Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #651  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:21 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,774
Wow, using autism as an insult while styling onesself as a finger-wagging “woke” scold? As the father of two kids with autism, I’d be offended if I weren’t so bemused.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-09-2018 at 08:22 PM.
  #652  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Is Coleman Hughes the one doing your thinking for you now? Charles Murray will be so jealous.
He'll take anyone who provides rhetorical cover for his belief that black people have inherently inferior intellect.
  #653  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:35 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
SlackerInc Please condense that wall of text into whatever the hell your point is. They way you've snipped it is incomprehensible.
You're asking him to read and comprehend text? Hold on, I need to get some popcorn...
__________________
"...the social ills of the nonwhite inner-city poor had their origin not in some mysterious flaws of African-American culture but in economic factors—specifically, the disappearance of good blue-collar jobs. Sure enough, when rural whites faced a similar loss of economic opportunity, they experienced a similar social unraveling." - Krugman
  #654  
Old 08-09-2018, 09:22 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,697
Maybe we could just have Huey Freeman and SlackerInc in a room together and see what happens?
  #655  
Old 08-09-2018, 09:27 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huey Freeman View Post
(emphasis mine)

This is because Grand Dragon Shodan is low level. But wait, let me back up and give you my scale:
Personally, I'm mostly stuck at level 3, though I spotted the insincerity of white lives matter pretty much immediately.
  #656  
Old 08-09-2018, 10:10 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, *their* culture.

If their culture adapted, they wouldn't be poor. Asians and Jews are better examples of adaptation, because their cultures are successful rather than dysfunctional.

No, and that's the point. I grew up in a culture where people were expected to pay attention in school, obey the law, support their own children, and earn their own livings. I am perpetuating that culture to the best of my ability. Other people perpetuating a different and less adaptive culture don't affect my success, or the success of those who share that culture, except to serve as examples of how a toxic culture can screw up your life.If it is shitty to say "don't try to blame the fact that you abandoned your family or had two children before you were twenty by two different men or fucked up in high school or robbed the neighborhood liquor store", then unless and until you can point out how it was my fault, you will have to live with it.

Their toxic culture, which perpetuates their situation instead of encouraging them to overcome it.
Evil Economist already posted the obvious next question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Why do these people behave this way. Forget the "culture" shit, that's not an explanation. Why are there these cultural problems. What's causing the culture differences?
Why do you think black people have the culture you describe? It's obviously not a situation anyone would want to live in. So why do they? If the option of living in a culture that doesn't include crime, imprisonment, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, drugs, bad education, and broken homes is freely available to black people, why aren't they taking it?
  #657  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:02 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Wow, using autism as an insult while styling onesself as a finger-wagging “woke” scold? As the father of two kids with autism, I’d be offended if I weren’t so bemused.
I understand that the go-to insult for adolescents is now "Autistic", as opposed to the 1970s-1980s epithet "Gay". Judging from 4chan.

Probably an improvement I say, though not by much.

(Pre-empt: Q: Why is it an improvement mfm? A: I dunno, I guess I'm claiming that today's anti-autistic sentiments are less toxic than the homophobia of the past.)
  #658  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:04 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Why do you think black people have the culture you describe? It's obviously not a situation anyone would want to live in. So why do they? If the option of living in a culture that doesn't include crime, imprisonment, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, drugs, bad education, and broken homes is freely available to black people, why aren't they taking it?
That’s like asking why rural Afghans cling to a culture that involves women walking around in bags. Some cultures are fucked up and do not contribute to human flourishing, but people don’t necessarily change even when they could and should.
  #659  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:48 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Better funding for inner-city schools so they aren't such shitholes.
This is a trope that was once very much true but is no longer so. We discussed it in great detail in the Sam Harris thread, so I’m not going to relitigate it here; but the upshot is that the range of debate is from “the average black kid in public schools gets more funding than the average student overall” (my read of the data) to “they get one or two percent less” (a real stretch IMO). A massive infusion of money into certain schools (like Newark) has not increased test scores.

Conservatives are likely to say this is because bureaucrats wasted the money and teachers are incompetent. I believe the money has created good schools with compassionate, involved teachers, and has resulted in schools parents are by and large happy to send their kids to. But among some people, the racial test score disparity is a priori proof that urban public schools are “shitholes” that are to blame for all social ills befalling African American kids.

Anyway, here’s a post from the other thread with some evidence for what I’m talking about:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...postcount=1282

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Imagine for a moment that you wanted to change that culture of yours from within. How much pushback do you think you'd get? Do you think inner-city black people get pushback when they try to change their culture?
This is certainly true. Coleman Hughes (who, BTW, is not a “black conservative”: he voted for Hillary and labels the GOP as the home of far-right Nazi types) has gotten intense heat for his editorials.
  #660  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:59 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That’s like asking why rural Afghans cling to a culture that involves women walking around in bags. Some cultures are fucked up and do not contribute to human flourishing, but people don’t necessarily change even when they could and should.
That's an interesting analogy. I think most people would say that Afghan women aren't in charge of this system. They're walking around in "bags" because Afghan men make them do so. Afghan men enforce this system because it allows them the satisfaction of knowing that however bad their lives are, they have somebody who's lower than them that they can push around. The superior group makes the inferior group live in worst conditions than they do.

As I said, it's an interesting analogy to offer in a discussion of American race relations.
  #661  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:16 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,774
A sociologist (like my wife, or mother) would say no one is really in charge of the structures underlying culture, even though they are part of the collective ongoing project to create and maintain them. I have issues with many aspects of social science, but this part is spot on IMO.

That’s not to say it’s always futile to try to change culture, but it’s hard—and a big part of that is because of the game theory barriers to bucking social norms. It’s quite often worse for an individual to try to change things, even if everyone, or most people, in the culture would be better off if they were changed.
  #662  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:59 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 10,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Wow, using autism as an insult while styling onesself as a finger-wagging “woke” scold? As the father of two kids with autism, I’d be offended if I weren’t so bemused.
Look, dipshit, the autism remark wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the person who made it, Huey. That's why I quoted him before I told him cut it out. I'm not "woke". My son is autistic, so fuck you, and fuck the horse you rode in on. People who call others "autistic" just for shits and giggles can strap themselves to a rocket and go volunteer for Trump's new space force. For that matter, so can all of those dung buckets, like yourself, who think that using "woke" means they've done something more than reveal their utter vapidity.
  #663  
Old 08-10-2018, 05:56 AM
Emiliana's Avatar
Emiliana Emiliana is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
A sociologist (like my wife, or mother) would say no one is really in charge of the structures underlying culture, even though they are part of the collective ongoing project to create and maintain them. I have issues with many aspects of social science, but this part is spot on IMO.
Nope, nope, nope. All kinds of wrong. Unless the sociology in question comes from the 1950s.
  #664  
Old 08-10-2018, 09:12 AM
bordelond bordelond is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: La Rive Ouest
Posts: 9,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emiliana View Post
Nope, nope, nope. All kinds of wrong.
What Slacker wrote ("no one is really in charge ... ") makes intuitive sense to me. I'm taking "no one is really in charge" to mean "no one individual person is really in charge" of any given human cultural group. Isn't that kind of self-evident? Or were coming at the statement from a different angle?
  #665  
Old 08-10-2018, 09:35 AM
Emiliana's Avatar
Emiliana Emiliana is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordelond View Post
What Slacker wrote ("no one is really in charge ... ") makes intuitive sense to me. I'm taking "no one is really in charge" to mean "no one individual person is really in charge" of any given human cultural group. Isn't that kind of self-evident? Or were coming at the statement from a different angle?
Sure, no single person is in charge of any given culture. But cultures are perpetuated by the powerful. They're never homogenous and are frequently internally contested. Even in relatively isolated indigenous cultures, for example, women contest their subordination to men.

In sociological or anthropological terms, it's ridiculous to speak of a "black culture" distinct from the broader culture in which African Americans live.
  #666  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:03 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
A sociologist (like my wife, or mother) would say no one is really in charge of the structures underlying culture, even though they are part of the collective ongoing project to create and maintain them. I have issues with many aspects of social science, but this part is spot on IMO.
So you reject the argument some people have made that only the individuals who commit specific racist acts are responsible for racism? You're saying that race relations, including racism, are collectively produced by everyone in the society.
  #667  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:51 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordelond View Post
What Slacker wrote ("no one is really in charge ... ") makes intuitive sense to me. I'm taking "no one is really in charge" to mean "no one individual person is really in charge" of any given human cultural group. Isn't that kind of self-evident? Or were coming at the statement from a different angle?
No one person is in charge of the whole thing - each individual influences either to perpetuate or discontinue any given aspect of their culture. People are both reacting to, and changing, their own culture. What I do influences everyone else, and what everyone else does influences me. The more interactions we have, the greater the influence.

That's much of the point of the fact that most black children grow up without their fathers. They have no role model for how responsible fathers behave, at least not on the gut level. Same for if you are raised by a single mother, and your older sisters all have children out of wedlock before they reach twenty. You are not doomed, but you are more likely, to feel, whether consciously or unconsciously, that this is how things are done. Being raised by a single parent is disadvantageous. A single parent, of either sex, is going to have less time, and emotional energy to spend socializing their children. And therefore it is that much easier for a child to assume that leaving is what daddies do.

Regards,
Shodan
  #668  
Old 08-10-2018, 01:11 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That’s like asking why rural Afghans cling to a culture that involves women walking around in bags. Some cultures are fucked up and do not contribute to human flourishing, but people don’t necessarily change even when they could and should.
Okay, but cultures don't just develop in a vacuum; they're influenced by a variety of factors. Moreover, cultures can also change, and sometimes for the better. They can embrace ideas that are useful and discard those that aren't. But it helps if the more powerful cultures approach these other "fucked up" cultures (your words, not mine) in the spirit of cooperation rather than exploitation.

Last edited by asahi; 08-10-2018 at 01:12 PM.
  #669  
Old 08-10-2018, 01:17 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No one person is in charge of the whole thing - each individual influences either to perpetuate or discontinue any given aspect of their culture. People are both reacting to, and changing, their own culture. What I do influences everyone else, and what everyone else does influences me. The more interactions we have, the greater the influence.

That's much of the point of the fact that most black children grow up without their fathers. They have no role model for how responsible fathers behave, at least not on the gut level. Same for if you are raised by a single mother, and your older sisters all have children out of wedlock before they reach twenty. You are not doomed, but you are more likely, to feel, whether consciously or unconsciously, that this is how things are done. Being raised by a single parent is disadvantageous. A single parent, of either sex, is going to have less time, and emotional energy to spend socializing their children. And therefore it is that much easier for a child to assume that leaving is what daddies do.

Regards,
Shodan
I don't dismiss everything you've written above, though I don't think single parent households, in and of themselves, are disadvantageous. It depends on the reasons why there's a single parent household. I knew classmates who were raised by responsible, hardworking single moms; I knew others who were raised by moms (or dads) who were dysfunctional and on meds. But that can happen in 2-parent households, too.
  #670  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:02 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
Explorations in bad faith conservative argumentation, Part CLXXIV

There is a literature on single parent families. They suffer disproportionately from a number of adverse outcomes though that doesn't mean all of them do. They just face greater risks. Cite, first paragraph.

About half of all black families are headed by a single Mom. For whites, the share is 28%: that exceeds the share of black families with single Moms in 1965, when Senator Moynihan wrote his report on the subject, proping the meme of those bad black families. https://www.theroot.com/single-paren...lem-1790897125


Anyway by this metric white culture is worse than the black culture of 1965. I agree that single parenthood should be addressed just like any other social trend. As opposed to using it as yet another excuse of why white conservatives don't need to trouble themselves with the poverty of one race or another.
  #671  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:09 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
ETA: You know what a reasonable position would be? It might be something like, "We'll give the impoverished a hand up because they are citizens too. In fact we'll apply some of best science to the subject, including experimentation with control groups where appropriate. But there are limits. There are limits to the resources we can devote to this and quite frankly there are limits to the resources we want to devote to this. No apologies."

Modern American conservatism is based upon emotivism and white grievance though, so I wouldn't expect anything like that soon: I see no way of curbing their angry middle aged white male butthurt.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 08-10-2018 at 02:09 PM.
  #672  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:40 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 15,260
A woman called the cops on a black New York state legislator for handing out anti-Trump literature.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...nding-out-anti
  #673  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:44 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
ETA: You know what a reasonable position would be? It might be something like, "We'll give the impoverished a hand up because they are citizens too. In fact we'll apply some of best science to the subject, including experimentation with control groups where appropriate. But there are limits. There are limits to the resources we can devote to this and quite frankly there are limits to the resources we want to devote to this. No apologies."

Modern American conservatism is based upon emotivism and white grievance though, so I wouldn't expect anything like that soon: I see no way of curbing their angry middle aged white male butthurt.
Cosigned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emiliana View Post
Nope, nope, nope. All kinds of wrong. Unless the sociology in question comes from the 1950s.
What’s wrong with 1950s sociology? Erving Goffman, for my money the greatest sociologist of all time, produced his most famous work in 1956, although my personal favorite stuff from him, on role distance, came out in 1961.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bordelond View Post
What Slacker wrote ("no one is really in charge ... ") makes intuitive sense to me. I'm taking "no one is really in charge" to mean "no one individual person is really in charge" of any given human cultural group.
Right, that’s exactly what I meant. Maybe Emiliana took me as saying there are no hegemons, when there obviously are. OTOH 1950s sociologists knew that too, so I don’t know what she is on about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
So you reject the argument some people have made that only the individuals who commit specific racist acts are responsible for racism? You're saying that race relations, including racism, are collectively produced by everyone in the society.
I would say it’s some of both. Society and underlying structures are powerful, but they don’t erase all personal responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Okay, but cultures don't just develop in a vacuum; they're influenced by a variety of factors. Moreover, cultures can also change, and sometimes for the better. They can embrace ideas that are useful and discard those that aren't. But it helps if the more powerful cultures approach these other "fucked up" cultures (your words, not mine) in the spirit of cooperation rather than exploitation.
I agree with all of that.
  #674  
Old 08-10-2018, 07:58 PM
mikecurtis's Avatar
mikecurtis mikecurtis is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
. . .

I would say it’s some of both. Society and underlying structures are powerful, but they don’t erase all personal responsibility.
They don't erase ANY personal responsibility. If someone commits a crime (or is in some other way disruptive to society) that's on them. No matter who they are or what kind of oppression they live in.

But there are certain conditions that make it more likely that someone might make a bad decision. Poverty and oppression are two such conditions. And racism is a major contributing factoras to why a significant portion of our population is hopelessly mired in poverty and oppression. If society has the power to change that (and I believe we absolutely do) then it has the responsibility to do so.

Recognizing that racism in America plays a significant role in the lives of many of our fellow citizens is not the same as saying they are not responsible for their own behavior. But it does put the onus on all of us to try and do something.

mc
  #675  
Old 08-11-2018, 01:38 PM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is a trope that was once very much true but is no longer so. We discussed it in great detail in the Sam Harris thread, so I’m not going to relitigate it here; but the upshot is that the range of debate is from “the average black kid in public schools gets more funding than the average student overall” (my read of the data) to “they get one or two percent less” (a real stretch IMO). A massive infusion of money into certain schools (like Newark) has not increased test scores.

Conservatives are likely to say this is because bureaucrats wasted the money and teachers are incompetent. I believe the money has created good schools with compassionate, involved teachers, and has resulted in schools parents are by and large happy to send their kids to. But among some people, the racial test score disparity is a priori proof that urban public schools are “shitholes” that are to blame for all social ills befalling African American kids.
Fair enough. It's not my intention to present myself as an expert in all of the problems that plague underprivileged black children; I will leave that to sociologists and psychologists who study the problem, and on the self-reporting of the at-risk kids themselves and their parents. But I'm confident that there are real (and correct) answers that can be given if/when people are willing to ask "what can we do to help prevent the potential of at-risk black children from being wasted?".
  #676  
Old 08-11-2018, 05:18 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is a trope that was once very much true but is no longer so. We discussed it in great detail in the Sam Harris thread, so I’m not going to relitigate it here; but the upshot is that the range of debate is from “the average black kid in public schools gets more funding than the average student overall” (my read of the data) to “they get one or two percent less” (a real stretch IMO). A massive infusion of money into certain schools (like Newark) has not increased test scores.

Conservatives are likely to say this is because bureaucrats wasted the money and teachers are incompetent. I believe the money has created good schools with compassionate, involved teachers, and has resulted in schools parents are by and large happy to send their kids to. But among some people, the racial test score disparity is a priori proof that urban public schools are “shitholes” that are to blame for all social ills befalling African American kids.
Well, it's just as much of a hijack in that thread as this one, so...

1. I found it interesting that minority schools only get 1-2% more funding on average as others. Also, I'm guessing that variance of that gap is pretty large.


Big picture: yes, throwing money at schools doesn't get you results. Why is that? My answer: because education in general is a difficult scientific problem, one that's been resistant to many years of research. Paraphrase, from an Economist survey on education worldwide from many years back: "Nobody knows how to make a good school." You can see (some of) it in performance metrics. The Economist's take was that a sense of mission was particularly helpful; true or not, it's nonetheless hard for me to believe there's a strong basis for that claim in data. Too difficult to measure properly.

I understand you are focusing on black majority schools in Chicago. But honestly, the challenge of creating good schools extends to everywhere in the world. Including well-healed private schools. Everywhere.

Charter schools aren't a panacea either, though I understand that under certain circumstances they can constructively prompt educational reform, largely by shaking up entrenched institutions and personalities. I've heard one expert say that restructuring a school isn't wholly dissimilar to restructuring a business: for one thing there isn't a fixed blueprint for either. But I didn't see airtight evidence for that argument either.

Here's a quote; I hope my readers can pick up on the analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Krugman, 1994
An Indian born economist once explained his personal theory of reincarnation to his graduate economics class: "If you are a good economist, a virtuous economist he said, you are reborn as a physicist. But if you are an evil, wicked economist, you are reborn as a sociologist."

A sociologist might say that this quote shows what is wrong with economists: they want a subject that is fundamentally about human beings to have the mathematical certainty of the hard sciences... But good economists know that the speaker was talking about something else entirely: the sheer difficulty of the subject. Economics is hard: it's harder than physics; luckily it is not quite as hard as sociology.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 08-11-2018 at 05:19 PM.
  #677  
Old 08-11-2018, 05:52 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
But there are certain conditions that make it more likely that someone might make a bad decision.
Moreover, there are certain conditions that might convince some individuals that playing by the rules yields little reward, and that the systems and its rules are a sham. A majority ethnic group in a racist society have more faith in police, more faith in the civil courts, more faith in criminal courts, more faith in justice, more faith in schools, more faith in people in positions of power to respect them as upstanding, law-abiding, productive members of society. That's a little harder for the descendants of people whose great great grandparents were bought, whipped, and sold as slaves, whose great grandparents were lynched, whose grandparents had fire hoses turned on them for trying to sit at the front of the bus, and who today are clearly getting different treatment by people in positions of authority and power than their white counterparts.

Last edited by asahi; 08-11-2018 at 05:52 PM.
  #678  
Old 08-11-2018, 08:37 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,774
Measure, I love that Krugman quote. I love my sociologist wife and sociologist mom. I know I come across as harsh toward that field of study, but it’s only because I get frustrated that they are so reflexively resistant to biological “essentialist” fields like evolutionary psychology, when I would ideally wish that each side would recognize that they both have something to offer to fill in the puzzle of reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Moreover, there are certain conditions that might convince some individuals that playing by the rules yields little reward, and that the systems and its rules are a sham. A majority ethnic group in a racist society have more faith in police, more faith in the civil courts, more faith in criminal courts, more faith in justice, more faith in schools, more faith in people in positions of power to respect Thithem as upstanding, law-abiding, productive members of society. That's a little harder for the descendants of people whose great great grandparents were bought, whipped, and sold as slaves, whose great grandparents were lynched, whose grandparents had fire hoses turned on them for trying to sit at the front of the bus, and who today are clearly getting different treatment by people in positions of authority and power than their white counterparts.
This is a very good argument. In a vacuum, logically, it makes perfect sense. But how does it explain the points Coleman Hughes made, that Japanese Americans, and Asian Americans more broadly, faced severe governmental and societal discrimination, yet persevered to outpace even white Americans educationally and economically? What about the American citizens of Caribbean descent, who are black, outwardly indistinguishable from other African Americans, and whose ancestors were enslaved just as long as the descendants of American slaves, but who seem to do much better? (I don’t know quite how to explain it myself, so it’s an honest question and not a rhetorical one.)

ETA: I want to reiterate that I strongly support reparations for slavery and for Jim Crow. Coleman Hughes seems to oppose it because he feels that most black people will just piss the money away. But that is an area where I disagree with him. Even if they do (and surely not all of them will), they deserve it. If my parents get horribly screwed over by the government all their lives, their labor stolen and used to enrich others, and they sue for damages but die before the case can be adjudicated, I as their heir should be able to receive anything they would have been awarded. Same goes here.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-11-2018 at 08:41 PM.
  #679  
Old 08-11-2018, 09:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is a very good argument. In a vacuum, logically, it makes perfect sense. But how does it explain the points Coleman Hughes made, that Japanese Americans, and Asian Americans more broadly, faced severe governmental and societal discrimination, yet persevered to outpace even white Americans educationally and economically?
The discrimination was entirely different both in character and vehemence. Asians did not face over a century of mass brutality, rape, and torture, along with deeply ingrained cultural attitudes of dehumanization and supposed savagery, and much more.

Quote:
What about the American citizens of Caribbean descent, who are black, outwardly indistinguishable from other African Americans, and whose ancestors were enslaved just as long as the descendants of American slaves, but who seem to do much better? (I don’t know quite how to explain it myself, so it’s an honest question and not a rhetorical one.)
I'll look for a cite when I'm able, but in my understanding 1st and 2nd generations immigrants of all types, including Carribeans, generally show high statistical aptitudes, while later generations generally revert to the mean. So it's not anything about where black Americans descend from, but for how many generations they've been here. Which seems like a very clear indicator that there's something about how black people are treated in American society that's having an enormous affect on these outcomes. This also explains a lot of Asian statistical success -- they have generally been in America for many fewer generations than black Americans.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-11-2018 at 09:27 PM.
  #680  
Old 08-11-2018, 09:44 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Measure, I love that Krugman quote. I love my sociologist wife and sociologist mom. I know I come across as harsh toward that field of study, but it’s only because I get frustrated that they are so reflexively resistant to biological “essentialist” fields like evolutionary psychology, when I would ideally wish that each side would recognize that they both have something to offer to fill in the puzzle of reality.
I perceive that evolutionary psychology's stock has been on the upswing for maybe 30 years or so, from a rather skeptical base. Justifiably so, given the errors of social Darwinism. I don't have a good grasp of sociology quite frankly, though I perceive practitioners vary a lot in terms of methodology. Quite a few are data oriented, though given the topic that's not the only legit approach in my view.

Education professors can be highly quantitative as well; but as noted earlier, the underlying problem is just hard.


Evolutionary psychology: here I'll plug the author Robert Wright.
  #681  
Old 08-11-2018, 09:52 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
Oh, yeah, Living while black in America:

This isn't a game changer at all, but Vox reports the following:
Mitt Romney is calling on Americans to “categorically and consistently reject racism and discrimination” on the anniversary of racist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 and on the eve of a repeat of the Unite the Right rally this year in Washington, DC. The former Massachusetts governor and current US Senate candidate in Utah issued a lengthy statement on Friday defending equality, steeped in his religious upbringing and belief that “we are all children of God.”
Boilerplate stuff, or at least it was three years ago.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tesville-trump

This part is more interesting, coming from Mitt:
My understanding of the Black Lives Matter movement, for example, is that it is not intended to elevate minority lives above white lives; it is intended to draw vivid attention to the too frequent reality of deadly racial discrimination in law enforcement and in the courts.
At one time this was the consensus among the American elite:
The matter of race and racism is not tangential to the great issues of our day: it is one of them. It is impossible for America to achieve and sustain high growth, economic superiority, and global leadership if our citizenry is divided, disengaged, and angry. But more than this, we must foster equality if we are to remain a great and good nation. And we ourselves must embrace the dignity of all God’s children if we are to merit His love.
  #682  
Old 08-11-2018, 09:59 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Boilerplate stuff, or at least it was three years ago.
The Bush administration tried to bring torture back into the mainstream. The Trump administration is trying to bring racism back into the mainstream. I'm worried that the next Republican President we elect will try to normalize cannibalism.
  #683  
Old 08-11-2018, 10:31 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
"There are fine people on both sides of the human edible debate."
  #684  
Old 08-11-2018, 10:48 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
"There are fine people on both sides of the human edible debate."
"The Democrats protest our plan to turn poor people into hamburgers. They're really just upset because while they talk about reducing poverty and unemployment, we're moving ahead and doing something about it."
  #685  
Old 08-11-2018, 11:09 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
"There are fine people on both sides of the human edible debate."
And most of them go wonderfully with fava beans and Chianti.
  #686  
Old 08-12-2018, 07:51 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is a very good argument. In a vacuum, logically, it makes perfect sense. But how does it explain the points Coleman Hughes made, that Japanese Americans, and Asian Americans more broadly, faced severe governmental and societal discrimination, yet persevered to outpace even white Americans educationally and economically?
Without comparing proverbial apples to apples, that's a hard question to respond to. But let's first consider the fact that many Asian Americans have come to the United States since 1965. The years in which immigration restrictions began to loosen coincided with the years in which African Americans finally began to receive some equal protection under the law, which would mean that Asian Americans, though many of whom might have been poor, would have entered the United States in an era facing comparatively less discrimination than what African Americans would have faced in the years leading up to the Civil Rights era. That's not to say that Asian Americans haven't faced discrimination and challenges since coming to the United States - they absolutely have. But for many it's different.

Consider as well that immigrants generally outperform native born citizens of all stripes. It often requires considerable resources and a certain amount of grit to immigrate here in the first place. Even if one arrives as a refugee with nothing but the clothes he's wearing, there's the grit part that self selects more productive members of society from the start. That can change in as little as a generation, though many of these values and the fruits of the immigrant's labor are passed down to the next generation. That's in contrast to citizens who are targeted for discrimination from the start, with generation after generation repeatedly treated with suspicion by the criminal justice system and deprived of opportunity by white communities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
What about the American citizens of Caribbean descent, who are black, outwardly indistinguishable from other African Americans, and whose ancestors were enslaved just as long as the descendants of American slaves, but who seem to do much better? (I don’t know quite how to explain it myself, so it’s an honest question and not a rhetorical one.)
Again, without really knowing how to make an actual valid comparison, that's a hard question to respond to. What are American citizens of Caribbean descent? Do you mean immigrants who come to the U.S. from the Caribbean? I refer you back to the above. Unless you've got an exceedingly generous welfare state and very loose restrictions on immigration, which we don't have, immigrants are generally going to be more productive than native-born Americans. And although some of that grit may be lost within as little as a single generation, the children of immigrants often embrace the values of their parents, which puts them in a good position going forward. Conversely, many of the children of African American parents in, say, Chicago's south side or St. Louis' north side, are born into unstable situations. It's a hard cycle to escape from.
  #687  
Old 08-12-2018, 11:56 AM
holmes holmes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,859
The thing is though; the only vacuum that exists is a true understanding of the history of this country in regards to how non-white groups have been treated and even pitted against each other. For example Lum vs. Rice. Apologies for the long post. https://www.britannica.com/event/Gong-Lum-v-Rice

Mr. Lum was first generation Chinese. He arrived in the US illegally to avoid the Chinese Exclusion Act, by crossing the Canadian border and met up with a relative in the South. Later he married. His wife who was also Chinese, but came to the U.S. as a child (indentured servant), was familiar with Southern customs and in fact, even socialized with white southerners in church. Mr. Lum opened a grocery store, had children and began living the American dream. Note his children attended white schools until the family moved to another town and this was during the Jim Crow era.

In 1924 and now in a new location, the family found themselves for all intents and purposes ‘colored’, and suffered a lack of rights and privileges; most importantly access to higher performing white schools. Mr. Lum enrolled his girls in the local public school, which was whites only. On the first day, the girls were asked to leave the school and instead enroll in one of the colored schools.

Mr. Lum valuing the importance of a good education and seeing how inferior the colored schools were, sued to have his children attend the white schools, as they weren’t black (colored). The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where he lost and was told that he was not white and therefore, didn’t have the right to attend a white school. After the case, the Lums moved to another state and enrolled their daughters in a white school.

So when we talk about similar experiences, but different outcomes, this to me is a good example. Clearly, Chinese immigrants suffered greatly, and in many instances, laws were created specifically to hinder their rights. However, in the case of the Lums, we see that despite this, they were still afforded more rights than the African-Americans who had been in the country longer and have had even more burdens placed upon them. So, for example, the Chinese exclusion act was repealed in 1943, while the Civil Rights Act, which covered everyone was passed in 1964. So for 20 years longer, African-Americans still had the burden of Jim Crow in some form.
  • Ms. Lum, for example, was allowed some degree of access to white southern society; this access could certainly allowed her and her family the ability to interact and even network with the majority population. In the Jim Crow era, African-Americans are denied this ability.
  • Mr. Lum is able to open a business, and by becoming a merchant, is granted special privileges not allowed to Chinese laborers. He becomes successful enough that he can afford to hire a lawyer to fight his discrimination case. In the Jim Crow south, how many African-Americans are even allowed to acquire such wealth? How many are allowed to change their status because of their career? Segregation for the African-American in the Jim Crow era doesn’t allow for exemptions.
  • Finally, his daughters were allowed to attend white schools, even for a time. Moreover, after they lost the case, they moved to another state and once again had their daughters attend white schools. In the Jim Crow era how many black students would have the ability ever to attend a white school? This isn’t a question of integration, but the acknowledgment of how deliberate the creation of ‘colored’ schools was used as a weapon to create and maintain the disparity of opportunities for African-Americans. Moreover, it was something Mr. Lum, could avoid by simply moving Arkansas, however for the African-American, moving to Arkansas would not release them from the effects of Jim Crow.
Now here’s the thing, none of this takes away that Mr. Lum and his family were hard-working or that he was discriminated against. Clearly, they were, however, I also have to acknowledge that African-Americans were also hard-working people, and also discriminated against. So why different outcomes?

To me, it seems that the system was rigged specifically against African-Americans. The Lums and other people of color were caught up as a side-effect. This is why doing something like moving to another state reduced the Lum’s burden; while for African-Americans, no such relief was forthcoming for another forty years, with the Civil Rights Act and other reforms in the 1970s.

Remember the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, and then the voting rights Act in 1965 and Loving v. Virginia in 1967. So we’re talking a little more than fifty years ago when the system was finally legally obligated to provide African-Americans full rights. IMO this means anyone born after that time, is the first generation of African-Americans with full and legal rights in this country. Think about that; we have a group of people who have been represented in this country for 300-400 years, that’s what 12-15 generations and we’re only now dealing with the first generation or two of truly freed people. That’s messed up.

And here’s the thing, those civil rights protestors who got their skulls bashed in, hoses and dogs set on them and even killed, opened the door for the next generation of non-white immigrants who came to the country. However, this group came into it without the centuries-long baggage of being told they are inferior for generations, by every form of communication available; by the only country they have known. So to these new and different immigrants, American wasn't the cruel stepmother she had been to the African-Americans; to the new immigrants, America was the magic fairy; granting them opportunities.

I think it’s a lot easier to be a stranger in a strange land than to be treated as one in a land that is your home. I think it cuts deeper to have a parent tell you're worthless than a stranger on the street and many immigrants despite the history in their own countries, don't have the same relationship with America, that African-Americans have had for centuries.
__________________
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and only the pig enjoys it.

Last edited by holmes; 08-12-2018 at 12:00 PM.
  #688  
Old 08-12-2018, 12:40 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 38,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The Bush administration tried to bring torture back into the mainstream. The Trump administration is trying to bring racism back into the mainstream. I'm worried that the next Republican President we elect will try to normalize cannibalism.
I thought this one was already pointing to incest.
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot
  #689  
Old 08-12-2018, 12:44 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by holmes View Post
The thing is though; the only vacuum that exists is a true understanding of the history of this country in regards to how non-white groups have been treated and even pitted against each other. For example Lum vs. Rice. Apologies for the long post. https://www.britannica.com/event/Gong-Lum-v-Rice

Mr. Lum was first generation Chinese. He arrived in the US illegally to avoid the Chinese Exclusion Act, by crossing the Canadian border and met up with a relative in the South. Later he married. His wife who was also Chinese, but came to the U.S. as a child (indentured servant), was familiar with Southern customs and in fact, even socialized with white southerners in church. Mr. Lum opened a grocery store, had children and began living the American dream. Note his children attended white schools until the family moved to another town and this was during the Jim Crow era.

In 1924 and now in a new location, the family found themselves for all intents and purposes ‘colored’, and suffered a lack of rights and privileges; most importantly access to higher performing white schools. Mr. Lum enrolled his girls in the local public school, which was whites only. On the first day, the girls were asked to leave the school and instead enroll in one of the colored schools.

Mr. Lum valuing the importance of a good education and seeing how inferior the colored schools were, sued to have his children attend the white schools, as they weren’t black (colored). The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where he lost and was told that he was not white and therefore, didn’t have the right to attend a white school. After the case, the Lums moved to another state and enrolled their daughters in a white school.

So when we talk about similar experiences, but different outcomes, this to me is a good example. Clearly, Chinese immigrants suffered greatly, and in many instances, laws were created specifically to hinder their rights. However, in the case of the Lums, we see that despite this, they were still afforded more rights than the African-Americans who had been in the country longer and have had even more burdens placed upon them. So, for example, the Chinese exclusion act was repealed in 1943, while the Civil Rights Act, which covered everyone was passed in 1964. So for 20 years longer, African-Americans still had the burden of Jim Crow in some form.
  • Ms. Lum, for example, was allowed some degree of access to white southern society; this access could certainly allowed her and her family the ability to interact and even network with the majority population. In the Jim Crow era, African-Americans are denied this ability.
  • Mr. Lum is able to open a business, and by becoming a merchant, is granted special privileges not allowed to Chinese laborers. He becomes successful enough that he can afford to hire a lawyer to fight his discrimination case. In the Jim Crow south, how many African-Americans are even allowed to acquire such wealth? How many are allowed to change their status because of their career? Segregation for the African-American in the Jim Crow era doesn’t allow for exemptions.
  • Finally, his daughters were allowed to attend white schools, even for a time. Moreover, after they lost the case, they moved to another state and once again had their daughters attend white schools. In the Jim Crow era how many black students would have the ability ever to attend a white school? This isn’t a question of integration, but the acknowledgment of how deliberate the creation of ‘colored’ schools was used as a weapon to create and maintain the disparity of opportunities for African-Americans. Moreover, it was something Mr. Lum, could avoid by simply moving Arkansas, however for the African-American, moving to Arkansas would not release them from the effects of Jim Crow.
Now here’s the thing, none of this takes away that Mr. Lum and his family were hard-working or that he was discriminated against. Clearly, they were, however, I also have to acknowledge that African-Americans were also hard-working people, and also discriminated against. So why different outcomes?

To me, it seems that the system was rigged specifically against African-Americans. The Lums and other people of color were caught up as a side-effect. This is why doing something like moving to another state reduced the Lum’s burden; while for African-Americans, no such relief was forthcoming for another forty years, with the Civil Rights Act and other reforms in the 1970s.

Remember the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, and then the voting rights Act in 1965 and Loving v. Virginia in 1967. So we’re talking a little more than fifty years ago when the system was finally legally obligated to provide African-Americans full rights. IMO this means anyone born after that time, is the first generation of African-Americans with full and legal rights in this country. Think about that; we have a group of people who have been represented in this country for 300-400 years, that’s what 12-15 generations and we’re only now dealing with the first generation or two of truly freed people. That’s messed up.

And here’s the thing, those civil rights protestors who got their skulls bashed in, hoses and dogs set on them and even killed, opened the door for the next generation of non-white immigrants who came to the country. However, this group came into it without the centuries-long baggage of being told they are inferior for generations, by every form of communication available; by the only country they have known. So to these new and different immigrants, American wasn't the cruel stepmother she had been to the African-Americans; to the new immigrants, America was the magic fairy; granting them opportunities.

I think it’s a lot easier to be a stranger in a strange land than to be treated as one in a land that is your home. I think it cuts deeper to have a parent tell you're worthless than a stranger on the street and many immigrants despite the history in their own countries, don't have the same relationship with America, that African-Americans have had for centuries.
Great post, thanks.
  #690  
Old 08-12-2018, 03:46 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
And most of them go wonderfully with fava beans and Chianti.
East coast liberal elitist.
  #691  
Old 08-12-2018, 04:24 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Evolutionary psychology: here I'll plug the author Robert Wright.
The Robert Wright Sam Harris has sparred with?

Holmes, your post makes some good points. But I can’t help but notice a contradiction:

Quote:
Originally Posted by holmes View Post
Mr. Lum was first generation Chinese. He arrived in the US illegally to avoid the Chinese Exclusion Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by holmes View Post
To me, it seems that the system was rigged specifically against African-Americans. The Lums and other people of color were caught up as a side-effect.
I mean, it was actually called the Chinese Exclusion Act. That doesn’t sound like a side effect.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-12-2018 at 04:26 PM.
  #692  
Old 08-12-2018, 06:03 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The Robert Wright Sam Harris has sparred with?
Googling, yes same guy. I wasn't previously aware that they were acquainted.

Sam Harris is on my list of people that I don't follow for reasons of dubiousness. I find it hard to take seriously a guy who says that Salon and Vox have "the intellectual and moral integrity of the [KKK]". And I don't especially like Salon currently. Reading the fuller quote doesn't make it better.

Posing as a brave truth-teller then comparing Ezra Klein to the KKK takes the prize. Five dubious-faces!


ETA
Heh. Brad DeLong: "Sam Harris convinces me that he is not part of what Charles Murray calls the "cognitive elite" "
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/...ive-elite.html

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 08-12-2018 at 06:06 PM.
  #693  
Old 08-12-2018, 06:24 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Heh. Brad DeLong: "Sam Harris convinces me that he is not part of what Charles Murray calls the "cognitive elite" "
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/...ive-elite.html
I guess his doctoral committee at Stanford let one slip through the cracks
  #694  
Old 08-12-2018, 09:01 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I guess his doctoral committee at Stanford let one slip through the cracks
The point was that he is quick to see bias in others, which he calls identity politics, but gets angry when you note he is practicing the same.

Anger is fine. The problem is that he hasn't answered the point. Or rather he has: he does it with ad hominems. And only ad hominems. This is the sort of thing that 3rd rate thinkers do.

If you can't articulate your answer to a reasonable critique and can only reply with bluster and nonsense accusations, then ...you will be thought to be foolish on this message board. Articulate people can articulate reasonable responses to their position. Harris can't.


I've seen many many better interview subjects than Sam Harris.


It's ok to be a 3rd rate thinker by the way: I don't think Harris is a crackpot, and I'm agnostic about how he ranks relative to, say, a typical AP journalist. But being a 1st rate thinker requires a certain sobriety which Harris lacks. That or you need to be pretty damn creative, which Harris isn't. It's simply not all that daring to prop the awesomeness of Caucasoids: this sort of thing is embedded in our history.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 08-12-2018 at 09:03 PM.
  #695  
Old 08-12-2018, 09:12 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,528
Consider a thought experiment. Some rando has a podcast with about 100 episodes. 98 of them involve interviews with members of his race. The other 2 showcase folk that aren't exactly in disagreement with rando's world view.


Do I have a problem with this guy? No. I don't. (Really!) Because he's a rando. I might take issue if this was a television show. But a guy with a podcast can do what he wants, even if he has an audience of 100,000. Or a million.


But in this instance rando rants about identity politics. Which is ok too. He gets angry when it is pointed out that his podcast list looks a lot like he's practicing within-race identity networking as well [1]. That's ok as well. But if he can't acknowledge his limited worldview, that suggest a certain lack of self-knowledge. Which is not a characteristic of the very smart or very sharp.




[1] "Within race identity networking"? Hey, I never said I was 1st rate.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 08-12-2018 at 09:13 PM.
  #696  
Old 08-13-2018, 05:43 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The Robert Wright Sam Harris has sparred with?

Holmes, your post makes some good points. But I can’t help but notice a contradiction:





I mean, it was actually called the Chinese Exclusion Act. That doesn’t sound like a side effect.
He didn't say it was. I'm guessing you read the post but can't think of a rebuttal but just want to cling to your half-assed notions based on a podcast, or you didn't read his post and want to respond anyway. In either case, you're damaging your credibility, and it's pretty goddamn annoying.

You think you have the right to believe whatever the fuck you want. Well, you can, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to take you seriously.
  #697  
Old 08-13-2018, 05:46 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Great post, thanks.
Seconded.

I think Holmes' post uses one example - out of undoubtedly many - to show that while immigrants indeed suffered racism, they were still of a higher status than African Americans.
  #698  
Old 08-13-2018, 05:55 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 38,779
Not immigrants really, but people [not WASP but not black] whether immigrant or 7th generation (it's not limited to color, most Jews are white). The stuff the Lums went through is stuff that other "semi acceptable" groups such as Jews or white Hispanics have and do go through. With the same face, name, accent, background, there will be people who consider you're part of the "in" group and people who consider you are not.

We have it a lot easier to "become acceptable" by moving or by Anglicizing our names, but the question is, why should anybody have to change their identity markers in order to please a bunch of bigots?


Note: specific terminology used in reference to the US; change as adequate to localize.

Last edited by Nava; 08-13-2018 at 05:58 AM.
  #699  
Old 08-13-2018, 08:38 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,774
I had said “That doesn’t sound like a side effect.” Asahi quoted that and responded:

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
He didn't say it was. I'm guessing you read the post but can't think of a rebuttal but just want to cling to your half-assed notions based on a podcast, or you didn't read his post and want to respond anyway. In either case, you're damaging your credibility, and it's pretty goddamn annoying.

You think you have the right to believe whatever the fuck you want. Well, you can, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to take you seriously.
Huff and puff and gaslight away, but he literally said “To me, it seems that the system was rigged specifically against African-Americans. The Lums and other people of color were caught up as a side-effect.”

So it’s not my credibility in jeopardy here.
  #700  
Old 08-13-2018, 09:20 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I had said “That doesn’t sound like a side effect.” Asahi quoted that and responded:



Huff and puff and gaslight away, but he literally said “To me, it seems that the system was rigged specifically against African-Americans. The Lums and other people of color were caught up as a side-effect.”

So it’s not my credibility in jeopardy here.
Okay, I admit, that was a bit of numbskullery on my part to write that comment as it was written (caffeine deficiency syndrome).

What I meant was, it's really missing the larger, more important point. Nobody's arguing that Asian Americans like the Lums didn't face racism and had their lives irrevocably changed because of it. There were pretty nasty anti-Chinese riots out West in Colorado, Washington, and California. Tacoma was ethnically cleansed of Chinese at one point.

But as was pointed out in holmes' post, other non-whites typically held slightly higher status than the descendants of former slaves. Moreover, the Chinese immigrants of the 19th Century, may have had advantages that enabled better adaptation to systematic racism. They were able to establish ethnic communities in which economic activity took shape. While many White leaders wanted to expel the Chinese immigrants, others were interested in capital trade with China, with Chinese immigrants serving as intermediaries.

Chinese were able to establish themselves as independent merchants and capitalists, which is comparatively harder to do when you're a recently-freed slave living in a largely agrarian society and your only skill is working your former master's land that he still owns. Black slaves owned no property. They had no employment. They were still dependent on white land owners. And they were still living in a society that was very much paranoid of blacks taking revenge on their former masters. Keep in mind that before industrialization attracted black migrants from the South, the black population in the South was almost equal to the white population in some states. This fear of black vengeance fueled white paranoia, which led to black codes that forbade ownership of firearms and further led to the establishment of a new legal culture in which blacks were still de facto inferior.

#nogaslightingjustnotenoughsleep

Last edited by asahi; 08-13-2018 at 09:21 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017