Okay, so 99%.
Doesn’t change anything else that I’ve said.
People who are against the concepts that are discussed in the book will find something to latch onto, to insist that “This is the message”, no matter what. If it hadn’t been that phrase, it would have been a different one.
Writing a book about racism to appease racists is futile and self defeating. They will only give a positive review to silence.
Right? Seeing thatt an author who writes for Quillette doesn’t like this book is, well, whatever. The book that’s gonna please that author isn’t a book that’s gonna dismantle white supremacy.
There’s plenty of room for disagreement. There’s no orthodoxy here. Kendi is a powerful voice, but you don’t get excommunicated if you think his framework is wrong. But if you disagree with his framework, it’s real helpful to offer an alternative, superior framework.
Well, I think that’s exactly what we’ve done here. I don’t think Kendi is a moron. I admit to not being familiar with DuBois’s position.
Though I really can’t stand that Lindsay/Peterson b.s. so I stand by calling it pseudo-intellectualism.
Yes, the debate has been quite interesting. I wonder if it answered @TGWATY 's question?
I think we’ve had a discussion? Who got ate, who did the eating?
Damnit, now I’m hungry.
He wrote a very popular and influential book. According to Wikipedia:
The book topped The New York Times Bestseller List in Hardcover Nonfiction list for sales in the week ending June 6.[7] It has spent a total of 18 weeks on the list, as of the July 19 edition of the list.[9]
The terms he uses in his book are the ones he chose to go out to the masses. I would guess 99% of people indeed haven’t heard of him, but the ones who have will tend to be journalists, politicians, campaigners, heads of unions (hi LHoD), anyone working for social justice. That’s why I say it’s influential.
I hope that’s true. I don’t think Kendi’s bad, I don’t think he’s a moron. I disagree with his goal (not with ending or at least reducing racism, but with what that would look like) and therefore almost certainly with his methods.
Again, I hope that’s true. I thought it was true. I’m not intending to disrespect anyone, and I’m kind of baffled by the responses I’ve been getting.
Perhaps so, but that’s why I asked you if what the review said about Kendi’s proposals was correct. And the author had specific criticisms which you can consider and agree or diszagree with, it wasn’t just “I hate it”.
Sure. Not all discrimination is based on race, not all discrimination is bad.
I believe @QuickSilver was recommending mostly avoiding policies that directly discriminate on race, in favour of those that help all of the poor. These will naturally benefit more black and Latino people, but they aren’t inherently race based, so you won’t be put in the position of trying to explain why it’s not discriminatory - because it isn’t. Clear?
I’m talking about how they are sold to the public. That’s what I meant by branding.
Evidence based admission criteria are the opposite of arbitrary benchmarks. I’m a fan of policies that work; if AA results in actually disadvantaged students attending who can benefit from the experience, keep up with the work, and graduate with comparable marks to their peers, that’s a good result. If it gets students in but many fail or drop out, then you need to try something else. It’s pretty important to know which is the case before endorsing a policy.
Re the tests in China, sounds like a good idea that was just poorly administered.
That’s a problem. If the rich don’t need workers, why would they keep us around?
I’ve been unemployed and it’s soul sapping. Humans weren’t meant to be idle; work provides goals and occupation and respect for most people, and we have nothing to replace it with. I don’t have any solutions either.
UBI means no one will go homeless, or untreated, or uneducated, or hungry.
It doesn’t mean you get to live in the lap of luxury.
It just means you can find employment that is fulfilling for you and useful to others without having to worry about basic survival, because as automation replaces jobs it will also greatly increase output, and there is no reason for anyone to suffer like that.
That’s not completely true. AFAIK a lot of homeless people have mental illness or addictions that make it difficult for them to run their lives and maintain a home.
Don’t you think for a lot of people it’ll mean sitting around playing computer games all day? Human nature and all that…
For some, certainly, and our society can afford that. But the vast majority? I doubt it. They may do things you don’t consider very useful, like stream computer games or go all in on a minor sports league or put up skits and stand up routines on the internet, but they’ll be doing SOMETHING that creates value for other people, because affirmation is a human need. Or they’ll take care of an elderly relative, or a child. Or they’ll make art or music.
You are right of course, but as you might expect I am in favor of funding programs to support those people too 
Right, that’s my point. And the quote that keeps being bandied about also does not say discrimination based on race.
It does mention discrimination, though, and if we avoid that message, then when people point to a policy as being discriminatory, the question is, do we say, “Yes, it is, and this is what it is not a bad thing.” or do we try to claim that it is not discrimination?
It sounds like the suggestion, as far as messaging goes, is to do that latter. That seems like just setting ourselves up into a trap.
It is discriminatory. If we are giving the poor student an extra point or two on their admissions score, or if we are taking into account parental education and involvement, we are discriminating.
As you said, it would benefit marginalized minorities, to the detriment of white and probably Asian people. It would be discriminatory, and it would have a racial impact, even if it is not racially based.
If we claim that it is not discrimination, then we are putting our backs against the wall in defensiveness. If we admit that it is discrimination, then we can make an argument as to why it is a good form of such.
I really don’t think that that is how it is sold to the public. It is how it is discussed in academic circles and among policy makers. It is only brought to the “public’s” attention with these brands by those who seek to undermine not the message, but the entire idea behind it.
I agree. But I also think that arbitrary benchmarks are better than nothing. Evidence based criteria are not always available or useful. Harvard got 43,000 applicants last year, and they were accepting less than 2,000. You need some sort of arbitrary benchmarks to process that sort of load.
And, while Harvard has a pretty good graduation rate, (98% or so), most colleges lose about 30% of their freshman class.
It was not poorly administered. It was specifically administered to try to keep the common people out of government and academia.
That’s a question that all of us will be facing in the next generation or so. The simple answer is that they still need consumers. The complex answer can fill volumes, and is really best suited for another thread.
I’ve been unemployed too, sometimes by choice, and sometimes not. It’s soul sapping when you spend your day getting out of bed only to face rejection and worry about how to pay your bills. It’s not so much when finances are good and you know you can get a job when you want, and are just taking a bit of a sabbatical.
Too many people are defined by their jobs. They would much rather do something, anything else, but they have little other choice than to show up and punch a clock. I don’t think that most people would stay idle, they would find ways of occupying themselves, whether through creative efforts, social connections, or just playing video games.
And a proper UBI would take that into account. I mean, I had difficulties for a while, in that I used to be pretty disorganized and forgetful about mundane tasks, and almost got myself into significant trouble just because I would forget to send in rent or utility bills. There are ways of learning to organize those tasks, and there are also alternatives. If you are getting a UBI, then some of that can just go directly to your rent, and to food delivery, even to a housekeeping service.
Maybe, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’d rather have someone who does not want to work sitting home playing games all day than take the place of someone who actually does want to work.
However, a UBI would only cover needs and the most basic of wants. Human wants tend to be unlimited, and so would be a motivator to find some way of earning extra disposable income to meet those wants.
If you want to play Trimps or Breakout, those are free. Want to play World of Warcraft or Call of Duty, you are going to need to find a way to pay for those.
Yeahbut, we’ve never framed the argument in favor of a social safety net as one being “discriminatory” in any way. Not until now that is. How is that helpful and why should we agree to this sort of approach to social policy messaging?
We = people who agree that the least among us need to be helped if we’re to achieve a more just society.
This isn’t a social safety net, this would be an advantage for college admissions and possibly employment given to disadvantaged individuals, who would disproportionately be of disadvantaged minorities.
If there are a finite number of openings for education or employment, then this does discriminate against white and probably Asian people.
In another thread, I proposed that if I won the lottery, or otherwise had significant disposable money, I might hire people for excellent pay cake jobs. And that the qualification would be that they could have never earned more than $25,000 a year, or were otherwise from disadvantaged backgrounds. I was told that that would be discriminatory, and that I would probably lose an equal employment lawsuit. (I don’t remember the thread ATM, sorry.)
Sorry, I didn’t understand the context. I thought we were speaking in broader terms, not in context of college admissions.
As far as broader terms, I do think that a UBI would solve a whole lot of problems, and make most of the issues far less important.
And a UBI should be, by its nature, non-discriminatory. I think that everyone should get offered exactly the same, which is the basics that are needed to live a dignified, but not luxurious lifestyle. One that also offers the tools and resources to increase your value and net worth, should you choose to utilize them.
We are post scarcity, in that there is no scarcity of the resources that would be needed to accomplish this. We are post scarcity in that many of a person’s wants can be satisfied with digital creations, infinitely reproducible.
We will never be post scarcity from the aspect of eliminating want, as by definition, we couldn’t meet even one persons desire for everything they could possibly want, much less everyone’s.
So you don’t advocate for means testing for UBI? Maybe using a sliding scale.
Let 'em. But I doubt most UBI proposals will let people of enough discretionary income for things like video games.
No. That would only be the case if “discrimination” was always wrong. It is not.
Although it is the word Kendi uses, I can’t help but feel it’s not the best one. It’s of interest that the human rights codes that use the word, don’t define it. They just say when, or against whom, you should not discriminate. Also, the word carries connotations of “unjustified” or “prejudiced” - but antiracist “discrimination” aimed at redressing past injustices is fundamentally justified and postjudiced
I am a little uncertain what you’re saying here, given you use of “solved by” and “if only” :