over white men.
In the 1930's, 40's, and 50's being a white man was a tremendous advantage. We live in the 22nd century. It is not so clear cut. Look at the changes in our society. Sports, Hollywood, business, housing, education.
If I did not answer your question please clarify what you were asking.
I think that she was referencing the fact that what started us on this tangent is someone claiming a black woman is economically advantaged over a white man, so clearly your comment should add women too.
KBecks' comment was sarcastic.
-
So far I hear a great deal of judgement about race and little to back that judgement up other than anecdotes.
fixer-upper do you have anything other than your bias to rely on for your opinion? Do you have proof of anything you've said?
Do you have proof that black people shun education?
And to tie all this in with the topic - given your expressed views and self avowed social darwinism it's getting mighty easy to judge your statements. I still haven't seen anything overtly racist other than your easy grouping of people into buckets that fit your world view.
And you still haven't answered my question. What data do you have to back up your statement that a black woman has economic advantages to a white man?
If you can't answer these things...
-
Interesting and relevant article from The Atlantic: The Culture of Shut Up (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-culture-of-shut-up/360239/)
-
1. Noting cultural traits is not racist. It's just non-delusional.
I still haven't seen anything overtly racist other than your easy grouping of people into buckets that fit your world view.
here's a question for all of you... (although I otherwise very much agree with your posts, matchewed, and am curious to see how he answers your questions): what do you think it means for an individual to be "racist"? genuinely curious, maybe I am thinking about it wrong.
this definition makes sense to me:
rac·ist
ˈrāsist/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist More
(racially) discriminatory, racialist, prejudiced, bigoted
adjective
noun: racist; plural noun: racists; adjective: racist
1.
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"
so, fixer-upper, I don't see how "racist" can even be a derogatory term to you. I mean, those are literally your beliefs, things you believe to be correct. why are you so resistant and defensive to me calling your beliefs racist? I don't get it. if you think black people are inferior to white people, I don't see how you could be offended by being called racist.
BS - Go to India if you want to see people held back. Even the poorest inner-city American is worlds above the untouchables.
okay, so American society is NOT unique. but saying "it sucks worse in India" != "America is just fine".
Nepotism is universal, yet only condemned when it is done by white people. Mormons hire Mormons, blacks hire blacks, Latinos hire Latinos, etc. Rather than complaining, shouldn't minorities be starting businesses of their own?
nepotism certainly isn't desirable and admirable (though it may be part of human nature) regardless of which group is perpetrating it. the point is that it's much more valuable to white people than it is to any of these other groups. white people started out on top (at least in American society) basically because of historical uses of force, and nepotism is what allows us to stay there. honestly, if there were no nepotism among any groups (again, human nature so it is hard to fight, but IMO worth trying), I think society and the economy would function more efficiently since people would reach their roles in society based on actual merit. that's what I'm aiming for.
It's an insult, a slur, it contains a negative judgement.
one of these things is not like the other... I'm actually comfortable with negatively judging someone whose poor diet and sedentary lifestyle has led to excessive weight gain. excluding those who have some kind of thyroid problem or whatever, everyone should be able to maintain a relatively healthy weight through reasonable diet and exercise. I run five days a week and do three hours of yoga, that's time-consuming and requires a sacrifice of not doing other things with that time. I eat and drink less than I would if eating and drinking had no consequences. yes, not everyone's metabolism is the same, and not everyone's healthy weight is the same, but I'm pretty sure "obese" is no one's healthy weight. on the other hand, I think it's cruel and unproductive to call someone a "fatty." what's the point, other than to be a jerk?
thanks for the link, arebelspy... great article.
-
I don't think he's said anything overtly racist because he hasn't said white people are superior nor that black people are inferior. His arguments have been centered around culture. In fact one point he made was that immigrants sometimes succeed quite well in this country, that blanket statement would cover immigrants of all races.
That's why I'm more accusing him of social darwinism. Now social darwinism can be racist, but it doesn't have to be. It can be taken with the view of a sort of regardless of what race you are you just didn't try hard enough. I still don't agree with social darwinism. And think that there have been and still are institutionalized discriminatory policies in our societies which have been in place for decades. Trying to counteract these policies with things like affirmative action is a good thing and a small step. Trying to discredit policies like that by not acknowledging that our systems have been and are steeped in discrimination and that anything which is designed to counteract those systems is suddenly the racist thing is either disingenuous or ignorance.
So given the definition you've outlined I do not think he has met all that criteria. I still do not agree with him and am actively trying to move this discussion to something that has a bit more meat to it than people standing on their particular hills and shouting what color the sky is to them. "My Belief" "No My Belief" is a pretty crappy discussion to partake in.
-
Interesting and relevant article from The Atlantic: The Culture of Shut Up (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-culture-of-shut-up/360239/)
Yup, that's what I'd say, if only I was eloquent!
-
I don't think he's said anything overtly racist
Black Americans (as a group example) hold themselves down by shunning education.
They tease and shun oreos who want to make something of themselves.
They play the race card, crying about how much harder they have it, and demand special treatment. They complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.
Oh, and:
[...] from an evolutionary standpoint. The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own) are the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species. Forcing them into a mixture of half and half prevents them from realizing their true potential.
Even if the rest of that bullshit doesn't trigger your racism detectors, if you think blaming black people for slavery isn't overtly racist, then what is?
-
Jesus, what kind of Mississippi Burning shit did I just websurf into?
If there's one thing that my life has led me to believe it's that people are all basically the same.
Everyone wants to fuck, eat, drink, and breathe. Everyone is capable of being a tremendous asshole at times, just as everyone is capable of being a saint. Often times people who amass a lot of power/money come down on the assholish side of things in efforts to amass more power/money . . . often times the poorest end up doing bad things in an effort to take power/money away from those who are richer.
There has yet to have been a convincing argument I've heard for the necessity to demean someone who is of a different race, religion, sex, sexual orientation than you.
-
I don't think he's said anything overtly racist
Black Americans (as a group example) hold themselves down by shunning education.
They tease and shun oreos who want to make something of themselves.
They play the race card, crying about how much harder they have it, and demand special treatment. They complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.
Oh, and:
[...] from an evolutionary standpoint. The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own) are the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species. Forcing them into a mixture of half and half prevents them from realizing their true potential.
Even if the rest of that bullshit doesn't trigger your racism detectors, if you think blaming black people for slavery isn't overtly racist, then what is?
Read the rest of what I've stated from your quote. Given the definition of racist as believing that a race is superior to another, I do not think fixer-upper is racist. Bigoted yes, racist no.
-
We all came from black people way back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#History
I would appreciate less name-calling, more debate, as this discussion is pretty much just a flame war now.
"UR MUM" etc.
-
I don't think he's said anything overtly racist
Black Americans (as a group example) hold themselves down by shunning education.
They tease and shun oreos who want to make something of themselves.
They play the race card, crying about how much harder they have it, and demand special treatment. They complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.
Oh, and:
[...] from an evolutionary standpoint. The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own) are the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species. Forcing them into a mixture of half and half prevents them from realizing their true potential.
Even if the rest of that bullshit doesn't trigger your racism detectors, if you think blaming black people for slavery isn't overtly racist, then what is?
Read the rest of what I've stated from your quote. Given the definition of racist as believing that a race is superior to another, I do not think fixer-upper is racist. Bigoted yes, racist no.
I've only been in and out of this thread but I definitelyissed the point where someone started being racist? Which particular comment or phase was racist?
-
How can it be that no one has yet quoted the Ultimate Righteous Dude? I aspire to this ideal, but I rarely achieve it:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
Of course, this worldview says there is plenty of judging to be done, just not by us.
-
How can it be that no one has yet quoted the Ultimate Righteous Dude?
this guy?
(https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/ot-judging-others/?action=dlattach;attach=3637;image)
-
Read the rest of what I've stated from your quote. Given the definition of racist as believing that a race is superior to another, I do not think fixer-upper is racist. Bigoted yes, racist no.
I read it. If your definition of racism doesn't include "blaming black people for slavery" then your definition is simply not fit for purpose. Tell me: if a gang of thugs systematically lynches African Americans, is that racist enough for you to call them racist, or does it depend on what exactly their privately-held beliefs are?
But at the very least, his explanation for why white men are very disproportionately economically successful, is "the cream rises to the top", i.e. they are superior. So it meets your broken definition, anyway.
-
But at the very least, his explanation for why white men are very disproportionately economically successful, is "the cream rises to the top", i.e. they are superior. So it meets your broken definition, anyway.
I agree with you, but I think what matchewed is saying is that fixer-upper believes black Americans are culturally inferior to white Americans, since he also stated that immigrants of minority races are not inferior to white people. personally, I think that's splitting hairs, but whatever.
-
Read the rest of what I've stated from your quote. Given the definition of racist as believing that a race is superior to another, I do not think fixer-upper is racist. Bigoted yes, racist no.
I read it. If your definition of racism doesn't include "blaming black people for slavery" then your definition is simply not fit for purpose. Tell me: if a gang of thugs systematically lynches African Americans, is that racist enough for you to call them racist, or does it depend on what exactly their privately-held beliefs are?
But at the very least, his explanation for why white men are very disproportionately economically successful, is "the cream rises to the top", i.e. they are superior. So it meets your broken definition, anyway.
Actually I'd define that as a hate crime but whatever, you seem to have your outrage machine flowing quite well and are directing your frustration at the important parts. Thanks for helping ensure the conversation maintained it's current trajectory. I guess there was no stopping that.
-
The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own WHITE PEOPLE)
So you really do believe that white people are simply superior and that is why they are successful? You aren't even ashamed of being a white supremacist, you're actually going to admit it in public?
Warfreak2, with your edits to fixer-upper's quote, it seems you are trying to put words in fixer-upper's mouth. Of course if one is allowed to change another's words, one can "prove" anything. Or are you claiming that "you know what he meant?"
Take fixer-upper's quote in it's original form: "The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own) are the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species." One can debate whether "the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species", or even "those who rise to the top on their own" is the best definition of the "cream of our society". But to infer that a support of self-reliance equates to racism? Again, not unless one claims "I know what he meant."
-
The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own WHITE PEOPLE)
So you really do believe that white people are simply superior and that is why they are successful? You aren't even ashamed of being a white supremacist, you're actually going to admit it in public?
Warfreak2, with your edits to fixer-upper's quote, it seems you are trying to put words in fixer-upper's mouth. Of course if one is allowed to change another's words, one can "prove" anything. Or are you claiming that "you know what he meant?"
Take fixer-upper's quote in it's original form: "The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own) are the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species." One can debate whether "the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species", or even "those who rise to the top on their own" is the best definition of the "cream of our society". But to infer that a support of self-reliance equates to racism? Again, not unless one claims "I know what he meant."
I think it needs to be taken in context with the rest of fixer-upper's comments. he's stated multiple times that black people have it easier than white people in the U.S. today, despite acknowledging that black people have worse outcomes (income, educational attainment, etc.). to me, it seems obvious to infer from that that by "those that rise to the top on their own" he means white people, since based on his own statements, any black people that do rise to the top didn't do it on their own, it was because of affirmative action and the "advantage" that being black bestows on an individual.
-
Warfreak2, with your edits to fixer-upper's quote, it seems you are trying to put words in fixer-upper's mouth. Of course if one is allowed to change another's words, one can "prove" anything. Or are you claiming that "you know what he meant?"
Take fixer-upper's quote in it's original form: "The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own) are the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species." One can debate whether "the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species", or even "those who rise to the top on their own" is the best definition of the "cream of our society". But to infer that a support of self-reliance equates to racism? Again, not unless one claims "I know what he meant."
Of course, if you are allowed to change the context of his words, you can make them mean different things. We are talking about economic advantages; specifically, FU's claim that white men are economically disadvantaged compared to black women. It's simply a fact that, economically, white men are disproportionately successful; according to FU, that's not because white men are advantaged, but because they "rise to the top" deservedly.
It's only "support of self-reliance" if you accept the (racist) premise that white people's disproportionate success is due to their superior self-reliance. Which FU claims.
-
Seems we have different interpretations of what fixer-upper is saying. Could be that I'm being too charitable, or others are seeing things that just aren't there. Daverobev has made some observations worth considering also.
My (perhaps charitable, perhaps accurate) reading is that fixer-upper believes "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race[, sex, disability, etc.] is to stop discriminating on the basis of race[, sex, disability, etc.]." That approach may or may not be workable, but it is a defensible position. It's also an assailable position, so we could could actually debate ideas without ad hominem attacks.
Of course, we could also let fixer-upper expound on his own statements (even more than he has already), rather than parse them for him, but what fun would that be? ;)
-
Of course, we could also let fixer-upper expound on his own statements (even more than he has already), rather than parse them for him, but what fun would that be? ;)
hey, I'm ready and waiting!
I hope my description of his (implied, in my interpretation) beliefs as racist is not what you mean by an ad hominem attack. I didn't think that's what I was doing. It's not that he's a bad person, or that he's white (hey, I am too! go figure!). It's that his statements of belief fulfilled the definition of racism. I'll definitely accept the possibility that I misinterpreted his beliefs, though... but you're right, we would need him to clarify.
This has been an interesting case study of judgment in action ;)
-
This guy blames black people for slavery, but you think his position might be defensible? You need clarification before calling him racist?
Black Americans [...] complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.
I'm sorry, really, are you saying that we should proceed with caution, because this is conceivably not racist?
I'm astounded that this is tolerated, let alone defended. He's practically wearing a white dunce cap with eyeholes.
-
I think that she was referencing the fact that what started us on this tangent is someone claiming a black woman is economically advantaged over a white man, so clearly your comment should add women too.
KBecks' comment was sarcastic.
I misunderstood the sarcasm. A black woman would face different challenges than a white man. I would not consider either economically advantaged based on race or color.
-
There were some earlier comments on how helping a friend get a job helps whites more. 50 years ago that was an advantage whites had over others. Today friendship cross race lines as a result a white person may help a Chinese, who helps a Indian. As our society changes so do the advantages and disadvantages.
-
There were some earlier comments on how helping a friend get a job helps whites more. 50 years ago that was an advantage whites had over others. Today friendship cross race lines as a result a white person may help a Chinese, who helps a Indian. As our society changes so do the advantages and disadvantages.
That's still statistically just not true. People tend to have way more friends of their same ethnicity.
-
This guy blames black people for slavery, but you think his position might be defensible? You need clarification before calling him racist?
Black Americans [...] complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.
I'm sorry, really, are you saying that we should proceed with caution, because this is conceivably not racist?
I'm astounded that this is tolerated, let alone defended. He's practically wearing a white dunce cap with eyeholes.
I suspect (again, fixer-upper will need to clarify) that he is referring to slavery in human history (not just America), and "that slavery was endemic in Africa and part of the structure of everyday life" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery)). If he is saying that white American males did not invent slavery he has a point.
But he actually wrote "Black Americans...invented it", and that statement is demonstrably false because slavery existed long before the American slave trade started.
So he may have deep-seated racist beliefs, or he could just be playing for argument points here - not that anyone would do that ;). One can believe what one wants.
-
There were some earlier comments on how helping a friend get a job helps whites more. 50 years ago that was an advantage whites had over others. Today friendship cross race lines as a result a white person may help a Chinese, who helps a Indian. As our society changes so do the advantages and disadvantages.
That's still statistically just not true. People tend to have way more friends of their same ethnicity.
Because most families tends to not a be mixed ethnicity people will always tend to have a lopsided ethnicity in their friends and family. So if they own a large family business then you are good. As most peoples families do not own midsize business it is more of an anomaly. LinkedIn had an article last year how your close friends are your worst sources when looking for a job because you all know the same people and contacts. Your friends who mix in different social circles have knowledge about the job market you may not, thus a better source of job information.
I agree with part of what you say, but personally I have helped as many friends of different ethnicity as same get jobs. Maybe I am anomaly. That would distort my view.
-
How can it be that no one has yet quoted the Ultimate Righteous Dude?
this guy?
(https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/ot-judging-others/?action=dlattach;attach=3637;image)
They do kind of look the same!
-
Fixer Upper needs a bit of enlightenment on the effects and perils of those who have suffered systematic and historic discrimination. In every society on earth where certain groups of people have suffered discrimination (mostly racial but in some cases religious and tribal), the effects last for many many future generations. We see that most prevalent in Latin American societies with the effects of discrimination on the future success of blacks and indigenous peoples and India in the impact discrimination has on the dalits and other darker skin system. There's a rigid caste system though illegal continues to permeate Indian society. Some of you may recall the shock Indians felt when a darker skin Indian won the Ms. World or Ms. Universe pageant and the uproar that followed on the internet because that could never happen in India. We also see it in Western Countries such as Italy where the southern Italians (darker skin) are more impoverished. How about Eastern Europe where the gypsies originally from Persia have been faced with historical discrimination which still impacts them today. I say this to say that it's non-sense for Fixer Upper to assert that somehow people who suffer this structural racism is at the bottom of society because they are some how lazy or lacking in some way and it's entirely their fault. While I recognize that in America and most of the Western World minorities can lift themselves out of poverty and of course it happens everyday, I also recognize that it's not easy and often requires intervention and a perception/awakening that there's a way out. In other parts of the world, it's impossible because racism is intractable and opening accepted. Even the ones that are discriminated against accept their "place" in society without agitating for a better life.
I mentioned earlier that the United States in unique in the way it funds education which directly impact the lives of minorities since they have to rely on local funding from invariable poorer areas. Fixer Upper countered that India was worst. I do agree but I was not comparing the US to India; America is unique among its peers. India remains a third world country by any measure; the vast majority of the country lives in abject poverty while a few live the good life.
-
I'm going to cast another judgement, I truly think that arguing with people over the internet is a big waste of time, frustrating, not much fun, gets you nowhere, etc. I often like reading articles that have interesting insights, but there is only so much time for this stuff. Have fun with the conversation, but I've got to take care of more practical matters.
-
I'm going to cast another judgement, I truly think that arguing with people over the internet is a big waste of time, frustrating, not much fun, gets you nowhere, etc. I often like reading articles that have interesting insights, but there is only so much time for this stuff. Have fun with the conversation, but I've got to take care of more practical matters.
Agree with you about all but the bolded part. Wanna argue about it?
-
LOL, no!
-
I'm going to cast another judgement, I truly think that arguing with people over the internet is a big waste of time, frustrating, not much fun, gets you nowhere, etc. I often like reading articles that have interesting insights, but there is only so much time for this stuff. Have fun with the conversation, but I've got to take care of more practical matters.
Agree with you about all but the bolded part. Wanna argue about it?
+1. If people can not be jerks or annoying, arguing on the internet can be fun.
If someone isn't looking to "win" but will address actual points (and not ignore half of a post they can't address) and will concede points, it's great.
...I guess that was a lot of "ifs."
-
I don't think he's said anything overtly racist because he hasn't said white people are superior nor that black people are inferior. His arguments have been centered around culture. In fact one point he made was that immigrants sometimes succeed quite well in this country, that blanket statement would cover immigrants of all races.
IMHO, immigrants tend to do better because they come from the right hand side of the bell curve. They're able to see opportunity, and motivated enough to leave their homeland to pursue it. Its hard for them not to be more successful than someone who is happy to be on the dole.
Regarding superiority vs inferiority of different races, I only recognize that different groups of people tend to have different strengths and weaknesses. We all recognize this in animals (bloodhounds are great sniffers, while border collies are great at herding). Humans are more equal, but there are still some differences.
As for the "advantage of black women over white men", its codified into law. As admirable as the intentions of the laws may be, I haven't seen proof of it correcting the economic disparity (rather, the opposite).
Here's an example: At U of Michigan, a black kid gets 20 college admission points for being black, while the white kid gets 12 for a perfect SAT score. The situation doesn't encourage the black kid to try for that perfect score, so he doesn't study and learn as much as the white kid. Which one will go further assuming everything else is equal? I'll bet on the kid who studied his butt off.
Regarding this question from another poster:
Do you have proof that black people shun education?
The existence of the slur "oreo" in black culture without a similar slur in white culture tells us quite a bit about the value of education in each, but the proof is in the graduation rates.
On a final note:
As a society, we can do better. We encourage and idolize athletes rather than scholars. We let people hide behind EBT cards rather than letting their neighbors see them use food stamps. We glorify consumerism, and push families into two incomes rather than celebrating mothers who stay home to raise great kids.
Rather than encouraging ghetto kids with the promise of athletic scholarships, shouldn't we encourage them to use their brains? Should we let the poor be a little ashamed of their food stamps? Should we encourage single income families over iphones? Should we "give" black kids scholarships rather than challenging them to earn one with a 4.0?
One of the haters will find a way to turn this post into racism, in 3...2...1...
-
But at the very least, his explanation for why white men are very disproportionately economically successful, is "the cream rises to the top", i.e. they are superior. So it meets your broken definition, anyway.
I agree with you, but I think what matchewed is saying is that fixer-upper believes black Americans are culturally inferior to white Americans, since he also stated that immigrants of minority races are not inferior to white people. personally, I think that's splitting hairs, but whatever.
"The cream rises to the top" has nothing to do with white versus black or the haves versus the have-nots. It's simply a metaphor of letting the right side of the (intelligence and ambition) bell curve do their thing.
I do rant against affirmative action, because I think it's both racist and counter-productive. Consider the following scenario:
As an employer, you announce that because your black employees are disadvantaged, you're going to give double bonuses to the black employees, and half bonuses to the white ones. What happens? Is it inconceivable that the black people would slack off, while the white ones would work twice as hard to make up for the shortfall?
Now extend this preference to hiring/firing practices:
Over time, the skills of your black employees would deteriorate, as they stopped striving to prove themselves better.
Black kids wouldn't study as hard because they'd be assured of a hiring preference.
The skills of your white employees would increase, as they strive to make their skills outweigh the racial preference.
White kids would study harder, knowing they'd need to overcome the hiring preference.
Over time, you'll hurt the black community by allowing them to slide to the left side of the (ambition) curve, while encouraging the white community to climb to the right.
Affirmative action = face punch stupid (plus it's racist)
-
I don't think he's said anything overtly racist because he hasn't said white people are superior nor that black people are inferior. His arguments have been centered around culture. In fact one point he made was that immigrants sometimes succeed quite well in this country, that blanket statement would cover immigrants of all races.
IMHO, immigrants tend to do better because they come from the right hand side of the bell curve. They're able to see opportunity, and motivated enough to leave their homeland to pursue it. Its hard for them not to be more successful than someone who is happy to be on the dole.
Regarding superiority vs inferiority of different races, I only recognize that different groups of people tend to have different strengths and weaknesses. We all recognize this in animals (bloodhounds are great sniffers, while border collies are great at herding). Humans are more equal, but there are still some differences.
As for the "advantage of black women over white men", its codified into law. As admirable as the intentions of the laws may be, I haven't seen proof of it correcting the economic disparity (rather, the opposite).
Here's an example: At U of Michigan, a black kid gets 20 college admission points for being black, while the white kid gets 12 for a perfect SAT score. The situation doesn't encourage the black kid to try for that perfect score, so he doesn't study and learn as much as the white kid. Which one will go further assuming everything else is equal? I'll bet on the kid who studied his butt off.
Regarding this question from another poster:
Do you have proof that black people shun education?
The existence of the slur "oreo" in black culture without a similar slur in white culture tells us quite a bit about the value of education in each, but the proof is in the graduation rates.
On a final note:
As a society, we can do better. We encourage and idolize athletes rather than scholars. We let people hide behind EBT cards rather than letting their neighbors see them use food stamps. We glorify consumerism, and push families into two incomes rather than celebrating mothers who stay home to raise great kids.
Rather than encouraging ghetto kids with the promise of athletic scholarships, shouldn't we encourage them to use their brains? Should we let the poor be a little ashamed of their food stamps? Should we encourage single income families over iphones? Should we "give" black kids scholarships rather than challenging them to earn one with a 4.0?
One of the haters will find a way to turn this post into racism, in 3...2...1...
Yep moved into racist territory. Comparing races and saying any one has an advantage over another like dogs is decidedly racist.
Outside of that I repeat "Do you have any proof of your claims?" You keep making claims. The same ol' tired ones. But yet no proof.
-
As for the "advantage of black women over white men", its codified into law. As admirable as the intentions of the laws may be, I haven't seen proof of it correcting the economic disparity (rather, the opposite).
If it's not correcting the economic disparity (indeed, if it's making it worse, like you claim), then they don't have an economic advantage.
A (potentially failed) attempt to correct disparity via legislation does not make an advantage codified into law. It makes a difference codified into law. That difference may or may not lead to an advantage (or merely narrow the gap).
You claim that a black woman is economically advantaged over a white man. That's simply not true, regardless of what affirmative action laws exist. They are still at an economic disadvantage, which you implicitly admit by mentioning the economic disparity in the quote above.
-
Here's an example: At U of Michigan, a black kid gets 20 college admission points for being black, while the white kid gets 12 for a perfect SAT score. The situation doesn't encourage the black kid to try for that perfect score, so he doesn't study and learn as much as the white kid. Which one will go further assuming everything else is equal? I'll bet on the kid who studied his butt off.
Why does that situation discourage the black kid? Just because he got 20 points for admission for being underrepresented doesn't mean he'll perform any differently.
-
Yikes, I still don't like it when racist is thrown around haphazardly, but frankly fixer-upper you've done precious little to dispel the notion. And by that I mean when discussing blacks you have almost unfailingly described the worst elements of black culture and applying that to all blacks.
You seem fixated on one small advantage minorities have - affirmative action - and seem utterly incapable of placing it in greater context. I'll gladly cede all of your arguments regarding the counter-productivity of affirmative action in 2014 (which I happen to agree with today, while also noting that it had its time and place) and still point out that compared to the huge advantages of simply being white and male it's akin to saying the Oakland Raiders are better off than the Seattle Seahawks because they have a better kicker.
Put another way, if I were seeking another job today in another city, throwing out all the inherent advantages I have from networking in the same city for the past 15 years in my field, would I be better off being a random white male or a random black female as I sat down for my interview. In my upper middle class job, like most upper middle class jobs, the answer should be obvious. The statistical likelihood is that the interviewers sitting across from me will also be mostly white, and that my potential coworkers will be mostly white, and so I get an edge before the first words are even spoken if I am also white.
Throw in all the networking advantages on top of it if relocation isn't happening, and the advantage is even greater. If this is not common sense to you, I would guess you are either young and naïve regarding how the world actually works, or simply have a misguided view of things. I'd venture you are a pretty bright guy given your background, but your position is idiotic. Given how just about no one is leaping to defend your assertions, perhaps its time to entertain the notion that your argument is the thoroughly weaker one.
-
Comparing races and saying any one has an advantage over another like dogs is decidedly racist.
People from equatorial regions have developed genetic defenses to malaria that Europeans lack, while people from polar latitudes are less susceptible to SAD. Lactose intolerance is also genetic.
Your racist doctor will advise you that each trait has an advantage in a certain environment.
-
Yikes, I still don't like it when racist is thrown around haphazardly, but frankly fixer-upper you've done precious little to dispel the notion. And by that I mean when discussing blacks you have almost unfailingly described the worst elements of black culture and applying that to all blacks.
I haven't touched on the worst aspects of black culture. Google "polar bear game hunting" for some examples of real racism.
You seem fixated on one small advantage minorities have - affirmative action - and seem utterly incapable of placing it in greater context. I'll gladly cede all of your arguments regarding the counter-productivity of affirmative action in 2014 (which I happen to agree with today, while also noting that it had its time and place) and still point out that compared to the huge advantages of simply being white and male it's akin to saying the Oakland Raiders are better off than the Seattle Seahawks because they have a better kicker.
Other posters seem fixated on "but they're growing up in a slum and NEED things given to them for free". I disagree, as I have seen firsthand how our charity wrecks the economic systems of places like Haiti. When we dump free food on Haiti, it puts the local farmers out of work, creating even more poverty. A kinder thing on our part would be to sell them food for a slightly higher price than their farmers are charging. The same is true of the clothes you give to Goodwill. Many of those get shipped overseas, and put even more people out of work.
But since you think I'm stuck on affirmative action, let's open the can of sexism. I think we all know a woman or two who has said "take that bastard to the cleaners". We probably know a few gold-diggers, too. Compare the number of women who use divorce/paternity/sexual harassment laws to take advantage of men, versus the number of men who use women for economic gain. The sad fact is that a high percentage of women not only accept this behavior among each other, but encourage it. Among men, it's rather the opposite.
So I'll let you answer: Do women have certain economic/legal advantages over men? As the old saying goes, "marriage is grand. Divorce is a hundred grand."
The other posters have clamored about the lack of networking, people hiring friends, and other disadvantages to black women, but it's disingenuous to deny that our laws and court precedents are stacked against white men.
Put another way, if I were seeking another job today in another city, throwing out all the inherent advantages I have from networking in the same city for the past 15 years in my field, would I be better off being a random white male or a random black female as I sat down for my interview. In my upper middle class job, like most upper middle class jobs, the answer should be obvious. The statistical likelihood is that the interviewers sitting across from me will also be mostly white, and that my potential coworkers will be mostly white, and so I get an edge before the first words are even spoken if I am also white.
This proves that black women haven't achieved as many of those positions, but not much else. Perhaps the metric would change if we didn't subsidize stay at home moms via the tax code, divorce laws, and welfare payments.
-
Yikes, I still don't like it when racist is thrown around haphazardly, but frankly fixer-upper you've done precious little to dispel the notion. And by that I mean when discussing blacks you have almost unfailingly described the worst elements of black culture and applying that to all blacks.
I haven't touched on the worst aspects of black culture. Google "polar bear game" for some examples of real racism.
You didn't address the racist part: your applying these things to all black people.
Also the first page of Google doesn't seem to have it (https://www.google.com/search?q="polar+bear+game"&oq="polar+bear+game").
It did have a fun dice game.
EDIT: I seem to have found it, maybe? (http://nypost.com/2013/11/23/i-was-in-shock-they-were-all-laughing-knockout-game-victim-speaks-out/) There are very few references to it. How often do you think it happens? Do you think attacking people is limited to that race? Or are there thugs in every skin color?
-
Yikes, I still don't like it when racist is thrown around haphazardly, but frankly fixer-upper you've done precious little to dispel the notion. And by that I mean when discussing blacks you have almost unfailingly described the worst elements of black culture and applying that to all blacks.
I haven't touched on the worst aspects of black culture. Google "polar bear game" for some examples of real racism.
You didn't address the racist part: your applying these things to all black people.
Also the first page of Google doesn't seem to have it (https://www.google.com/search?q="polar+bear+game"&oq="polar+bear+game").
It did have a fun dice game.
EDIT: I seem to have found it, maybe? (http://nypost.com/2013/11/23/i-was-in-shock-they-were-all-laughing-knockout-game-victim-speaks-out/) There are very few references to it. How often do you think it happens? Do you think attacking people is limited to that race? Or are there thugs in every skin color?
My mistake, I should have said "polar bear hunting", which is the act of trying to knock out an unsuspecting white person (especially Jews) with one blow.
The rest of your race-baiting isn't worth a reply.
-
I had to google "race baiting." Not sure how it applies. My questions are from genuine curiosity. I find your viewpoint odd. I'm quite
sheltered lucky, and never had a conversation with someone who openly disparages certain races (other than general grumblings from older folks about "mexicans taking our jobs").
I haven't spent much time in the deep south though, I understand it's pretty common, but growing up on the West Coast (Seattle, California, Vegas) the concept is so foreign to me for someone to hold these views in the modern day, so I'm curious about the questions I wrote. Do you view their race as doing that more than other races? Do you think it's a frequent occurrence?
/shrug
Weird.
-
I had to google "race baiting." Not sure how it applies. My questions are from genuine curiosity.
You're amusingly full of shit. Nice try, though.
-
I had to google "race baiting." Not sure how it applies. My questions are from genuine curiosity.
You're amusingly full of shit. Nice try, though.
fixer-upper, at first it seemed you had some narrowly constructed objections to reverse discrimination. I kinda gave you credit for holding to a non-politically-correct opinion in those areas, and not sinking to the ad hominem level. Some of your latest posts, however, seem much more broadly disparaging and less on point. Just an observation - do with it what you will.
-
I had to google "race baiting." Not sure how it applies. My questions are from genuine curiosity.
You're amusingly full of shit. Nice try, though.
Alright, well, I guess it's not worth engaging with you. A pity. Take care.
-
at first it seemed you had some narrowly constructed objections to reverse discrimination.
Indeed. I've heard some good arguments against affirmative action. At times in the past I have been for it, and at times I have been against it. My feelings on affirmative action are mixed.
One problem though is that it's just a band aid solution to problems that start at a much younger age. Social issues need fixing, rather than just using affirmative action when one gets college-aged, or when applying for certain jobs.
-
fixer-upper, at first it seemed you had some narrowly constructed objections to reverse discrimination. I kinda gave you credit for holding to a non-politically-correct opinion in those areas, and not sinking to the ad hominem level. Some of your latest posts, however, seem much more broadly disparaging and less on point. Just an observation - do with it what you will.
At first, I held myself above comments such as this one:
haha what?
EDIT: Everyone else, don't misconstrue my laugh and short reply to think that I don't realize this is one of the stupidest things ever written.
When the OP ignored my answers to how women and black people have an economic advantage over men and white people, and instead focused on what I considered to be race baiting, I sank to his level. Consider me selfish, but it felt good.
If posters here are too busy looking for racism to see that I'm promoting true equality, why should I bother playing nice with them? If they want to spend an hour nitpicking the verbiage of black people versus black culture, I'd recommend a technical writing forum, or perhaps the same medication they take to cut down on the 47x a day hand-washing.
To settle your debate, I'm an insensitive jerk, but not a racist. Racists think one group is superior to another, but I think all groups suck equally. They do it in different ways, but they all suck. A person may be rational or irrational, while groups of people almost always behave irrationally. A person I can either like or dislike, but people annoy the hell out of me. Simple enough?
Many have pointed out that black women don't always get the same opportunities as white men, and I agree that isn't right. Giving them preferential treatment isn't right either. Forcing white boys to pay more tuition as a way to subsidize black girl scholarships is not only a case of punishing the child for sins of the father, but also justifying the concept of two wrongs making a right.
-
The problem is your conclusions are wrong.
You say AA offers an advantage. We agree on that.
You then draw the conclusion that this makes them economically advantaged overall. We disagree on that.
If I take a baby and cut off its legs, then later in life when its training for the olympics spend one extra minute per day coaching it, I could claim that one extra minute a day over its counterparts is an advantage. That's true. Does it make them advantaged over the one not handicapped from birth? Hell no.
You say a black woman is "economically advantaged" over a white male. This is simply not true. Affirmative action is not as widespread as you seem to think, and it clearly doesn't make them advantaged overall, as the data bears out.
I'm repeating myself though, as you seem not interested in addressing actual arguments, and just ignored this whole previous post where I already said as much:
As for the "advantage of black women over white men", its codified into law. As admirable as the intentions of the laws may be, I haven't seen proof of it correcting the economic disparity (rather, the opposite).
If it's not correcting the economic disparity (indeed, if it's making it worse, like you claim), then they don't have an economic advantage.
A (potentially failed) attempt to correct disparity via legislation does not make an advantage codified into law. It makes a difference codified into law. That difference may or may not lead to an advantage (or merely narrow the gap).
You claim that a black woman is economically advantaged over a white man. That's simply not true, regardless of what affirmative action laws exist. They are still at an economic disadvantage, which you implicitly admit by mentioning the economic disparity in the quote above.
I still consider your comment* one of the stupidest things I've ever read, and you'd done literally nothing so far to defend it or make me reconsider, as you haven't adequately addressed any of the comments about it.
*Note that your comment is different from you as a person.
-
Many have pointed out that black women don't always get the same opportunities as white men, and I agree that isn't right. Giving them preferential treatment isn't right either. Forcing white boys to pay more tuition as a way to subsidize black girl scholarships is not only a case of punishing the child for sins of the father, but also justifying the concept of two wrongs making a right.
I agree with all of this. I still don't see how you can stand by your comment of them being economically advantaged.
They have an economic advantage, but so do white people (a much bigger one and many more of them), they are not economically advantaged.
Affirmative action is an attempt to address the inequality. How would you address it?
-
I had to google "race baiting." Not sure how it applies. My questions are from genuine curiosity. I find your viewpoint odd. I'm quite sheltered lucky, and never had a conversation with someone who openly disparages certain races (other than general grumblings from older folks about "mexicans taking our jobs").
I haven't spent much time in the deep south though, I understand it's pretty common, but growing up on the West Coast (Seattle, California, Vegas) the concept is so foreign to me for someone to hold these views in the modern day, so I'm curious about the questions I wrote. Do you view their race as doing that more than other races? Do you think it's a frequent occurrence?
/shrug
Weird.
Underline part is what I am replying too.
Having grow up in Virginia and had grandparents in Illinois I can say racism is not anymore common in one state over the other. Fifty plus years ago racism was in the south. Sure there are some racist out there who make big headlines, but it is not mainstream nor socially acceptable. Current example is when the Redskins moved the training camp to Richmond, scores of people lined up to meet RG3.
-
at first it seemed you had some narrowly constructed objections to reverse discrimination.
Indeed. I've heard some good arguments against affirmative action. At times in the past I have been for it, and at times I have been against it. My feelings on affirmative action are mixed.
One problem though is that it's just a band aid solution to problems that start at a much younger age. Social issues need fixing, rather than just using affirmative action when one gets college-aged, or when applying for certain jobs.
My opinion on affirmative action turned when working at a hospital I overheard a doctor complain it pissed him off people thought he earned his degree on a curve. People have gone to mixed schools, business want a diversified workforce, etc. I feel it is time to phase out AA.
-
at first it seemed you had some narrowly constructed objections to reverse discrimination.
Indeed. I've heard some good arguments against affirmative action. At times in the past I have been for it, and at times I have been against it. My feelings on affirmative action are mixed.
One problem though is that it's just a band aid solution to problems that start at a much younger age. Social issues need fixing, rather than just using affirmative action when one gets college-aged, or when applying for certain jobs.
My opinion on affirmative action turned when working at a hospital I overheard a doctor complain it pissed him off people thought he earned his degree on a curve. People have gone to mixed schools, business want a diversified workforce, etc. I feel it is time to phase out AA.
But is it better to have a job and a degree that some idiots think you got on a curve, or no job / degree at all?
-
Fixer Upper you are a seriously misguided individual and your views reflect a very narrow perspective mostly likely developed out of ignorance and a substandard education. My guess is that you have very little contacts with minority if any at all and you are incapable of understanding what it's like to be affected by generations of poverty and disadvantages. I posted above the insidious ways in which historical discrimination continues in the mind of those whose fore-parents have suffered from this which we continue to see all around the world. Until you understand the psychological and real effects of discrimination, you will continue to be uninformed. I pity you and quite frankly you said you're a jerk but you're not only one you are a racist; own it. With that said, I am done with this thread because conversing with you is like conversing with a brick wall.
-
... your views reflect a very narrow perspective mostly likely developed out of ignorance and a substandard education. My guess is that you have very little contacts with minority if any at all and you are incapable of understanding what it's like to be affected by generations of poverty and disadvantages.
I'd say the above [modified] quote is accurate of many who have been raised in upper-middle class areas. No matter the teachings and the attitudes, until we actually have that contact in an equitable relationship we really don't get it. I was raised in a pretty liberal household in an "enlightened" area where racism, bigotry, and prejudice were never acceptable nor tolerated (at the all-white schools and the mostly-white town). However, until we really live integration, I'd have to say most of us just don't "get it". I live in a mixed-income community where many people truly are trying to "mix" socially and culturally. I'm fascinated by the things I just didn't know about the way other people live. Sometimes I'm comfortable with it accepting those differences, and sometimes I'm not.
Using unnatural means (AA) to accomplish the goal is not a terrible thing. Perhaps instead of only seeing the benefit that one class of people receives, FU could look in the mirror and figure out what benefits he has received from the same arrangement, because they are there.
-
I used to have similar views to fixer-upper being raised by conservative parents in a very sheltered community. Then I left home, grew up, learned about the world a bit, and got a clue. I get that affirmative action seems unfair to those that don't have the context to understand why it exists. I also think it missed addressing the real cause of the problem. AA makes sense as a temporary equalizer while addressing the societal issues that are causing the basic inequality - unfortunately, those issues still exist and AA is still around.
As far as the whole issue of judgement goes, I see making a judgement as a serious responsibility. I think you need to make them sometimes, but you need to gather as much information as possible and realize there are real live humans involved. It is all too easy on the interwebs to make emotional snap judgements based on a sentence or a paragraph out of someones entire life. I think there is an emotional reward to judging people - it feels good and it makes you feel superior.
-
As far as the whole issue of judgement goes, I see making a judgement as a serious responsibility. I think you need to make them sometimes, but you need to gather as much information as possible and realize there are real live humans involved. It is all too easy on the interwebs to make emotional snap judgements based on a sentence or a paragraph out of someones entire life. I think there is an emotional reward to judging people - it feels good and it makes you feel superior.
Well said, thanks.
-
Here's a great post by David over at Raptitude tangentially related to judging: http://www.raptitude.com/2014/04/internet-activism/
most internet activists let contempt seep into the message. It becomes about making others wrong instead of trying to help them be right. Just visit virtually any issue-related message board. It’s adversarial. It’s normal to blame people for their ignorance.
Ignorance, if that’s what it really is, isn’t something people can fairly be blamed for. We don’t choose what not to grasp, what not to have been taught, what not to have understood the significance of.
Ignorance is blind to itself. When you’re trying to rectify ignorance in someone else, it’s easy to forget that you’re ignorant too, in ways you can’t know.
Whoever you are, you have to admit there’s a hell of a lot you don’t know, and you don’t know that you don’t know it. None of us are free of ignorance. So in our attempts to reduce ignorance we ought to approach others as fellow learners, rather than people worthy of blame.
The worst thing a person can do for their stance is to deliver it packaged with a moral judgment. This effectively eliminates the other person’s freedom to agree, and may even create a committed opponent to their cause. Doing this to a lot of people reduces the public’s receptivity to the cause altogether. Even if it is the truth, when you hurl it at someone it will bounce rather than stick.
(Emphasis added.)
It's a good point - judgment is often counter-productive to your message (and yes, we all have a message to convey/that we project).
-
I really enjoyed reading that post. Thank you, arebelspy.
-
Here's a great post by David over at Raptitude tangentially related to judging: http://www.raptitude.com/2014/04/internet-activism/
Sure is - thanks for sharing it.
Disappointing to read some of the comments section in the link, where folks display exactly the behavior the article suggests is unproductive. Here's to all of us doing better.
-
Many have pointed out that black women don't always get the same opportunities as white men, and I agree that isn't right. Giving them preferential treatment isn't right either. Forcing white boys to pay more tuition as a way to subsidize black girl scholarships is not only a case of punishing the child for sins of the father, but also justifying the concept of two wrongs making a right.
I agree with all of this. I still don't see how you can stand by your comment of them being economically advantaged.
They have an economic advantage, but so do white people (a much bigger one and many more of them), they are not economically advantaged.
Affirmative action is an attempt to address the inequality. How would you address it?
The economic advantage is evident when you compare apples with apples. A white boy starting out in a ghetto will likely pay (borrow) more for college, and have fewer job opportunities than the black girl next door. Men already have a higher unemployment rate than women, and with the racial benefits of AA, she has an even larger advantage.
Your argument of assigning different economic classes to each race is comparing apples and oranges.
Without racial consideration, I'd address income inequality with equal treatment and tough love:
If people don't want to work, why can't we allow it to be uncomfortable? Rather than section 8 SFHs, stack them up like college kids in a dorm. Rather than food stamps for free sodas, give them access to healthy food in a cafeteria with set hours.
Short-term this would create more inequality, but in the long-term it would encourage the poor to lift themselves up enough to get a place of their own.
Expanding on the thought, I wouldn't kick them out if they passed an income/savings threshold, but would charge a fixed rent as an incentive not to live there forever. Those who couldn't pay in cash would be expected to do chores/work which would help pay the bills and teach job skills.
For those who need job training, this situation could be tied into the CCC model, but rather than having it all funded by the government, I'd prefer to see the private sector do the training and provide the jobs in a paid internship (similar to the way it's done in Germany).
-
Having grow up in Virginia and had grandparents in Illinois I can say racism is not anymore common in one state over the other. Fifty plus years ago racism was in the south. Sure there are some racist out there who make big headlines, but it is not mainstream nor socially acceptable. Current example is when the Redskins moved the training camp to Richmond, scores of people lined up to meet RG3.
The amount of racism depends on the type you're talking about. Racism by whites is pretty evenly spread, but racism against whites tends to have hotspots in areas with high ethnic concentrations.
-
I haven't spent much time in the deep south though, I understand it's pretty common, but growing up on the West Coast (Seattle, California, Vegas) the concept is so foreign to me for someone to hold these views in the modern day, so I'm curious about the questions I wrote. Do you view their race as doing that more than other races? Do you think it's a frequent occurrence?
/shrug
Weird.
Underline part is what I am replying too.
Having grow up in Virginia and had grandparents in Illinois I can say racism is not anymore common in one state over the other. Fifty plus years ago racism was in the south. Sure there are some racist out there who make big headlines, but it is not mainstream nor socially acceptable. Current example is when the Redskins moved the training camp to Richmond, scores of people lined up to meet RG3.
this isn't the deep south, but I definitely noticed a difference between Minnesota (where I lived for the first 21 years of my life) and Oklahoma. maybe it's just that people are more willing to make comments out loud (i.e. maybe Minnesotans are secretly racist, but it's not acceptable/"Minnesota nice" to say it in public?) but it's definitely different. maybe it just depends where you're at...
The amount of racism depends on the type you're talking about. Racism by whites is pretty evenly spread, but racism against whites tends to have hotspots in areas with high ethnic concentrations.
I think maybe why I'm having such a hard time with your position is that I can't think of a SINGLE time I've felt I was the target of racism (I'm white).
actually, I take that back, one time in college when I was working in an underserved middle school as part of my ed major, some pissed off (Native American) eighth grader who didn't want to do his math assignment said something along the lines of "well you don't know anything, you're just a white girl from the suburbs!" I guess that could be construed as racist, but he was pretty correct... I AM a white girl from the suburbs, I've benefited massively from it (great public high school, supportive parents who helped me apply to colleges, I'm rarely the only person of my race in the room, people don't assume my behavior/characteristics are representative of my whole race, etc.), and I have no idea what it's like to grow up as a poor racial minority in Minneapolis.
regardless, compared to all the benefits I've received, a moment of rudeness from an eighth grader seems pretty insignificant :)
-
LOL. Fixer Upper's rantings are straight out of the angry white boy right wing nutjob playbook. As Chris Rock would say "not a single white guy in here would trade places with me and I'm rich. The one legged white busboy wouldn't trade places 'cos he's thinking "Nah, I wanna see where this white guy thing takes me".
-
LOL. Fixer Upper's rantings are straight out of the angry white boy right wing nutjob playbook. As Chris Rock would say "not a single white guy in here would trade places with me and I'm rich. The one legged white busboy wouldn't trade places 'cos he's thinking "Nah, I wanna see where this white guy thing takes me".
LOL! I enjoy Chris Rock.
-
LOL. Fixer Upper's rantings are straight out of the angry white boy right wing nutjob playbook. As Chris Rock would say "not a single white guy in here would trade places with me and I'm rich. The one legged white busboy wouldn't trade places 'cos he's thinking "Nah, I wanna see where this white guy thing takes me".
Attacking the messenger rather than refuting the message is the lowest form of debate. Perhaps you could do better?
-
I've become convinced that fixer-upper's arguments stem from the notion that white males are victims of a society run amock. Affirmative action unfairly benefits minorities, the courts unfairly benefit women. Ergo, white males are at a disadvantage (if we assume white men have no other inherent advantages, which we do and leverage All. The. Time.).
I'll ignore the bitterness in his writing and the fact that when talking about blacks he portrays them as all coming from the ghetto (affirmative action benefits suburban blacks too, does it not?). Whether fixer-upper is a racist or not is irrelevant to the argument. (Having said that, if he doesn't feel whites are inherently superior, he's made a helluva case that blacks and/or black society is inherently inferior)
Fixer-upper, you are just plain dead wrong. Consider. Not a soul has agreed with you so far. That should give you, or anyone, some pause. I'm right and everyone else is wrong is the path the loonies travel. We have pointed out the various ways white males are more advantaged, you have neither addressed or even acknowledged those points remotely adequately. From my chair it seems like your argument hinges on one thing. Since minorities have taken advantage of opportunities not available to you (affirmative action), they retain an advantage overall. What you have done is isolate one or two points on the side of the ledger that bolsters your claim and simply ignored the other side of the ledger. That position is so badly flawed that it is just plain idiotic. Time to reconsider.
-
Well said, hybrid.
-
Well said, hybrid.
+1. Thank you for being eloquent hybrid where I have failed to make my point.
-
I've become convinced that fixer-upper's arguments stem from the notion that white males are victims of a society run amock. Affirmative action unfairly benefits minorities, the courts unfairly benefit women. Ergo, white males are at a disadvantage (if we assume white men have no other inherent advantages, which we do and leverage All. The. Time.).
I'll ignore the bitterness in his writing and the fact that when talking about blacks he portrays them as all coming from the ghetto (affirmative action benefits suburban blacks too, does it not?). Whether fixer-upper is a racist or not is irrelevant to the argument. (Having said that, if he doesn't feel whites are inherently superior, he's made a helluva case that blacks and/or black society is inherently inferior)
Fixer-upper, you are just plain dead wrong. Consider. Not a soul has agreed with you so far. That should give you, or anyone, some pause. I'm right and everyone else is wrong is the path the loonies travel. We have pointed out the various ways white males are more advantaged, you have neither addressed or even acknowledged those points remotely adequately. From my chair it seems like your argument hinges on one thing. Since minorities have taken advantage of opportunities not available to you (affirmative action), they retain an advantage overall. What you have done is isolate one or two points on the side of the ledger that bolsters your claim and simply ignored the other side of the ledger. That position is so badly flawed that it is just plain idiotic. Time to reconsider.
Well...maybe. First remember http://www.raptitude.com/2014/04/internet-activism/. Then consider
Racism by whites is pretty evenly spread
and Many have pointed out that black women don't always get the same opportunities as white men, and I agree that isn't right. Giving them preferential treatment isn't right either. Forcing white boys to pay more tuition as a way to subsidize black girl scholarships is not only a case of punishing the child for sins of the father, but also justifying the concept of two wrongs making a right.
One may choose to disagree with those comments, but (e.g.) calling the writer an "angry white boy right wing nutjob" isn't the most persuasive argument.
-
One may choose to disagree with those comments, but (e.g.) calling the writer an "angry white boy right wing nutjob" isn't the most persuasive argument.
And Hybrid did not do that, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.
-
Correct, hybrid himself did not say those words. But "That position is so badly flawed that it is just plain idiotic" isn't exactly a huge step toward dispassionate discourse.
Yes, at times fixer-upper has done his share of flaming. At other times (e.g. the two quotes from him in my previous post) he has acknowledged others' views and made some objectively reasonable points. Any thoughts on those points?
-
... your views reflect a very narrow perspective mostly likely developed out of ignorance and a substandard education. My guess is that you have very little contacts with minority if any at all and you are incapable of understanding what it's like to be affected by generations of poverty and disadvantages.
I'd say the above [modified] quote is accurate of many who have been raised in upper-middle class areas. No matter the teachings and the attitudes, until we actually have that contact in an equitable relationship we really don't get it. I was raised in a pretty liberal household in an "enlightened" area where racism, bigotry, and prejudice were never acceptable nor tolerated (at the all-white schools and the mostly-white town). However, until we really live integration, I'd have to say most of us just don't "get it". I live in a mixed-income community where many people truly are trying to "mix" socially and culturally. I'm fascinated by the things I just didn't know about the way other people live. Sometimes I'm comfortable with it accepting those differences, and sometimes I'm not.
Using unnatural means (AA) to accomplish the goal is not a terrible thing. Perhaps instead of only seeing the benefit that one class of people receives, FU could look in the mirror and figure out what benefits he has received from the same arrangement, because they are there.
Not all upper-middle class areas are white. I grew up in northern California and though my mom had to look for it, the school I went to did not have any majority race. I will fully admit to being a classist based partly on how I grew up but I was exposed to all races.
-
Not all upper-middle class areas are white. I grew up in northern California
I was expecting "Asian" right after this. Many upper-middle class communities in CA, and elsewhere, have a majority population of Asian descent.
-
MOD EDIT: This post was split off from this thread: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/would-you-move-to-the-middle-east-to-help-your-finances/
To try and let that thread get back on track.
/END MOD EDIT.
Maybe we can add it to the off topic judgement thread so we can keep all the racism in one place.
Or how about we just drop it, and get back on topic?
On second thought, yes, please no one respond to greaper here. If you'd like to, go cut and paste his comment(s) over there and feel free to respond.
Racism, seriously? I was trying to respectfully bow out of the conversation but I have a hard time doing that when people lob terms that don't apply to the conversation at hand. Words mean things.
rac·ism
[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
race
2 [reys] Show IPA
noun
1.
a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2.
a population so related.
Religion is not a characteristic of race. Maybe, maybe in the case of Judaism where because of a nomadic separate existence throughout history there are significant differences in genetic markers and distinct subgroups within the genre. For instance Sephardic Jews. Though the late Christopher Hitchins laid out a great argument against such a claim in his book "God Is Not Great."
If you want to broad brush me with an -ism, at least use the appropriate terminology.
-
Except that, as I said, it didn't read to me to be attacking a religion, but a whole race of people.
Like I said, I don't use slurs when it comes to characteristics thrust upon someone by birth. I also don't believe that gender, race or sexual orientation makes an entire group of people act a certain way and I find it offensive when people use blanket statements for African Americans, women or gays.
But people born in and living in the Middle East all act a certain way? (That, to me, is something thrust upon them at birth.)
Your statement was about all the people living there (and, more specifically, their government). Not just those who believe a certain religion.
You specifically noted:
I don't trust a lot of the laws in the middle east. There have been some crazy judgements against foreigners even in Dubai for things like adultery.
While I agree with that, I don't see it as a reason to use a slur against everyone in the country.
It was a racist comment, and calling it as such absolutely did apply to the conversation at hand.
-
Except that, as I said, it didn't read to me to be attacking a religion, but a whole race of people.
Like I said, I don't use slurs when it comes to characteristics thrust upon someone by birth. I also don't believe that gender, race or sexual orientation makes an entire group of people act a certain way and I find it offensive when people use blanket statements for African Americans, women or gays.
But people born in and living in the Middle East all act a certain way? (That, to me, is something thrust upon them at birth.)
Your statement was about all the people living there (and, more specifically, their government). Not just those who believe a certain religion.
You specifically noted:
I don't trust a lot of the laws in the middle east. There have been some crazy judgements against foreigners even in Dubai for things like adultery.
While I agree with that, I don't see it as a reason to use a slur against everyone in the country.
It was a racist comment, and calling it as such absolutely did apply to the conversation at hand.
Far from it. I spent the evening enjoying craft brew at the home of a friend of Arabic descent a few weeks ago. I left because I couldn't keep up with all the fallen muslims, I can't do more than 3 or 4 beers these days and those guys started breaking out the vodka.
See, Arabic is a race. And to say Arabs or Persians are oppressive jerks is racist. They're not by birth. Though if they join the Islamic religion and support a theocracy that oppresses people, I won't respect them and might call them names. I was born Catholic, I do like the new pope, but I have massive problems with the catholic church as a whole and haven't been a member for almost 20 years. Any attacks against Catholicism wouldn't be an attack against me.
My comments were meant for the ruling elite that exploit religion and lack of education of the religious masses. When I say Mormon, I'm referring to the Mormon church, not necessarily the kid forced to go door to door on his bicycle. When I say Muslim, I'm referring to those in the power structure at the governmental level. Not some poor sod that wasn't allowed to have a proper education separate from religious indoctrination.
-
See, Arabic is a race. And to say Arabs or Persians are oppressive jerks is racist. They're not by birth.
Correct. And your comment "Will the Muhammad's let you get your drink on, or do you have to spend the next few years sober." read to me as attacking all Arabs by calling them a racial slur. You weren't just attacking a religion, but a country and government and people.
In other words, you may have meant it to only target Arabs of a certain religion, but that's not how it came across.
And yes, had you said "Will the Mohammedans let you get your drink on" it would have not been offensive at all.
As you said, words matter.
-
Yes, I modified my comment above. And I apologize for the earlier word. As I said I typed it quickly on my iPhone and didn't really proofread very well. Unfortunately, neither the first nor the last time I'll do that.
-
Yes, I modified my comment above. And I apologize for the earlier word. As I said I typed it quickly on my iPhone and didn't really proofread very well. Unfortunately, neither the first nor the last time I'll do that.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification. :)
-
I was expecting "Asian" right after this. Many upper-middle class communities in CA, and elsewhere, have a majority population of Asian descent.
We're actually at the point that some California colleges have statistically nonconforming Asian populations because of the repeal of affirmative action for CA college admissions. As a white male, I'd be picketing the state house for my affirmative action admission.
I remember when I was in college 10 years ago a professor told us that he had to let some men into a grad program on an AA basis because the majority of eligible applicants were women. Affirmative Action can go both ways.
-
Correct, hybrid himself did not say those words. But "That position is so badly flawed that it is just plain idiotic" isn't exactly a huge step toward dispassionate discourse.
Yes, at times fixer-upper has done his share of flaming. At other times (e.g. the two quotes from him in my previous post) he has acknowledged others' views and made some objectively reasonable points. Any thoughts on those points?
I've been very careful to attack the position and not the one making it in this argument. In fact, I was the one who called out folks playing the racist card prematurely (though, in hindsight, fixer-upper has done little and less to disprove their claims). But I refuse to back away from stating a position is idiotic when I can demonstrate that it rather clearly is. This argument has been akin to debating a flat-earther or a Holocaust denier. At some point it is fair game to disparage the argument itself.
MDM, respectfully, you are just muddying the waters.
-
Not all upper-middle class areas are white. I grew up in northern California
I was expecting "Asian" right after this. Many upper-middle class communities in CA, and elsewhere, have a majority population of Asian descent.
I think my old area now is approximately equal between Vietnamese and Mexican, lol. I take it you are from Ca?
-
Not all upper-middle class areas are white. I grew up in northern California
I was expecting "Asian" right after this. Many upper-middle class communities in CA, and elsewhere, have a majority population of Asian descent.
I think my old area now is approximately equal between Vietnamese and Mexican, lol. I take it you are from Ca?
Went to college in CA, and my wife is from CA. Much of the west coast is similar though (Seattle, for example).
-
How can it be that no one has yet quoted the Ultimate Righteous Dude? I aspire to this ideal, but I rarely achieve it:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
Of course, this worldview says there is plenty of judging to be done, just not by us.
Not all of us are Christians so his opinion (as written by other men) is of no relevance to many.
-
Hybrid: I almost did note that your post was completely dispassionate but decided to pass due to the "idiotic" line. You do indeed tend toward even-handedness.
All: The very low bandwidth available in this type of communication does lead to communication problems. It is good when folks take the time to respond to all parts of a post. Many people here do that - consequently the discussions are more interesting than on many other forums. Still there are times when, intentionally or not, parts of a post are selectively addressed or ignored. Then, rightly or wrongly, the OP believes the selectivity was intentional: e.g., ever see a post where someone says in so many words "you aren't responding to my points/questions"?
For those who do take the time to consider all parts of a post, thanks and keep it up. And I believe I'm speaking to the majority here. Human nature being what it is, unfortunately, the conscientious may tend to wonder if I'm "accusing" them, while others will have no idea this is directed at them. So it goes....
-
Hybrid: I almost did note that your post was completely dispassionate but decided to pass due to the "idiotic" line. You do indeed tend toward even-handedness.
All: The very low bandwidth available in this type of communication does lead to communication problems. It is good when folks take the time to respond to all parts of a post. Many people here do that - consequently the discussions are more interesting than on many other forums. Still there are times when, intentionally or not, parts of a post are selectively addressed or ignored. Then, rightly or wrongly, the OP believes the selectivity was intentional: e.g., ever see a post where someone says in so many words "you aren't responding to my points/questions"?
For those who do take the time to consider all parts of a post, thanks and keep it up. And I believe I'm speaking to the majority here. Human nature being what it is, unfortunately, the conscientious may tend to wonder if I'm "accusing" them, while others will have no idea this is directed at them. So it goes....
(http://www.sportypal.com/Images/Style/Community/thumbsup.png)
-
LOL. Fixer Upper's rantings are straight out of the angry white boy right wing nutjob playbook. As Chris Rock would say "not a single white guy in here would trade places with me and I'm rich. The one legged white busboy wouldn't trade places 'cos he's thinking "Nah, I wanna see where this white guy thing takes me".
LOL! I enjoy Chris Rock.
LOL, but so true.
-
at first it seemed you had some narrowly constructed objections to reverse discrimination.
Indeed. I've heard some good arguments against affirmative action. At times in the past I have been for it, and at times I have been against it. My feelings on affirmative action are mixed.
One problem though is that it's just a band aid solution to problems that start at a much younger age. Social issues need fixing, rather than just using affirmative action when one gets college-aged, or when applying for certain jobs.
My opinion on affirmative action turned when working at a hospital I overheard a doctor complain it pissed him off people thought he earned his degree on a curve. People have gone to mixed schools, business want a diversified workforce, etc. I feel it is time to phase out AA.
But is it better to have a job and a degree that some idiots think you got on a curve, or no job / degree at all?
Good question. In this case the doctor's complaint was having a hard time growing his practice because the public view of affirmative action. He had learned second hand that his patients had been hesitant to see him but quickly became very happy with skills. He would have been in med school anyway, information from another conversation. But still a very good question.
-
I've become convinced that fixer-upper's arguments stem from the notion that white males are victims of a society run amock. Affirmative action unfairly benefits minorities, the courts unfairly benefit women. Ergo, white males are at a disadvantage (if we assume white men have no other inherent advantages, which we do and leverage All. The. Time.).
You're assuming ALL white males a) have inherent advantages, and b) leverage those advantages. You may have an advantage, but others may not. A white boy from a ghetto doesn't have your middle class connections. An Appalachian...well they're an Appalachian. A Creole isn't going to have much success against an urbanite, either. Discrimination among white people happens as often as other forms of discrimination.
I'll ignore the bitterness in his writing and the fact that when talking about blacks he portrays them as all coming from the ghetto (affirmative action benefits suburban blacks too, does it not?). Whether fixer-upper is a racist or not is irrelevant to the argument. (Having said that, if he doesn't feel whites are inherently superior, he's made a helluva case that blacks and/or black society is inherently inferior)
Ghetto society is inherently inferior (high crime rates, poor educational standards, broken families, etc.) What causes black people to remain behind during white flight is a good topic for discussion.
Fixer-upper, you are just plain dead wrong. Consider. Not a soul has agreed with you so far. That should give you, or anyone, some pause. I'm right and everyone else is wrong is the path the loonies travel.
Genius is often mistaken for (and usually borders on) lunacy. Back in 2007, most people thought I was crazy for paying off my mortgage instead of getting an "almost" guaranteed 10% in stocks.
We have pointed out the various ways white males are more advantaged, you have neither addressed or even acknowledged those points remotely adequately. From my chair it seems like your argument hinges on one thing. Since minorities have taken advantage of opportunities not available to you (affirmative action), they retain an advantage overall. What you have done is isolate one or two points on the side of the ledger that bolsters your claim and simply ignored the other side of the ledger. That position is so badly flawed that it is just plain idiotic. Time to reconsider.
I pointed out one way in which white males are less advantaged, and was flamed by a mob of group-thinkers who patted themselves on the back for being in favor of the status-quo. There's not much use debating people who would rather cherry-pick posts to prove racism than actually discuss the merits of an idea. Crying about racism has become somewhat of a national pastime, and it doesn't help us. What would help is understanding why people of slum cultures don't seem to be trying to better themselves, and trying to fix it without artificially holding down the high achievers (or just accepting that some people don't want to succeed).
Earlier I pointed out how discriminatory subsidies actually hurt the recipients, and rather than using that to argue that "the poor black people are at a disadvantage", perhaps it would help to consider that they share the fault for allowing affirmative action and welfare expansion to continue within their community.
-
I pointed out one way in which white males are less advantaged, and was flamed by a mob of group-thinkers who patted themselves on the back for being in favor of the status-quo. There's not much use debating people who would rather cherry-pick posts to prove racism than actually discuss the merits of an idea. Crying about racism has become somewhat of a national pastime, and it doesn't help us. What would help is understanding why people of slum cultures don't seem to be trying to better themselves, and trying to fix it without artificially holding down the high achievers (or just accepting that some people don't want to succeed).
Earlier I pointed out how discriminatory subsidies actually hurt the recipients, and rather than using that to argue that "the poor black people are at a disadvantage", perhaps it would help to consider that they share the fault for allowing affirmative action and welfare expansion to continue within their community.
I don't have time to reply to all your message. You are correct that people born in poverty tend to remain in poverty. The welfare system in the USA does a great job of keeping ones head above water and treading the waters of poverty. There are success stories of those who get out. Again that is the exception not the rule. That is true regardless of race.
-
I don't have time to reply to all your message. You are correct that people born in poverty tend to remain in poverty. The welfare system in the USA does a great job of keeping ones head above water and treading the waters of poverty. There are success stories of those who get out. Again that is the exception not the rule. That is true regardless of race.
There's an old saying that wealth begets wealth. I agree, yet disagree with the hypothesis that race begets wealth.
If Halle Berry and Danny DeVito both walked into a job interview for an insurance company, she'd get the job for the simple reason that she's attractive and he's ugly. Does this mean we should give him a special right to sue for ugly/short/fat/bald/loud discrimination? He's at an obvious disadvantage, yet the group opinion of this thread says Ms. Berry is the one who needs help [whine]because the interviewer is likely to be a white male[/whine].
[/rant]
Should we give Oprah special advantages over Jerry Springer? Is Neil Degrass Tyson at a disadvantage to Bill Nye?
-
If Halle Berry and Danny DeVito both walked into a job interview for an insurance company, she'd get the job for the simple reason that she's attractive and he's ugly. Does this mean we should give him a special right to sue for ugly/short/fat/bald/loud discrimination? He's at an obvious disadvantage, yet the group opinion of this thread says Ms. Berry is the one who needs help [whine]because the interviewer is likely to be a white male[/whine].
[/rant]
Doesn't have to be a black female, if it was Brad Pitt vs Danny Devito, Brad would get the gig. Hasn't stopped Danny Devito carving out a niche for himself though.
If you are not blessed with good looking genes, it doesn't matter if you are black or white. Chances are you won't be as successful in your career/earnings, (or with the opposite sex for that matter). That much has been proven by various studies dealing with unconscious bias - yes, because the interviewer is likely to be the white-old-private school tie-man.
Australian Aboriginals receive a crap ton of additional assistance, welfare, scholarships etc. I don't begrudge that, because it is intended to redress White Australia history which treated Aboriginal people as fauna for 150 years. Sure there needs to be some sort of recipient obligation (we give you assistance, so we want you to stop sniffing petrol and send your kids to school), but we screwed up their society so much that it's wrong for us to blame them for their predicament.
Fixer-upper - Past discrimination, the vast majority being perpetrated by the white man, should be redressed. If that means a few black girls from the suburbs get a little bit of help getting into college/university and become educated enough to leave their "ghetto" as you put it, then society overall is better off for it. You can't fix history, but you can help fix the future. Don't begrudge it. Embrace it and be thankful that you live in a society that cares enough to do things like this.
The alternative is not something a civilised society should return to.
-
Like.
-
Fixer-upper - Past discrimination, the vast majority being perpetrated by the white man, should be redressed. If that means a few black girls from the suburbs get a little bit of help getting into college/university and become educated enough to leave their "ghetto" as you put it, then society overall is better off for it. You can't fix history, but you can help fix the future. Don't begrudge it. Embrace it and be thankful that you live in a society that cares enough to do things like this.
The alternative is not something a civilised society should return to.
I disagree. If a child is abused until the age of five, does that mean he/she needs to be coddled for life? Would it not be better to eventually let him/her be a responsible adult rather than a dependent for life? If you let the child know they'll never need to work, will they try? Should we coddle the descendants of that child?
Where does it stop?
By "helping" American indians and Australian aboriginals, we are hurting more than we are helping. When their children no longer will be assured of a free ride, they'll start earning educations, which is much more valuable than being given educations.
TANSTAAFL
-
Yes, absolutely yes. Most abused children do need to be "coddled" in some form for a very big chunk of their lives. Even if that is simply proper access to counselling and justice. Obvious to me you do not understand the lifelong suffering and horror that many child sex abuse victims endure, otherwise you would not have made that analogy.
Where does it stop? When the "gap" is closed. We have a gap between Aboriginals and the rest of Australian society. Life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy & numeracy, high school graduation, employment prospects, imprisonment rates. Pretty much any aspect of society you can think of there is a gap.
It stops when that gap is no longer statistically significant. It stops when we no longer have to talk about gaps.
We have a long way to go yet.
-
Genius is often mistaken for (and usually borders on) lunacy.
No shit, you think you're a genius.
Another day, another verification of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
-
I make a significant distinction between debating and discussing.
Both are possible when people disagree. But in the former, the other person is not interested in learning "why does enderland believe this?" and is more interested in "enderland should believe this." The latter requires that both parties are interested in learning why the other believes what they do and are more intent on discovering the assumptions/paradigms which cause disagreement.
The successful result of a debate is convincing the other person. For discussion, it's being able to articulate their position.
Regarding this initial topic, judging tends to happen when someone focuses on debating. It is also considerably more difficult to determine when someone is discussing/debating online. As a result I generally tend to not care to verbalize disagreement on the Internet. Additionally while there are a lot of interesting things I would be curious to discuss here, I'm not overly excited to start threads on them considering how quickly forums like this (and 99.9999% of the Internet) devolve into debating.
-
Good post Enderland.
-
The economic advantage is evident when you compare apples with apples. A white boy starting out in a ghetto will likely pay (borrow) more for college, and have fewer job opportunities than the black girl next door. Men already have a higher unemployment rate than women, and with the racial benefits of AA, she has an even larger advantage.
Please provide a source for this claim.
-
Not touching some of the other points, but see http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/ (http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/) for unemployment demographics.
-
Not touching some of the other points, but see http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/ (http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/) for unemployment demographics.
So in FU's (sexist) theories, one group (women) are economically advantaged over another group (men), because 6.6% of women are unemployed compared to 6.8% of men...
However, in FU's (racist) theories, it's not the case that one group (white people) are economically advantaged over another group (black people), despite the fact that 5.8% of white people are unemployed compared to 12.4% of black people.
I think the request was for evidence that supports FU's theories, not evidence that totally demolishes them.
-
Request spoke to "this claim". That's open to interpretation on which claim of several. Unless someone can provide a "better" source, the link (and others in the main page from which that comes) can provide objective numbers. All y'all can discuss the ramifications thereof.
-
Request spoke to "this claim". That's open to interpretation on which claim of several. Unless someone can provide a "better" source, the link (and others in the main page from which that comes) can provide objective numbers. All y'all can discuss the ramifications thereof.
But how does that link relate the claim itself? Please explain to me, because it seems to be data but not actual proof for the claim.
-
When you ask "But how does that link relate the claim itself?", to which claim do you refer? I read several claims in fixer-uppers most recent post, not to mention the plethora of claims made by fixer-upper and others in this thread.
E.g., there have been comments about race, sex, ethnicity, income, geography, family situation, etc. (have I missed any?) in this thread. If I understand you correctly, I agree that "data" does not necessarily equal "proof" - if the data is only loosely related to what one is trying to prove. OTOH, if the data is exactly on point, what better proof is there than data (vs. opinion)?
-
When you ask "But how does that link relate the claim itself?", to which claim do you refer? I read several claims in fixer-uppers most recent post, not to mention the plethora of claims made by fixer-upper and others in this thread.
E.g., there have been comments about race, sex, ethnicity, income, geography, family situation, etc. (have I missed any?) in this thread. If I understand you correctly, I agree that "data" does not necessarily equal "proof" - if the data is only loosely related to what one is trying to prove. OTOH, if the data is exactly on point, what better proof is there than data (vs. opinion)?
That is my question, of which claim do you think this data proves. I want to understand what you are trying to show using this data.
-
That is my question, of which claim do you think this data proves. I want to understand what you are trying to show using this data.
At the risk of reducing to the point of absurdity, here's how I parse Flaneur's selection of part of one of fixer-upper's posts:
The economic advantage is evident when you compare apples with apples.
Unverifiable statement, as "apples" are not defined.
A white boy starting out in a ghetto will likely pay (borrow) more for college, and have fewer job opportunities than the black girl next door.
Unverifiable statement because "in a ghetto" is not sufficient to describe individual family finances.
Men already have a higher unemployment rate than women,
Mostly verifiable, depending on one's definition of "already". Based on the unemployment data for the past several years, this appears to be true.
and with the racial benefits of AA,
As it is generally implemented, all other things being equal (and the italicized phrase is where most disagreement occurs), Affirmative Action does provide a benefit to some races over others.
she has an even larger advantage.
Use of the comparative "larger" presumes an unverifiable previous advantage (see totality of statements above).
As for my personal beliefs (which you may have already guessed from previous posts, e.g. reply #70), they run close to this excerpt from what rocksinmyhead said in reply #92: "I don't think we should hand out entitlements/scholarships/jobs/what have you on the basis of race, because there's no point in helping out middle- or upper-class racial minorities who don't need it. that help would be better targeted to those who are disadvantaged (by poverty, lack of parenting, etc.), like yourself, regardless of race. but I do think we have to look at statistics on racial minorities that end up with worse life outcomes (lower educational attainment, higher poverty rates, shorter lifespans, etc.), ask ourselves why that's happening, and work to amend it."
-
Yes, absolutely yes. Most abused children do need to be "coddled" in some form for a very big chunk of their lives. Even if that is simply proper access to counselling and justice. Obvious to me you do not understand the lifelong suffering and horror that many child sex abuse victims endure, otherwise you would not have made that analogy.
Where does it stop? When the "gap" is closed. We have a gap between Aboriginals and the rest of Australian society. Life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy & numeracy, high school graduation, employment prospects, imprisonment rates. Pretty much any aspect of society you can think of there is a gap.
It stops when that gap is no longer statistically significant. It stops when we no longer have to talk about gaps.
We have a long way to go yet.
Absolutely agree with you. What Fixer Upper doesn't get it that his so called ghetto society with low education is exactly the cause of crime; it does not make the people living there any more inherently inferior. Like I said before, in any society where people face historic discrimination and have had little access to proper education, low class/ghetto, whatever you want to call it, is the result such as Australian Aboriginals, Gypsies, inner city blacks or whomever. The problems are not the result of the color of their skin, their culture, who they are. The fact is that these people are poorly educated with limited job prospects which in turn lead to the ghettos and high crime. The violent crime and drug scenarios are unique to America even worse that Mexico where they cartel lives, go figure. An example, there are more black people in Brazil and they have been heavily discriminated against but they have far fewer gun related crimes and homicides; miniscule compared to the US but just as high petty crimes. The reason is simply poverty but the difference in the homicides is the lack of guns and a much smaller drug trade than the US. My point - poor and uneducated people will commit more crime if they have limited prospects for job. However, the opportunity and ease of committing those crimes are higher in the US.
-
The problem with judging others...Is that it sticks with you, within you. You are always thinking about it, letting it affect you. If you lose that judgement, you free yourself, not others. It may sound crazy, but, it's true. I have been guilty of this my entire life. Took me 44 years to comprehend and I'm still working at it.
-
An Appalachian...well they're an Appalachian.
This I agree with.
For example, I am an Appalachian, and it's true that yes, I am an Appalachian.
-
The problem with judging others...Is that it sticks with you, within you. You are always thinking about it, letting it affect you. If you lose that judgement, you free yourself, not others. It may sound crazy, but, it's true. I have been guilty of this my entire life. Took me 44 years to comprehend and I'm still working at it.
In light of that statement, look at how I've been judged in this thread. Stupid, racist, and sexist are just a few. The people making these judgements consider themselves to be superior in some fashion, and isn't racism defined by belief in superiority?
I believe people are essentially equal, while most of the posters here believe they aren't. Which attitude is more racist?
-
Yes, absolutely yes. Most abused children do need to be "coddled" in some form for a very big chunk of their lives. Even if that is simply proper access to counselling and justice. Obvious to me you do not understand the lifelong suffering and horror that many child sex abuse victims endure, otherwise you would not have made that analogy.
Where does it stop? When the "gap" is closed. We have a gap between Aboriginals and the rest of Australian society. Life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy & numeracy, high school graduation, employment prospects, imprisonment rates. Pretty much any aspect of society you can think of there is a gap.
It stops when that gap is no longer statistically significant. It stops when we no longer have to talk about gaps.
We have a long way to go yet.
Access to counseling is an entirely different proposition than endless welfare checks, free college, and other forms of a free lunch. Counseling a previously abused child is a good thing, but putting the child and all their descendants on the dole is more harmful than good. It hasn't worked on aboriginals or American indians, and it doesn't seem to be working in poor inner cities, either. The gap you speak of will only close when we stop giving poor children the opportunity to be lazy.
-
Not touching some of the other points, but see http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/ (http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/) for unemployment demographics.
So in FU's (sexist) theories, one group (women) are economically advantaged over another group (men), because 6.6% of women are unemployed compared to 6.8% of men...
However, in FU's (racist) theories, it's not the case that one group (white people) are economically advantaged over another group (black people), despite the fact that 5.8% of white people are unemployed compared to 12.4% of black people.
I think the request was for evidence that supports FU's theories, not evidence that totally demolishes them.
You haven't taken the entire picture into account: The higher percentage of black people with criminal records, poor credit, and other bad personal choices adds significantly to their unemployment rate, and the normalized data demolishes your hypothesis. Feel free to go look up those numbers before embarrassing yourself further.
-
First, you don't know what you don't know. Recognizing this and approaching issues with an open mind goes a long way.
As for all the advantages Indians have, I don't know much about the US system but I know a whole lot about Canadian Indians. People here say the same stuff like "the Indians get everything for free" and how they are all corrupt and on welfare. The thing is Indians don't get everything for free, including education. There are some programs, but the rates of participation are still pretty low and welfare rates are high.
In my opinion, people are pretty much the same as a larger group. If you accept that, than you have to realize that there are reasons why poverty occurs at higher rates among certain sub-groups.
Attributing it to "coddling" makes me believe you haven't walked the walk so your opinion isn't one I attach much value to. This is not to say that a movement can't go too far in the name of improving equality and, in doing so, create an unjust disadvantage for some - just that we are a long way from that situation with Indians imo.
-
First, you don't know what you don't know. Recognizing this and approaching issues with an open mind goes a long way.
As for all the advantages Indians have, I don't know much about the US system but I know a whole lot about Canadian Indians.
In the US, we spend more than twice as much per pupil to educate indians compared with typical public schools. Shoveling money at the problem has continued to result in very poor outcomes, which leads me to believe it's a cultural rather than a funding problem.
I have an open mind to helping the disadvantaged, yet I realize that virtually nobody values their free education (K-12 in the US) as much as the college education they pay for out of their own pocket. Kids aren't as proud of their nice room at Mom and Dad's house as they are of their first crappy apartment. They tend to be careless with the iPhone that was given to them, but very protective of the one they had to save for.
Generations of entitlements have created an entitlement culture among our poor. This cultural defect won't correct itself until the entitlements are taken away, similar to the way our own kids sometimes need pushed out of the nest.
-
Feel free to go look up those numbers before embarrassing yourself further.
Mod Edit: Stop it.
-
***post has been self moderated***
I'm upset with myself for engaging in this further
-
I appreciate you trying Marty, but it doesn't seem that he's listening. It's probably best to not engage.
EDIT: I don't think you needed to nuke your post, it was very reasonably argued. The previous post was a one line rude post that was removed, yours was nothing close to that. But I can understand why you did. Thanks for taking the time to type it, even if you decided to remove it.
-
Some topics just get me so incredibly wound up that I can't let go. But having spewed forth my point of view again I realised that I (a) didn't get any satisfaction out of it and (b) knew it would be rebutted with the same/similar arguments we've already seen, and I have no desire to continue debating the point, when in my mind, the reasonable point of view has been articulated already.
-
Some topics just get me so incredibly wound up that I can't let go. But having spewed forth my point of view again I realised that I (a) didn't get any satisfaction out of it and (b) knew it would be rebutted with the same/similar arguments we've already seen, and I have no desire to continue debating the point, when in my mind, the reasonable point of view has been articulated already.
You might like this perspective:
I make a significant distinction between debating and discussing.
Both are possible when people disagree. But in the former, the other person is not interested in learning "why does enderland believe this?" and is more interested in "enderland should believe this." The latter requires that both parties are interested in learning why the other believes what they do and are more intent on discovering the assumptions/paradigms which cause disagreement.
The successful result of a debate is convincing the other person. For discussion, it's being able to articulate their position.
Regarding this initial topic, judging tends to happen when someone focuses on debating. It is also considerably more difficult to determine when someone is discussing/debating online. As a result I generally tend to not care to verbalize disagreement on the Internet. Additionally while there are a lot of interesting things I would be curious to discuss here, I'm not overly excited to start threads on them considering how quickly forums like this (and 99.9999% of the Internet) devolve into debating.
-
I can understand why you have stopped Marty. Australia treated Aboriginal peoples in similarly terrible ways to Canada.
The intergenerational transmission of severe trauma is something all Canadians pay for today. My understanding is that when you inflict extreme suffering on a group of people, including through the forced break-up of families and removal of cultural identity, you create damage that costs the larger society a huge amount of money in the form of higher incarceration, welfare, crime and addiction rates.
If you haven't read up on the residential school system and its impacts in Canada it is worth understanding. The last residential school closed here in the 1980s. This poem gives a survivor's perspective: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2014/04/03/monster-by-poet-dennis-saddleman/ The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples provides very good and well-reasoned perspective: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014597/1100100014637
Now, fixer-upper is correct in part imo. There is a role for personal responsibility. My understanding of it is that you first have to find motivation. In order to be motivated you need to believe that things will change based on your efforts. For this to happen there also needs to be a sense of autonomy and pride and you cannot be stuck in addiction.
What is working in Canada is that Indian bands are becoming self governing. The are taking over health, education and social development. Why? Because the administration of these programs by a government that committed acts of genocide and is filled with people who have belief systems similar to fixer-uppers has not worked. You actually need to meet the needs of the community and care about outcomes. There was a study on this in the states called the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development which came to similar conclusions: http://hpaied.org/
I could go on about it, but the bottom line is that it is going to cost more for society to rectify this, but, in economic terms the cost is going to be much higher if we don't address it as the problems will continue to grow. It is not a matter of "coddling" perpetuating the problem, but of social justice and what it takes to get there. It is also a matter of focussing on long-term economics as the US and Canada are going to save money if conditions improve.
So, fixer-upper, the issue is not one of throwing too much money imo. It is one of understanding history, psychology and sociology and accurately applying this knowledge to a solution. All studies seem to indicate that it is going to take more money and the solution is not one that a federal or state government can create or mandate and expect to succeed.
-
Some topics just get me so incredibly wound up that I can't let go. But having spewed forth my point of view again I realised that I (a) didn't get any satisfaction out of it and (b) knew it would be rebutted with the same/similar arguments we've already seen, and I have no desire to continue debating the point, when in my mind, the reasonable point of view has been articulated already.
You might like this perspective:
I make a significant distinction between debating and discussing.
Both are possible when people disagree. But in the former, the other person is not interested in learning "why does enderland believe this?" and is more interested in "enderland should believe this." The latter requires that both parties are interested in learning why the other believes what they do and are more intent on discovering the assumptions/paradigms which cause disagreement.
The successful result of a debate is convincing the other person. For discussion, it's being able to articulate their position.
Regarding this initial topic, judging tends to happen when someone focuses on debating. It is also considerably more difficult to determine when someone is discussing/debating online. As a result I generally tend to not care to verbalize disagreement on the Internet. Additionally while there are a lot of interesting things I would be curious to discuss here, I'm not overly excited to start threads on them considering how quickly forums like this (and 99.9999% of the Internet) devolve into debating.
He was trying to discuss, and it wasn't working.
-
I could go on about it, but the bottom line is that it is going to cost more for society to rectify this, but, in economic terms the cost is going to be much higher if we don't address it as the problems will continue to grow. It is not a matter of "coddling" perpetuating the problem, but of social justice and what it takes to get there. It is also a matter of focussing on long-term economics as the US and Canada are going to save money if conditions improve.
So, fixer-upper, the issue is not one of throwing too much money imo. It is one of understanding history, psychology and sociology and accurately applying this knowledge to a solution. All studies seem to indicate that it is going to take more money and the solution is not one that a federal or state government can create or mandate and expect to succeed.
IMHO, The solution to tribal poverty is to give them a fighting chance by locating decent jobs near the reservations and being willing to hire them (along with their neighbors). Those who want to climb out of poverty will, and those who don't will eventually be replaced through selective breeding. Today's reservations are the product of generations of brain drain, as the more ambitious and capable have left for greener pastures, while the not so bright and lazy have been content to live in poverty. Finding a way to keep the brains at home (rather than encouraging them to go to cities) is what will do the most to preserve their culture(s) while tackling their poverty problems.
Temporary government subsidies to help create those jobs along with in-house training would be one way the state or federal governments could help.
-
What is working in Canada is that Indian bands are becoming self governing. The are taking over health, education and social development. Why? Because the administration of these programs by a government that committed acts of genocide and is filled with people who have belief systems similar to fixer-uppers has not worked. You actually need to meet the needs of the community and care about outcomes. There was a study on this in the states called the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development which came to similar conclusions: http://hpaied.org/
Eh . . . "working in Canada" needs to be in quotes. Letting the band councils run things on reserves has resulted in some pretty terrible situations. Corruption is rampant, oversight and accountability are non-existent, nepotism and favoritism rule the day. Order of law is largely missing from remote reserves . . . murder, suicide, drug use, rape . . . all are more prevalent. I would not hold band councils up as any kind of shining example of governing. The smartest and best native people escape from reserves to never come back, leaving two groups of people:
- those who cannot function in modern society (due to substance abuse problems, lack of education, etc.)
- those who are good at gaming the system and want to rule the ones who can't function
My experience with native reserves (in Canada) has led me to largely agree with fixer-upper's assessment.
-
What is working in Canada is that Indian bands are becoming self governing. The are taking over health, education and social development. Why? Because the administration of these programs by a government that committed acts of genocide and is filled with people who have belief systems similar to fixer-uppers has not worked. You actually need to meet the needs of the community and care about outcomes. There was a study on this in the states called the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development which came to similar conclusions: http://hpaied.org/
Eh . . . "working in Canada" needs to be in quotes. Letting the band councils run things on reserves has resulted in some pretty terrible situations. Corruption is rampant, oversight and accountability are non-existent, nepotism and favoritism rule the day. Order of law is largely missing from remote reserves . . . murder, suicide, drug use, rape . . . all are more prevalent. I would not hold band councils up as any kind of shining example of governing. The smartest and best native people escape from reserves to never come back, leaving two groups of people:
- those who cannot function in modern society (due to substance abuse problems, lack of education, etc.)
- those who are good at gaming the system and want to rule the ones who can't function
My experience with native reserves (in Canada) has led me to largely agree with fixer-upper's assessment.
I don't have a lot of time this morning but here is my response in a nutshell:
1. All of those things exist. It is part of the human response to lack of ability to exercise self-determination and exercise effective control in my opinion and the legacy of the residential school system which Canada imposed on its Aboriginal peoples. They were removed from their homes by government, often at the age of five or six, put into residential schools until grade ten run by religious groups. Some of them never went home until graduation and when they did they could not speak their language and had had undergone years of horrific sexual and physical abuse. Some of them had been experimented on, others had been murdered and "disappeared".
2. Many communities are making significant progress and have adopted laws, policies and rules that they themselves developed including things such as financial administration laws and conflict of interest policies.
3. The reason murder, suicide and sexual assault rates are higher on reserve is tied to the residential school system and the reserve system imo. The intergenerational transfer of trauma is incredibly powerful, as is the loss of autonomy for Aboriginal people and the lack of ability to create wealth over generations in the form of appreciating lands. Addiction is the biggest one and it is tied to violent crime and incarceration directly. Many communities are investing significantly in healing from residential school traumas and this is paying off.
4. It appears you not have taken the time to read the links I posted? If so, I would question why you would rely on limited experience and what appears as black and white thinking rather than attempt to really understand the variables and the potential for solutions based on success stories and a deeper understanding of the issues. For example, you might want to look to Membertou - a small Nova Scotia band with not much land which has experienced many successes and has very highly educated members working in key positions: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=311978 . They are not alone.
It also appears to me that you are confusing the conditions that foster the results you have identified with the whole picture of how change occurs. The truth is that change is happening and the communities I see this working for across Canada are the ones that have the following:
1. Self-determination - the ability to make and adopt rules that work for the community based on best practices.
2. Stable government - built on rules determined by the community with fair decision-making processes.
3. Good leaders with vision - you can see this working in many communities. Having hope makes a real difference to people. Good leaders sometimes come first, but often the other two happen first which encourages progressive folks to run.
Success is like a snowball rolling downhill. Once you have momentum it starts to build on itself. Getting the momentum going is a herculean task.
I think this discussion is a very illuminating example of how judgment works. Imagine if you were an Aboriginal person reading the comments? If you were not educated and did not understand what had happened to you and your community you would believe you were somehow inferior. Children are particularly vulnerable to absorbing this type of information. I think we all need to be very careful that we truly understand before we judge and contribute to injustice.
-
What is working in Canada is that Indian bands are becoming self governing. The are taking over health, education and social development. Why? Because the administration of these programs by a government that committed acts of genocide and is filled with people who have belief systems similar to fixer-uppers has not worked. You actually need to meet the needs of the community and care about outcomes. There was a study on this in the states called the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development which came to similar conclusions: http://hpaied.org/
Eh . . . "working in Canada" needs to be in quotes. Letting the band councils run things on reserves has resulted in some pretty terrible situations. Corruption is rampant, oversight and accountability are non-existent, nepotism and favoritism rule the day. Order of law is largely missing from remote reserves . . . murder, suicide, drug use, rape . . . all are more prevalent. I would not hold band councils up as any kind of shining example of governing. The smartest and best native people escape from reserves to never come back, leaving two groups of people:
- those who cannot function in modern society (due to substance abuse problems, lack of education, etc.)
- those who are good at gaming the system and want to rule the ones who can't function
My experience with native reserves (in Canada) has led me to largely agree with fixer-upper's assessment.
I don't have a lot of time this morning but here is my response in a nutshell:
1. All of those things exist. It is part of the human response to lack of ability to exercise self-determination and exercise effective control in my opinion and the legacy of the residential school system which Canada imposed on its Aboriginal peoples. They were removed from their homes by government, often at the age of five or six, put into residential schools until grade ten run by religious groups. Some of them never went home until graduation and when they did they could not speak their language and had had undergone years of horrific sexual and physical abuse. Some of them had been experimented on, others had been murdered and "disappeared".
2. Many communities are making significant progress and have adopted laws, policies and rules that they themselves developed including things such as financial administration laws and conflict of interest policies.
3. The reason murder, suicide and sexual assault rates are higher on reserve is tied to the residential school system and the reserve system imo. The intergenerational transfer of trauma is incredibly powerful, as is the loss of autonomy for Aboriginal people and the lack of ability to create wealth over generations in the form of appreciating lands. Addiction is the biggest one and it is tied to violent crime and incarceration directly. Many communities are investing significantly in healing from residential school traumas and this is paying off.
4. It appears you not have taken the time to read the links I posted? If so, I would question why you would rely on limited experience and what appears as black and white thinking rather than attempt to really understand the variables and the potential for solutions based on success stories and a deeper understanding of the issues. For example, you might want to look to Membertou - a small Nova Scotia band with not much land which has experienced many successes and has very highly educated members working in key positions: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=311978 . They are not alone.
It also appears to me that you are confusing the conditions that foster the results you have identified with the whole picture of how change occurs. The truth is that change is happening and the communities I see this working for across Canada are the ones that have the following:
1. Self-determination - the ability to make and adopt rules that work for the community based on best practices.
2. Stable government - built on rules determined by the community with fair decision-making processes.
3. Good leaders with vision - you can see this working in many communities. Having hope makes a real difference to people. Good leaders sometimes come first, but often the other two happen first which encourages progressive folks to run.
Success is like a snowball rolling downhill. Once you have momentum it starts to build on itself. Getting the momentum going is a herculean task.
I think this discussion is a very illuminating example of how judgment works. Imagine if you were an Aboriginal person reading the comments? If you were not educated and did not understand what had happened to you and your community you would believe you were somehow inferior. Children are particularly vulnerable to absorbing this type of information. I think we all need to be very careful that we truly understand before we judge and contribute to injustice.
1. I'm well aware of Canada's sordid past regarding native affairs.
2. Many communities may be bettering themselves . . . but many communities have not. It is unacceptable that huge amounts of money is being directly funneled to people who misuse it.
3. I agree.
4. You can easily find more Attawapiskats than Membertous. My point is simply that band run administration is at best a mixed bag, not a clearly better solution.
The membertou band chief agrees with me:
In 1994, Membertou hit rock bottom, registering a $1-million deficit on an operating budget of only $4-million, almost all of it federal funding. Its debt was mounting. There were concerns it wouldn’t be able to make payroll or issue social assistance cheques.
Membertou “was a cookie cutter example of what reserves are like,” says Chief Terrance Paul
If my comments made it appear that I feel that natives are somehow inferior I apologize. This was not my intent at all, and is not my belief. I grew up in a small northern Ontario town next to a native reserve. I have many native friends. The rosy picture you paint of band councils improving the condition of people living on reservations clashes rather dramatically with my experience. I agree that it's very hard to get the momentum to improve a condition going . . . but I'd argue that poor management by band councils has made the situation worse.
This doesn't mean that there's no hope for things to get better. But I'd question holding up our system as an example of an efficient way to do things.
-
I could go on about it, but the bottom line is that it is going to cost more for society to rectify this, but, in economic terms the cost is going to be much higher if we don't address it as the problems will continue to grow. It is not a matter of "coddling" perpetuating the problem, but of social justice and what it takes to get there. It is also a matter of focussing on long-term economics as the US and Canada are going to save money if conditions improve.
So, fixer-upper, the issue is not one of throwing too much money imo. It is one of understanding history, psychology and sociology and accurately applying this knowledge to a solution. All studies seem to indicate that it is going to take more money and the solution is not one that a federal or state government can create or mandate and expect to succeed.
Today's reservations are the product of generations of brain drain, as the more ambitious and capable have left for greener pastures, while the not so bright and lazy have been content to live in poverty. Finding a way to keep the brains at home (rather than encouraging them to go to cities) is what will do the most to preserve their culture(s) while tackling their poverty problems.
Temporary government subsidies to help create those jobs along with in-house training would be one way the state or federal governments could help.
Bolded emphasis mine.
I've tried not to engage in this thread, but I just had to ask- you do realize that reservations are actually the product of government built concentration camps? You keep pointing out the culture of the reservation as if this was created by the Native person. I mean you do know why they exist right? Their forefathers were forceably and violently removed from their lands and put into concentration camps where they were forced to do whatever the government told them to do. Does it really then shock anyone that a culture of dependency and deprivation now exists? I just can't imagine having a rational argument about reservation issues without first acknowledging this, and then acknowledging that yes, being born into these circumstances makes you less likely to succeed.
I've worked on native lands and you're second comment about how the 'no so bright and lazy have been content to live in poverty' is also just a gross generalization. You clearly have no concept as to what the lands mean to many Native people. For many tribes and the people within them, the land is sacred. Its not about being too lazy to leave. Also, many native people are working extremely hard on the reservation in an attempt to make things better.
-
1. It is one thing to be aware of the past. It is another to understand the ongoing impact and recognize the needs for restorative justice.
2. The lessons learned from communities making progress have been successfully applied to other communities. As for misuse of funds, I agree there need to be rules that demonstrate and enforce accountability. The bad egg stories sure get a lot of coverage but there is no "shovelling of money" that I am aware of and, yes, I am aware of how the financial side of things works for Bands in Canada. Communities that have developed these rules are progressing faster. The focus needs to be on creating stable governing instutions imo.
3. Okay.
4. You are, imo, confused about how change occurs. The "mixed-bag" you are referencing reflects stages of development, not an example of how hopeless the situation is and how autonomy makes no difference. The fact of the matter is that the research shows self-determination does make a difference, as do the other factors I have identified. Communities are in different stages of progression. Chief Terry Paul would definitely not agree with your perspective on things as far as change goes. He is all for self-determination as a way out and up. What is true is that there is much commonality in the challenges faced by Indian Bands on reserve and the stages of development too are similar, as they would be for any organized group put in these shoes.
Most of us in Canada grew up next to or near a reserve. There are few communities that do not have a reserve near them - none that I can think of in British Columbia. I would say your opinion is not uncommon. I'm glad you don't view Aboriginals as inferior. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the views you have expressed along with the qualifier "I have native friends" to show me how they really are not racist. It is tiring.
-
I could go on about it, but the bottom line is that it is going to cost more for society to rectify this, but, in economic terms the cost is going to be much higher if we don't address it as the problems will continue to grow. It is not a matter of "coddling" perpetuating the problem, but of social justice and what it takes to get there. It is also a matter of focussing on long-term economics as the US and Canada are going to save money if conditions improve.
So, fixer-upper, the issue is not one of throwing too much money imo. It is one of understanding history, psychology and sociology and accurately applying this knowledge to a solution. All studies seem to indicate that it is going to take more money and the solution is not one that a federal or state government can create or mandate and expect to succeed.
Today's reservations are the product of generations of brain drain, as the more ambitious and capable have left for greener pastures, while the not so bright and lazy have been content to live in poverty. Finding a way to keep the brains at home (rather than encouraging them to go to cities) is what will do the most to preserve their culture(s) while tackling their poverty problems.
Temporary government subsidies to help create those jobs along with in-house training would be one way the state or federal governments could help.
Bolded emphasis mine.
I've tried not to engage in this thread, but I just had to ask- you do realize that reservations are actually the product of government built concentration camps? You keep pointing out the culture of the reservation as if this was created by the Native person. I mean you do know why they exist right? Their forefathers were forceably and violently removed from their lands and put into concentration camps where they were forced to do whatever the government told them to do. Does it really then shock anyone that a culture of dependency and deprivation now exists? I just can't imagine having a rational argument about reservation issues without first acknowledging this, and then acknowledging that yes, being born into these circumstances makes you less likely to succeed.
I've worked on native lands and you're second comment about how the 'no so bright and lazy have been content to live in poverty' is also just a gross generalization. You clearly have no concept as to what the lands mean to many Native people. For many tribes and the people within them, the land is sacred. Its not about being too lazy to leave. Also, many native people are working extremely hard on the reservation in an attempt to make things better.
Agree.
I wish non-natives had more of a connection to land. It would stop a lot of the environmental degradation if you couldn't just up and move away from the mess you've made. Thinking for seven generations and being a caretaker of the land make a lot of sense.
-
One thing we can likely all agree on about our European forefathers in North America: They really fucked over the Indians, and African/Caribbean slaves slaves that were brought here. I have no idea how to undo that or make it right.
-
One thing we can likely all agree on about our European forefathers in North America: They really fucked over the Indians, and African/Caribbean slaves slaves that were brought here. I have no idea how to undo that or make it right.
and the USA still does. Great articles by NPR on the continued abuse of Native Americans in the USA.
http://www.npr.org/series/141763531/native-foster-care-lost-children-shattered-families
-
I could go on about it, but the bottom line is that it is going to cost more for society to rectify this, but, in economic terms the cost is going to be much higher if we don't address it as the problems will continue to grow. It is not a matter of "coddling" perpetuating the problem, but of social justice and what it takes to get there. It is also a matter of focussing on long-term economics as the US and Canada are going to save money if conditions improve.
So, fixer-upper, the issue is not one of throwing too much money imo. It is one of understanding history, psychology and sociology and accurately applying this knowledge to a solution. All studies seem to indicate that it is going to take more money and the solution is not one that a federal or state government can create or mandate and expect to succeed.
Today's reservations are the product of generations of brain drain, as the more ambitious and capable have left for greener pastures, while the not so bright and lazy have been content to live in poverty. Finding a way to keep the brains at home (rather than encouraging them to go to cities) is what will do the most to preserve their culture(s) while tackling their poverty problems.
Temporary government subsidies to help create those jobs along with in-house training would be one way the state or federal governments could help.
Bolded emphasis mine.
I've tried not to engage in this thread, but I just had to ask- you do realize that reservations are actually the product of government built concentration camps? You keep pointing out the culture of the reservation as if this was created by the Native person. I mean you do know why they exist right? Their forefathers were forceably and violently removed from their lands and put into concentration camps where they were forced to do whatever the government told them to do. Does it really then shock anyone that a culture of dependency and deprivation now exists? I just can't imagine having a rational argument about reservation issues without first acknowledging this, and then acknowledging that yes, being born into these circumstances makes you less likely to succeed.
I've worked on native lands and you're second comment about how the 'no so bright and lazy have been content to live in poverty' is also just a gross generalization. You clearly have no concept as to what the lands mean to many Native people. For many tribes and the people within them, the land is sacred. Its not about being too lazy to leave. Also, many native people are working extremely hard on the reservation in an attempt to make things better.
Forced exile doesn't seem to have hurt the Australians, Mormons, or the descendants of the pilgrims. The Christians seemed to do ok after their persecution, too. The indians had it rough, but no rougher than many groups through history.
The indians weren't completely innocent, either. The great emancipator (President Lincoln) approved the largest mass hanging in our history after raids by Indians against whites. Only the ones judged to have committed the most heinous atrocities were selected by Lincoln to be hanged, and most were freed. He showed mercy toward them.
Since then, there have been many generations of american indians who have been free to return to the holy lands of their forefathers, but rather than doing so, many have chosen to remain in self imposed exile. Staying on the reservation is a choice THEY make. We can respect that choice, and don't need to feel guilty for their best and brightest deciding to aim for a higher goal.
-
I keep coming back to this thread, reading FU posts and chuckling.
Forced exile doesn't seem to have hurt the Australians, Mormons, or the descendants of the pilgrims. The Christians seemed to do ok after their persecution, too. The indians had it rough, but no rougher than many groups through history.
How you can compare these groups is beyond comprehension. Australians were placed in a continent with essentially no competition for land or resources beyond the aborigines. They also had a huge technological advantage. The native americans were on the flip side of that. Ditto the pilgrims.
In all seriousness, I would suggest you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It is a fascinating book that shows how climate, resources, proximity to domesticable wild animals and a variety of plants gave certain populations in the neolithic era a huge head start. It is a really enjoyable read.
-
I keep coming back to this thread, reading FU posts and chuckling.
I'm more shaking my head, but I share your sentiment. :)
-
I keep coming back to this thread, reading FU posts and chuckling.
Forced exile doesn't seem to have hurt the Australians, Mormons, or the descendants of the pilgrims. The Christians seemed to do ok after their persecution, too. The indians had it rough, but no rougher than many groups through history.
How you can compare these groups is beyond comprehension. Australians were placed in a continent with essentially no competition for land or resources beyond the aborigines. They also had a huge technological advantage. The native americans were on the flip side of that. Ditto the pilgrims.
The Australians were placed on an area of land with a bit of competition from the natives. Ditto for the Mormons. The Indians were placed on an area of land with no competition, and thus, no need to excel. Competition for resources tends to be a good thing, as it prevents endless procrastination.
The arguments here keep circling back to natives and other poor being helpless, both then and today. I don't necessarily agree, and think they should be allowed to compete on an equal footing rather than being handicapped as a disadvantaged (aka inferior) class of humans.
Or if they're really helpless, perhaps it would be best to stop the subsidies which encourage having children, and let those cultures die out naturally.
-
Holy fuck. That last contribution has to be the most disgraceful post ever put up on this board.
Can this thread be locked. Seriously, enough has been said.
-
In all seriousness, I would suggest you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It is a fascinating book...
+1 This is one of my favorite books.
-
Holy fuck. That last contribution has to be the most disgraceful post ever put up on this board.
Can this thread be locked. Seriously, enough has been said.
Yes. It unfortunately got quite a ways away from what I had originally hoped for.
There were a few good on topic posts early on that made me think, so thanks to those who looked at the article and considered the idea of "judging" and gave thoughts on it.
Locked.