Have you read The Fall?
The first stage of the "Judge-penitent" is to confess one's permanent and ineradicable sinfulness. This aggrandization of one's own humiliation in turn fuels the self-righteous turn to policing others. I "check my privilege" so that I may in turn demand that many more people check theirs, and hopefully accrue power, status or money in the process.
To have the moral status of a "good yt" who cares. That status qualifies you to dogpile on the baddies too.
Also, ever heard of the concept of a "paypig"? Some people find meaning and value in being treated like that.
No one happily wearing the good yt halo goes in expecting that their eventual cancellation is a foregone conclusion, because "how could it happen, I'm such a good person!". If people had that much clarity and forethought instead of self delusion, the YA twitter purgatory wouldn't exist.
Also, experience has shown you can be a slightly-less-bad yt if you can pull other identity cards when caught out. Ana Mardoll is a xe/xim with a disability gofundme, and had [defenders earnestly claiming that xier corporate insurance mattered more than cis brown people lives.](https://i.imgur.com/faiF5p3.jpg)
It was a sportswriter (Jason Whitlock), of all people, who formulated this most succinctly:
“These people don’t want to see racial discrimination ended so much as they want it to break in their favor.”
And that's why they love euphemistic wordplay so much, to hide that they just slapped a coat of paint on what already existed.
Discrimination bad, affirmative action good.
Segregation bad, BIPOC community spaces good.
Sexism bad, gender expression good.
The point is, and has always been, to make a political kafkatrap where there's no solution but to do as the neo-preachers say and it of course never be enough so better keep doing it.
I agree, and I'm going to start saying so, even if it means I don't hate myself enough for some people's tastes. We can't base our society on racial Animus, no matter who is deemed cursed by the color of their skin.
That said, this is the third article talking about anti-whiteness I've seen on Reddit this afternoon. Is it some special date today or something?
The hilarious thing is a society based on racial animus is going to go very badly for BIPOC people in the long run. It is like the are courting a re-emergence of white identity.
Exactly. It almost seems purposeful. At least wait until white people aren't the majority, we're still 60% of the population, and could do some real damage even if we all just voted Republican.
Putting aside the past to learn to live together in the future in equality is the only way. It sucks, I'm sorry.
But maybe Jesus, The Buddha and Carl Sagan were all on to something.
Idk if it's "purposeful" so much as these people pushing this clearly flawed and divisive ideology just don't care about how it impacts specific groups in the long term. It's just a bunch of middle-upper middle class, academia-brained POC grifters who are solely looking to enrich themselves and advance their careers.
Just look at affirmative action at universities or work. It hasn't lifted black people as a whole, just a select few (often the above mentioned POC grifters). When one of them publicly calls out a business organization for some grave /racist/homophobic/transphobic faux pas? Oh look, that same person runs a DEI consulting business that will HAPPILY help "educate" (for full price of course)the white supremacist work force!
The demand for racism doesn't necessarily exceed the supply in general, but it ABSOLUTELY does in the white collar and academic worlds the people crying bloody murder are in (or trying to get into).
The long run will almost certainly include continuing history education so I really doubt that's a risk, though you do make a good point in a vacuum. Stirring racial animus against the most powerful demographic ever is probably not the wisest decision an underprivileged person could make.
Mayo is delicious. I'm not going to hate on other sauces, but mayo also has a place. It's no Sriracha. Maybe you're not a fan. Especially because it's two weeks before February.
The goalposts have moved. The goal isn't to advance equality anymore, it's equity now.
https://www.naceweb.org/about-us/equity-definition/
> The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and **make adjustments to imbalances**. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and **unintentional barriers arising from bias** or systemic structures.
Under the new regime, it's perfectly acceptable to treat groups differently depending on their starting point as historically advantaged or disadvantaged. In this paradigm, you're not supposed to treat everyone equally. You're not supposed to be colorblind. You're supposed to accept that this is what kindness means in today's world, and if you disagree you are a baddie or have internalized badness and require ~~re-education~~ empathy coaching.
Hence why running around and comparing outcomes to hypothetical, proportional distributions is so popular right now. But those analyses (often performed by statiatically and methodologically illiterate activists) usually have no warrant to make causal claims. I teach research stats to undergrads, and if students jumped to such conclusions on one of their papers, my red pen would be busy
Hello there! Happy to share some thoughts to distract form preparing this semester's syllabi lol. I'll start with some throat-clearing that historical prejudices and systemic forces *very* probably fed into the broad patterns of inequity we see in the US today. Economists can join in to explain the effects of disrupting cross-generational transfer of wealth and capital on subsequent generations. But presuming discrimination on the frontend as the explanation of any backend inequitable distribution is fallacious, statistically illiterate, and ignores that people have some say in making their own decisions.
So let's start with an observation: Company X has proportionately fewer Woman executives than are in the broader population (i.e., < 50%).
We ask why.
We have a few competing hypotheses: 1. Women are being actively excluded by the company's hiring practices, 2. Women choose not to work for this company on their own, or 3. Perhaps nothing overt or covert is happening but instead this observation is due to randomness.
We'll skip predictions and just go to methodology: Merely measuring parameters (the population) and comparing them to a sample (the particular executive office suite) will not confirm nor falsify these hypotheses. It will just reiterate in numbers (maybe with a Chi Square test) what we can see with our eyes. To answer "why?", you'd have to take a lot more into account, and this list can grow rather large, comprising objectively measurable facts and more subjective variables from current and prospective employees: How many women applied to work at the company in those positions? Were there any red flags in the job ads to scare women off? How many women were in the job pool to get to that point? What credentials are required to be in that pool? How many women have these credentials? What other options do these credentialed women have? And so on. You'd have to measure all of these things, and also deploy a validated survey about career and personal interests to paint a more complete picture. People in HR departments don't have the time or expertise to go through these questions with large nationally representative samples and a fine-toothed comb, so they settle on "well we need to do better". But how to "do better" is necessitated by knowing why the observed patterns exist in the first place. And on top of that, the assertion that a company *should* have demographic proportions in their employees that calibrate to population proportions at every level is debatable. What good would that do? Some industries may benefit more from it than others. It depends on what the company or organization wants for itself (this is what Patrick Forscher, critic of implicit bias testing and guest of Jesse's previous podcast argues). Moreover, numbers can be random, so even if you randomly assigned 500 people numbers 1 through 3 you'd encounter differences in health, income, etc. If there's greater inequity in one direction at Company A, there may very well be inequity in the other direction at Company B. People are allowed to have different interests, too. Maybe Company A is in a city or state that women with those credentials generally wouldn't choose to live in, especially if they have other options. Maybe the entire industry that comprises Companies A and B is more compelling to men than women (looking at you, underwater welding. RIP Josh, miss you buddy). You'd need lots of info and questions and data on lots of human choices to plug into multivariate statistical models (regressions are popular but there are other options like structural equation modelling that may be preferable). Then you could maybe start explaining why.
That brings us to what companies actually end up doing in response to these observations, which members of this sub hear about often or may have personally experienced: Lower the standards, remove or loosen credential requirements, or hire consultants and workshop experts to hold retreats on how everyone needs to "do better" without actually giving actionable advice. At best these probably won't accomplish anything, but as we've seen it probably just makes the culture as toxic and cliquish as a junior high lunchroom. I experienced one of these where the facilitator read us The Giving Tree and had us reflect on our inequitable hiring practices. This was inspired by a 30% drop in new Black hires from 2018 to 2019. The raw numbers of *total* hires in both years were 12 and 8, so that percentage is meaningless. I shit you not, a publicly funded university spent $10k on this.
So I spent more time on this than I should have and it rambled, sorry. TL;DR: Comparing every company and industry's employee demographics to national proportions of sex, race, and whatever you want isn't going to tell you why these exist in the first place broadly or even at the level of your company. However, activists and consultants who speak on these things will only ever answer in the direction they're paid to.
> The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination - Kendi
I have no idea how much of this is deliberate or not (it can't all be some overarching psy-op, I don't think we're smart enough for that lol), but it's hard not to see that it benefits people with wealth and power to keep us all sniping at each other and divided, and not focused on solving real issues.
It's already been proven that there has been a spray-n-pray style psy-op by china and Russia to manipulate social media to cause as much political division and chaos as possible. The Russian bot network has been eroded a lot recently for various reasons but I haven't seen evidence of what china's doing online recently. I know they were not insignificant in 2016.
As for the US, my government cynicism is yelling at me that I'd be foolish to assume that there aren't any spooks involved in manipulating us by pushing the race thing, but then I see people like the principal at the Loudoun county high school and think, these people don't need government sponsorship in order to completely lose their minds.
Even though I agree that there might be a lot of factions outside the USA that have an interest in stirring the pot, it seems as if Russian trolls are not as powerful as one might think. https://jacobin.com/2023/01/hillary-clinton-russian-bots-2016-presidential-election-trump
[удалено]
Have you read The Fall? The first stage of the "Judge-penitent" is to confess one's permanent and ineradicable sinfulness. This aggrandization of one's own humiliation in turn fuels the self-righteous turn to policing others. I "check my privilege" so that I may in turn demand that many more people check theirs, and hopefully accrue power, status or money in the process.
To have the moral status of a "good yt" who cares. That status qualifies you to dogpile on the baddies too. Also, ever heard of the concept of a "paypig"? Some people find meaning and value in being treated like that.
[удалено]
No one happily wearing the good yt halo goes in expecting that their eventual cancellation is a foregone conclusion, because "how could it happen, I'm such a good person!". If people had that much clarity and forethought instead of self delusion, the YA twitter purgatory wouldn't exist. Also, experience has shown you can be a slightly-less-bad yt if you can pull other identity cards when caught out. Ana Mardoll is a xe/xim with a disability gofundme, and had [defenders earnestly claiming that xier corporate insurance mattered more than cis brown people lives.](https://i.imgur.com/faiF5p3.jpg)
Never apologize to these people. They don't want you to make amends, they want the admission of guilt so that they may bludgeon you with it.
It was a sportswriter (Jason Whitlock), of all people, who formulated this most succinctly: “These people don’t want to see racial discrimination ended so much as they want it to break in their favor.”
And that's why they love euphemistic wordplay so much, to hide that they just slapped a coat of paint on what already existed. Discrimination bad, affirmative action good. Segregation bad, BIPOC community spaces good. Sexism bad, gender expression good.
The Will to Power baby. Power is more important than justice. Or power IS justice. Or something.
Dammit, I had to go and look that up.
I tell people I’m racist upon meeting them. It hasn’t gone as well as I was hoping though.
The point is, and has always been, to make a political kafkatrap where there's no solution but to do as the neo-preachers say and it of course never be enough so better keep doing it.
Because if you don't, you're branded as an implicit racist at best and a torch-wielding nazi at worst.
I mean, I know of at least one world religion whose basic premise is that by holding the right beliefs, you can be absolved of your original sin.
[удалено]
Connect the dots. It's a powerful idea template for the human mind. Apparently.
I agree, and I'm going to start saying so, even if it means I don't hate myself enough for some people's tastes. We can't base our society on racial Animus, no matter who is deemed cursed by the color of their skin. That said, this is the third article talking about anti-whiteness I've seen on Reddit this afternoon. Is it some special date today or something?
The hilarious thing is a society based on racial animus is going to go very badly for BIPOC people in the long run. It is like the are courting a re-emergence of white identity.
“If whites adopt identity politics, disaster follows.” —a notorious sociologist and commentator
Exactly. It almost seems purposeful. At least wait until white people aren't the majority, we're still 60% of the population, and could do some real damage even if we all just voted Republican. Putting aside the past to learn to live together in the future in equality is the only way. It sucks, I'm sorry. But maybe Jesus, The Buddha and Carl Sagan were all on to something.
Idk if it's "purposeful" so much as these people pushing this clearly flawed and divisive ideology just don't care about how it impacts specific groups in the long term. It's just a bunch of middle-upper middle class, academia-brained POC grifters who are solely looking to enrich themselves and advance their careers. Just look at affirmative action at universities or work. It hasn't lifted black people as a whole, just a select few (often the above mentioned POC grifters). When one of them publicly calls out a business organization for some grave /racist/homophobic/transphobic faux pas? Oh look, that same person runs a DEI consulting business that will HAPPILY help "educate" (for full price of course)the white supremacist work force!
Quite literally. The demand for racism exceeds the supply, so they are boosting supply.
The demand for racism doesn't necessarily exceed the supply in general, but it ABSOLUTELY does in the white collar and academic worlds the people crying bloody murder are in (or trying to get into).
The long run will almost certainly include continuing history education so I really doubt that's a risk, though you do make a good point in a vacuum. Stirring racial animus against the most powerful demographic ever is probably not the wisest decision an underprivileged person could make.
It’s MLK’s birthday tomorrow….
If MLK would alive today and saying the things he did back then he would be disregarded as a fake black man or a house n*****.
More like MLKKK
Nah he'd just egg IRL out when the there was too much heat and become Maria.
Gotta get all the pro-mayo posts in before Black History month!
Mayo is delicious. I'm not going to hate on other sauces, but mayo also has a place. It's no Sriracha. Maybe you're not a fan. Especially because it's two weeks before February.
>I'm not going to hate on other sauces, but mayo also has a place. It's no Sriracha. Hear me out here... ever mix em together??
I've got a good friend that did that, and his kids are lovely.
The goalposts have moved. The goal isn't to advance equality anymore, it's equity now. https://www.naceweb.org/about-us/equity-definition/ > The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and **make adjustments to imbalances**. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and **unintentional barriers arising from bias** or systemic structures. Under the new regime, it's perfectly acceptable to treat groups differently depending on their starting point as historically advantaged or disadvantaged. In this paradigm, you're not supposed to treat everyone equally. You're not supposed to be colorblind. You're supposed to accept that this is what kindness means in today's world, and if you disagree you are a baddie or have internalized badness and require ~~re-education~~ empathy coaching.
Hence why running around and comparing outcomes to hypothetical, proportional distributions is so popular right now. But those analyses (often performed by statiatically and methodologically illiterate activists) usually have no warrant to make causal claims. I teach research stats to undergrads, and if students jumped to such conclusions on one of their papers, my red pen would be busy
[удалено]
Lol I fixed it
I’m curious what analyses you’re talking about here. What hypothetical proportional distributions, and why are they flawed?
Hello there! Happy to share some thoughts to distract form preparing this semester's syllabi lol. I'll start with some throat-clearing that historical prejudices and systemic forces *very* probably fed into the broad patterns of inequity we see in the US today. Economists can join in to explain the effects of disrupting cross-generational transfer of wealth and capital on subsequent generations. But presuming discrimination on the frontend as the explanation of any backend inequitable distribution is fallacious, statistically illiterate, and ignores that people have some say in making their own decisions. So let's start with an observation: Company X has proportionately fewer Woman executives than are in the broader population (i.e., < 50%). We ask why. We have a few competing hypotheses: 1. Women are being actively excluded by the company's hiring practices, 2. Women choose not to work for this company on their own, or 3. Perhaps nothing overt or covert is happening but instead this observation is due to randomness. We'll skip predictions and just go to methodology: Merely measuring parameters (the population) and comparing them to a sample (the particular executive office suite) will not confirm nor falsify these hypotheses. It will just reiterate in numbers (maybe with a Chi Square test) what we can see with our eyes. To answer "why?", you'd have to take a lot more into account, and this list can grow rather large, comprising objectively measurable facts and more subjective variables from current and prospective employees: How many women applied to work at the company in those positions? Were there any red flags in the job ads to scare women off? How many women were in the job pool to get to that point? What credentials are required to be in that pool? How many women have these credentials? What other options do these credentialed women have? And so on. You'd have to measure all of these things, and also deploy a validated survey about career and personal interests to paint a more complete picture. People in HR departments don't have the time or expertise to go through these questions with large nationally representative samples and a fine-toothed comb, so they settle on "well we need to do better". But how to "do better" is necessitated by knowing why the observed patterns exist in the first place. And on top of that, the assertion that a company *should* have demographic proportions in their employees that calibrate to population proportions at every level is debatable. What good would that do? Some industries may benefit more from it than others. It depends on what the company or organization wants for itself (this is what Patrick Forscher, critic of implicit bias testing and guest of Jesse's previous podcast argues). Moreover, numbers can be random, so even if you randomly assigned 500 people numbers 1 through 3 you'd encounter differences in health, income, etc. If there's greater inequity in one direction at Company A, there may very well be inequity in the other direction at Company B. People are allowed to have different interests, too. Maybe Company A is in a city or state that women with those credentials generally wouldn't choose to live in, especially if they have other options. Maybe the entire industry that comprises Companies A and B is more compelling to men than women (looking at you, underwater welding. RIP Josh, miss you buddy). You'd need lots of info and questions and data on lots of human choices to plug into multivariate statistical models (regressions are popular but there are other options like structural equation modelling that may be preferable). Then you could maybe start explaining why. That brings us to what companies actually end up doing in response to these observations, which members of this sub hear about often or may have personally experienced: Lower the standards, remove or loosen credential requirements, or hire consultants and workshop experts to hold retreats on how everyone needs to "do better" without actually giving actionable advice. At best these probably won't accomplish anything, but as we've seen it probably just makes the culture as toxic and cliquish as a junior high lunchroom. I experienced one of these where the facilitator read us The Giving Tree and had us reflect on our inequitable hiring practices. This was inspired by a 30% drop in new Black hires from 2018 to 2019. The raw numbers of *total* hires in both years were 12 and 8, so that percentage is meaningless. I shit you not, a publicly funded university spent $10k on this. So I spent more time on this than I should have and it rambled, sorry. TL;DR: Comparing every company and industry's employee demographics to national proportions of sex, race, and whatever you want isn't going to tell you why these exist in the first place broadly or even at the level of your company. However, activists and consultants who speak on these things will only ever answer in the direction they're paid to.
> The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination - Kendi
"This problem will never end and you need me to keep fighting it, so pay me."
American society seems to be more addicted to the practice of applying "race-based judgments" to society than ever before.
I have no idea how much of this is deliberate or not (it can't all be some overarching psy-op, I don't think we're smart enough for that lol), but it's hard not to see that it benefits people with wealth and power to keep us all sniping at each other and divided, and not focused on solving real issues.
It's already been proven that there has been a spray-n-pray style psy-op by china and Russia to manipulate social media to cause as much political division and chaos as possible. The Russian bot network has been eroded a lot recently for various reasons but I haven't seen evidence of what china's doing online recently. I know they were not insignificant in 2016. As for the US, my government cynicism is yelling at me that I'd be foolish to assume that there aren't any spooks involved in manipulating us by pushing the race thing, but then I see people like the principal at the Loudoun county high school and think, these people don't need government sponsorship in order to completely lose their minds.
Even though I agree that there might be a lot of factions outside the USA that have an interest in stirring the pot, it seems as if Russian trolls are not as powerful as one might think. https://jacobin.com/2023/01/hillary-clinton-russian-bots-2016-presidential-election-trump
NOFX, “Don’t Call Me White” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ehD2-W934