Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Hawki]

You wanted to talk about people not being "representative of wider beliefs", don't then complain when some relevant "wider beliefs" are pointed out to you.

First of all, you didn't answer the question.

Second of all, the existence of beliefs isn't the same as there being widespread beliefs.

Third, you've shifted the goalposts. This started as specific beliefs (e.g. that black people were emotionally volatile), and you shifted it to widespread racism in general.

So now you're contradicting yourself by accepting racism is not just a few people who are not "representative of wider beliefs"?

Again, look at the beliefs cited prior, and the context they were brought up in.

The specific belief of (for instance) that the US should remove all the Jews from Israel, and the fact that everyone has prejudice to some extent, aren't on the same level.

This started out as specific beliefs, you've shifted it to wider beliefs.

Have a reread and think about your post #908.

I did. It reinforces my point that I was responding to one specific belief that you brought up (among "whiteness" in general).

Re-read Post 915 where you shift it to white supremacy in general.

At least when most people throw stones in glass houses, they haven't literally just built their glass house.

The advantage of living in a glass house is that you can easily see the person outside moving the goalposts.

Christ no. Whilst you're choosing to not engage with something in favour of a straw man, any analysis you have on it would be a huge waste of everyone's time, including your own.

You're the one who's choosing not to engage by shifting the goalposts, not me.

If your morality is based on ignorance, I have severe concerns about the value of your morality.

I certainly have concerns about your morality, since it's based on deceit.

So you think manslaughter should not be a crime?

First of all, nice strawman.

Second of all, no, of course manslaughter would be a crime, that's my point. If intent doesn't matter, then manslaughter charges wouldn't exist, only murder ones.

But hey, feel free to shift the goalposts again.

 

[Agema]

First of all, you didn't answer the question.

Second of all, the existence of beliefs isn't the same as there being widespread beliefs.

Third, you've shifted the goalposts. This started as specific beliefs (e.g. that black people were emotionally volatile), and you shifted it to widespread racism in general.

The accusation of "specific beliefs" is of dubious validity, because the specific aspects of racism don't exist in isolation from each other. It's a bit like the tactic of trying to argue that there isn't a wood by disputing the existence of one tree; not least because even if you do prove that specific "tree" is only a bush, that still leaves all the other trees.

But then, again, the stereotype of the "angry black" is enough of a thing that it crops up plenty in discourse. When you say you're vaguely aware of it, this smacks of trying to weakly dodge it by claiming ignorance: if you don't really know it, it doesn't count. To which the answer is... go educate yourself. To complain this might not necessarily stretch to thinking black people are uncivilised is more reasonable. But then, it's not hard to find people opining that white people created the moden world whilst black people were chucking spears at each other, therefore black people really are stupid, uncultured, lazy, and rubbish at intellectual pursuits. It ties into why Trump's remark about "shithole countries" had so much bite, because it buys into this not-so-insignificant prejudice: those black people, they can't even run their own countries, eh? There's literature going on in science asking awkward questions about whether black scientists are discriminated against with prejudices they aren't so good at it, but I can forgive a lot of non-scientists not being aware of what's going on scientific literature.

Thus why I don't think this is can meaningfully be tackled without also panning back and looking at the bigger picture and the links between all those aspects that make up the whole.

I did. It reinforces my point that I was responding to one specific belief that you brought up (among "whiteness" in general).

So you can't even admit your own hypocritical whataboutism even when it's directly pointed out to you. Okay then!

I certainly have concerns about your morality, since it's based on deceit.

Uh-huh.

First of all, nice strawman.

Second of all, no, of course manslaughter would be a crime, that's my point. If intent doesn't matter, then manslaughter charges wouldn't exist, only murder ones.

But hey, feel free to shift the goalposts again.

Look dude. You said that consequences don't matter, intent does. But manslaughter demonstrates that consequences do matter, because it is a crime of killing someone despite not having intent to do so. This is not shifting goalposts, it's identifying that your argument is flawed: consequences do matter.

And of course they do. If you are an interviewer looking through resumes and you undervalue, even subconsciously, all the ones with names that sound like they're from unfavoured races, you are denying a load of people a fair and equal chance of employment. That might not be worth chucking you in jail for or even firing you - a warning and mandatory racism awareness course would probably do. But you surely agree it's a negative consequence that is undesirable in society and worth eliminating.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So new woke thinking is apparently Black people are so sensitive that some-one shooting 3 white idiots all with convictions will upset them so badly they'll not be ok to work

 

[Hawki]

The accusation of "specific beliefs" is of dubious validity, because the specific aspects of racism don't exist in isolation from each other. It's a bit like the tactic of trying to argue that there isn't a wood by disputing the existence of one tree; not least because even if you do prove that specific "tree" is only a bush, that still leaves all the other trees.

Bear in mind that the specific beliefs listed weren't based on racism.

A better example would be:

-Flat earthism is rare.

-Skepticism of science is common.

The former may be part of the latter, that doesn't make the former statement invalid.

But then, again, the stereotype of the "angry black" is enough of a thing that it crops up plenty in discourse. When you say you're vaguely aware of it, this smacks of trying to weakly dodge it by claiming ignorance: if you don't really know it, it doesn't count. To which the answer is... go educate yourself.

"Crops up plenty in discourse," yet you haven't pointed to a single example of it.

When you first made this claim, I decided to take your word for it, now, I'm not sure. And if your only recourse is "go educate yourself," that's a weak dodge, and a tired cliche. "I can't provide you with evidence, so go and find the evidence that proves my assertion." It's a reversal of burden of proof.

To complain this might not necessarily stretch to thinking black people are uncivilised is more reasonable. But then, it's not hard to find people opining that white people created the moden world whilst black people were chucking spears at each other, therefore black people really are stupid, uncultured, lazy, and rubbish at intellectual pursuits.

That's true to a point, but I find the opposite claim to be common as well.

One's partly in response to the other, but you're describing a pretty universal phenomenon.

So you can't even admit your own hypocritical whataboutism even when it's directly pointed out to you. Okay then!

And you can't admit yours.

Uh-huh.

Um...

Look dude. You said that consequences don't matter, intent does.

Jesus Christ, you can't go five minutes without telling another lie.

I didn't say that, I was pointing out that others have said that, hence why it's not a surprise (disturbing, but not surprising) to find it on the chart. I actually agree that impact matters more than intent, but not that intent doesn't matter, which is the argument made in so many "woke" circles.

But manslaughter demonstrates that consequences do matter, because it is a crime of killing someone despite not having intent to do so. This is not shifting goalposts, it's identifying that your argument is flawed: consequences do matter.

I'm not sure who you're arguing against, because it isn't me.

"Intent matters."

"Impact matters more than intent"

Again, neither of these statements are mutually exclusive.

And of course they do. If you are an interviewer looking through resumes and you undervalue, even subconsciously, all the ones with names that sound like they're from unfavoured races, you are denying a load of people a fair and equal chance of employment. That might not be worth chucking you in jail for or even firing you - a warning and mandatory racism awareness course would probably do. But you surely agree it's a negative consequence that is undesirable in society and worth eliminating.

Yes, I agree, which is why I support the practice of removing names from resumes.

 

[Trunkage]

Yes, I agree, which is why I support the practice of removing names from resumes.

Sorry to butt into this conversation but I had to ask a question

So, you take the point that sometimes people use a candidates names to judge their value. But, instead of helping them realize they are making incorrect assumptions, everyone else needs to change what their doing to suit those assumptions

And you think this is a good plan?

 

[Dreiko]

So new woke thinking is apparently Black people are so sensitive that some-one shooting 3 white idiots all with convictions will upset them so badly they'll not be ok to work

I wonder would they also support giving gun toting rednecks the day off if the kid gets convicted.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Sorry to butt into this conversation but I had to ask a question

So, you take the point that sometimes people use a candidates names to judge their value. But, instead of helping them realize they are making incorrect assumptions, everyone else needs to change what their doing to suit those assumptions

And you think this is a good plan?

Problem.

First is the claim that people are inherently biased and may not realise it.
Second even if you can get them to admit it then you have to make them actively fight the bias which can and will make them then lean the other way thus making tem biased.

No names on a resume is easier than having to try to train people in bias response then monitor that they don't relapse or over-correct.

 

[Seanchaidh]

When you first made this claim, I decided to take your word for it, now, I'm not sure. And if your only recourse is "go educate yourself," that's a weak dodge, and a tired cliche. "I can't provide you with evidence, so go and find the evidence that proves my assertion." It's a reversal of burden of proof.

You should really educate yourself on this issue for your own benefit, though.

 

[Hawki]

Sorry to butt into this conversation but I had to ask a question

So, you take the point that sometimes people use a candidates names to judge their value. But, instead of helping them realize they are making incorrect assumptions, everyone else needs to change what their doing to suit those assumptions

And you think this is a good plan?

Well for starters, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

But that aside, one's more effective than the other. You can try and address people's biaises all you want, those biaises will almost certainly remain, not to mention that often, such attempts end up activating biaises/making people more biaised. On the other, nothing is lost by removing resume names.

 

[tstorm823]

You should really educate yourself on this issue for your own benefit, though.

Says the user most "educated" in information that actively harms them.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Says the user most "educated" in information that actively harms them.

Would you like to say that in a way that isn't irredeemably vague?

 

[Agema]

"Crops up plenty in discourse," yet you haven't pointed to a single example of it.

When you first made this claim, I decided to take your word for it, now, I'm not sure. And if your only recourse is "go educate yourself," that's a weak dodge, and a tired cliche. "I can't provide you with evidence, so go and find the evidence that proves my assertion." It's a reversal of burden of proof.

In a way you're right. I like to think the average person has the wit to go onto Google and type a search for relevant terms (like "angry black man") and think about what they read. But maybe, optimist that I am, I'm overestimating people's competence. Although honestly, I think it's more often someone competent fearing they have a losing case and being passive aggressively obstructive.

Here's a range from academia to media considering this. Do you need more?

The Modern Mammy and the Angry Black Man: African American Professionals' Experiences with Gendered Racism in the Workplace on JSTOR

Adia Harvey Wingfield, The Modern Mammy and the Angry Black Man: African American Professionals' Experiences with Gendered Racism in the Workplace, Race, Gender & Class, Vol. 14, No. 1/2 (2007), pp. 196-212

www.jstor.org

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

The Sapphire Caricature - Anti-black Imagery - Jim Crow Museum

www.ferris.edu

Even discussing 'angry black man' stereotype provokes anger - CNN.com

Here are some sound bites from the post-racial era:

edition.cnn.com

'It’s like we're seen as animals': black men on their vulnerability and resilience

American black men have historically been depicted as violent, and the racist fear that has resulted means they’re actually constantly at risk and deeply fragile

www.theguardian.com

That's true to a point, but I find the opposite claim to be common as well.

What opposite? That black people were the ones who developed the industrial revolution, Enlightenment philosophy, etc.? Be clearer.

And you can't admit yours.

I wasn't a hypocrite accusing someone of something I'd literally just done myself.

To be absolutely fair (and in a way making the accusation even worse), it was not even whataboutism from either of us. We were both using analogy to illustrate a point, which has rational justification. Whataboutism is a strategy of deflection, changing the subject.

Jesus Christ, you can't go five minutes without telling another lie.

No, the problem is your lack of clarity in how you expressed yourself:
"the phrase "intent doesn't matter, impact does" is a phrase I've read countless times, but you'll never get me to agree to that kind of moral thinking."

By setting yourself in opposition to this you implicitly argue a potential spectrum of positions, but most reasonably that intent is key. It is therefore fair to point out that your disagreement is not actually what you initially suggested it to be, and that in fact impact without intent is valid. You need to take responsibility for your own communication and you are welcome to clarify what you mean, and I strongly recommend you do so before you accuse people of lying. The advantages of this is that it avoids unnecessary unpleasantness, and that you might also learn to improve how you communicate your thoughts to others.

 

[Trunkage]

Well for starters, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

But that aside, one's more effective than the other. You can try and address people's biaises all you want, those biaises will almost certainly remain, not to mention that often, such attempts end up activating biaises/making people more biaised. On the other, nothing is lost by removing resume names.

Yes, yes. Blame the victim and make everyone else have to follow the biased people's biases. I've heard this one before. Because, heaven forbid people actually change biases

 

[Hawki]

In a way you're right. I like to think the average person has the wit to go onto Google and type a search for relevant terms (like "angry black man") and think about what they read. But maybe, optimist that I am, I'm overestimating people's competence. Although honestly, I think it's more often someone competent fearing they have a losing case and being passive aggressively obstructive.

Here's a range from academia to media considering this. Do you need more?

The Modern Mammy and the Angry Black Man: African American Professionals' Experiences with Gendered Racism in the Workplace on JSTOR

Adia Harvey Wingfield, The Modern Mammy and the Angry Black Man: African American Professionals' Experiences with Gendered Racism in the Workplace, Race, Gender & Class, Vol. 14, No. 1/2 (2007), pp. 196-212

www.jstor.org

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

The Sapphire Caricature - Anti-black Imagery - Jim Crow Museum

www.ferris.edu

Even discussing 'angry black man' stereotype provokes anger - CNN.com

Here are some sound bites from the post-racial era:

edition.cnn.com

'It’s like we're seen as animals': black men on their vulnerability and resilience

American black men have historically been depicted as violent, and the racist fear that has resulted means they’re actually constantly at risk and deeply fragile

www.theguardian.com

Of course I can use Google, it's more the point of "do your own research." I mean, I DID give you that list of links earlier on.

Anyway, I briefly looked at the articles, and, okay, sure, they say the same thing. Not disputing that. But it's the first time I've encountered any of the stereotypes listed bar the most vague of awarenesses. I mean, what struck me as a case of cultural divergence is that if I say "black sapphire" here for instance, someone's first thought is probably going to be of the film The Sapphires.

What opposite? That black people were the ones who developed the industrial revolution, Enlightenment philosophy, etc.? Be clearer.

E.g. that blacks invented civilization (see Bruce Pascoe), or that Greek culture is stolen wholesale from the Egyptians (see Kehinde Andrews), or how Europeans were incapable of developing technology or art on their own so they had to steal it (see Claire Coleman) or that black people invented democracy (see Melissa Luchenko), or that blacks civilized Europeans (this stems from the Moorish invasion of Iberia - a common trope is of the Iberians sleeping with their animals and walking on all fours before they were civilized), the Sun People/Ice People dichotomy (see Leonard Jeffries), and the associated Iceman Inheritance theory (see Michael Bradley), or Melanin theory.

Now, as I said above, a lot of this is a reaction to racist attitudes towards Africans, and most of them are fringe, or in some cases, are getting carried away (see Pascoe - he mostly does good work), but these are fairly common attitudes in various corners of the Internet, and even published work. There's also the religious superiority angle - you only need to go to TRT for examples. But even so, the "inventors/centre of civilization" concept is pretty universal. Moving further east, I can point to China and Japan as examples - there's a Chinese fringe belief of "polygenism" for example that still has traction, for instance, or a Hinduvata claim that stem cell research existed in India thousands of years ago.

In short, there's no shortage of kooky beliefs as to origins of civilization/firsts/stereotypes no matter where you look.

Yes, yes. Blame the victim and make everyone else have to follow the biased people's biases. I've heard this one before. Because, heaven forbid people actually change biases

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that's what I'm saying, but let's go over this.

First, everyone has biaises. It's all very well to say you should fight biaises, but not only can that go into overcorrection, but how can you fight something that you don't even know you have?

Second, what's actually lost by doing blind resumes? The name isn't important to any job I can think of. So instead of relying on individuals to fight biaises they may or may not have, you have a standardized procedure that removes the possibilty of bias altogether. Yes, this doesn't help you with the interview stage (where any number of things can work against you - physical appearance for instance), but it does help get your foot in the door.

Seriously, I don't know how this is objectionable.

 

[Schadrach]

And of course they do. If you are an interviewer looking through resumes and you undervalue, even subconsciously, all the ones with names that sound like they're from unfavoured races, you are denying a load of people a fair and equal chance of employment.

...and if you do blind hiring and the demographics are the same or "worse" despite having removed ways in which you could be biased long those lines? Because that happened in one government dept in Australia just a couple of years ago - they switched to blind hiring to try to improve gender equality by removing the ability to be biased against women by simply not knowing which candidates were women. The result was hiring less women, so they scrapped it because the goal wasn't to remove bias, but rather to hire more women regardless of framing it in terms of equal opportunity.

 

[tstorm823]

Would you like to say that in a way that isn't irredeemably vague?

I'm pretty sure the several years of me calling out your misinformation is sufficient context for that comment.

 

[Agema]

...and if you do blind hiring and the demographics are the same or "worse" despite having removed ways in which you could be biased long those lines? Because that happened in one government dept in Australia just a couple of years ago - they switched to blind hiring to try to improve gender equality by removing the ability to be biased against women by simply not knowing which candidates were women. The result was hiring less women, so they scrapped it because the goal wasn't to remove bias, but rather to hire more women regardless of framing it in terms of equal opportunity.

Now THAT is whataboutism.

 

[Agema]

Of course I can use Google, it's more the point of "do your own research." I mean, I DID give you that list of links earlier on.

That I think you very badly misrepresented, but sure.

In short, there's no shortage of kooky beliefs as to origins of civilization/firsts/stereotypes no matter where you look.

But - and at the risk of sending this debate full circle - you surely do understand the difference between a kooky fringe belief, and ingrained societal beliefs / attitudes? This is pretty much where we came in, re. decolonising science. Decolonising science is not to any significant degree the kooky fringe of a student saying bush shamans can cause lightning, and it's misrepresentation to suggest it is. There is a difference between 100 crazy Twitter users with a pet peeve and a state education board forcing you to learn intelligent design (as anything other than pseudoscience).

Humanity, in all its wierd and wonderful variability, is never going to have a shortage of kooky fringe beliefs, and attacking them is akin to playing whack-a-mole. But it's the errors (often much more mundane) that have gained traction in societal belief that are what we need to care about, examine and tackle. Freely conflating them with kooky fringe nonsense impairs this process, rather than assists.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I certainly have concerns about your morality, since it's based on deceit.

 

[Hawki]

But - and at the risk of sending this debate full circle - you surely do understand the difference between a kooky fringe belief, and ingrained societal beliefs / attitudes? This is pretty much where we came in, re. decolonising science. Decolonising science is not to any significant degree the kooky fringe of a student saying bush shamans can cause lightning, and it's misrepresentation to suggest it is. There is a difference between 100 crazy Twitter users with a pet peeve and a state education board forcing you to learn intelligent design (as anything other than pseudoscience).

The irony in this statement is that my compulsory intelligent design unit kind of WAS bush shaman lightning.

(Or more specifically the Rainbow Serpent.)

There's also the general acknowledgement that science is self-correcting, unless you're referring to the so-called replication crisis that came into vogue not too long ago. There's plenty of beliefs in science that were once held to be true, and no longer aren't. Few would use the term "decolonize" for that.

Humanity, in all its wierd and wonderful variability, is never going to have a shortage of kooky fringe beliefs, and attacking them is akin to playing whack-a-mole. But it's the errors (often much more mundane) that have gained traction in societal belief that are what we need to care about, examine and tackle. Freely conflating them with kooky fringe nonsense impairs this process, rather than assists.

Except usually that isn't what "decolonize science" usually refers to. And there's a broad spectrum from "teach scientific achievement from various cultures" (uncontroversial - certainly I learnt about them) to "the failed concept of linear time" (off the top of my head).

I mean, take this, for instance:

...and if you do blind hiring and the demographics are the same or "worse" despite having removed ways in which you could be biased long those lines? Because that happened in one government dept in Australia just a couple of years ago - they switched to blind hiring to try to improve gender equality by removing the ability to be biased against women by simply not knowing which candidates were women. The result was hiring less women, so they scrapped it because the goal wasn't to remove bias, but rather to hire more women regardless of framing it in terms of equal opportunity.

You'd think that as societies became more equal work would become more 50/50, but if anything, the opposite is true.


So the assumptions we had were wrong. That doesn't mean we "decolonized" the field.

(Another irony is that I work in a field that's 90% female - are men being discriminated against, or, more likely, are men simply not applying?)