Essay talk:Steamed Dumpling: Race

A lot of what you're saying is why most people who give a shit and know what they're talking about prefer "ethnicity" because it uses cultural and national background to separate people. These factor arguably give better information (making a more justified reason) for grouping people together.

As for the affirmative action thing, there are a few arguments for it. What people suggest when they say it's unnecessary and we should just treat everyone the same what they're doing it being naive of the practicalities. I think it was Crommunist that said something along the lines of "colour blindness only works when everyone is colour blind". Now, I don't go as far as he does in saying that such ideas are tantamount to ignoring it (some people pull the same trick with women's rights) but until then you can't simply say "let's all treat each other the same and get on with it" because that's a goal, not a method. Though I am split on this, on the one hand I accept the practicalities, but on the other hand I don't think - as you point out - that using these things as "identities" helps the cause as much as people think they do. In fact it could hinder it by preventing you assessing people on an individual basis because you can't get around this artificially constructed identity.

So while people think "he's black, therefore we must help them and give them a leg up" (group-based, stereotype-based), we should instead be thinking "here's a person who has experienced or will experience racism, how do we minimise this?" (individual-based). This goes for all forms of discrimination whether it be on ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation. This applies the solution at the root cause (othering), not a specific symptom (racism/homophobia/sexism/atheophobia). ^narchist 21:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Affirmative Action

I agree with much of what you say here, but unfortunately you have endorsed the canard that AA is "preferential" treatment. Take the time to look at a couple of ACLU FAQs on the issue. For this argument to hold water, we have to assume that the economy is already meritocratic on the basis of race, gender, etc. This is simply not true -- it is part of what has been dubbed "laissez-faire racism." Thus, there is a vested interest in falsely portraying AA as "quotas" (which are illegal anyway) and "preferential treatment." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile adding stuff about AA to the straw man article. I know the whole "it's about quotas" thing is entrenched so deep that I still think of it in those terms even though I know it's a bit more complicated than that. ^pathetic 14:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that the great injustice of racism should be equalized by more racism, just the exact opposite kind of racism. You know, that is completely inconsequential. Either all kinds of racism are bad or none are. With no intention of completely derailing the discussion, this is "an eye for an eye" in political and racial dimension. Besides, how long can it take if a society is really cleaned of racism to actually have a meritocratic society? If the current working life of roughly 40-60 years stays intact, it can only be 40 years. I see — and I fully agree with Dumpling here — no reason for such a course of (affirmative) action. --★uːʤɱ pirate 14:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That would basically be simplistic naivety. ^{d hominem} 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a dramatic equivocation to compare AA with "an eye for an eye," i.e., to compare centuries of segregation and oppression with a modest gov't program that does not even entail quotas. Actually, ADK's link sums it up: "Colour blindness only works if everyone is equally blind..." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess a little bit of racism is ok then, because others are much worse. I'm sorry but, I don't like it in any form of it. And especially not if intitutionalized by a government. No, when a black kid has a right to learn how to right, a white boss also has a right not to be told who to hire. No matter if that is race, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability. Reality isn't perfect, there are assholes out there, tough shit. --★uːʤɱ pirate 17:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. I mean, seriously, let's add this to the straw man article: it's not "reverse" racism or anything like that. It's recognising that people, aka assholes, exist and trying to counteract what they do and what they think. Ignoring it won't make it go away. ^theist 17:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So a black kid who can write has the same economic power as the white boss? I'm reminded of what Thurgood Marshall said: "Obviously, I too believe in a colorblind society; but it has been and remains an aspiration. It is a goal toward which our society has progressed uncertainly, bearing as it does the enormous burden of incalculable injuries inflicted by race prejudice and other bigotry, which the law once sanctioned, and even encouraged. Not having attained our goal, we must face the simple fact that there are groups in every community, which are daily paying the cost of the history of American injustice. The argument against affirmative action is but an argument in favor of leaving that cost to lie where it falls. Our fundamental sense of fairness, particularly as it is embodied in the guarantee of equal protection under the la, requires us to make an effort to see that those costs are shared equitably while we continue to work for the eradication of the consequences of discrimination. Otherwise, we must admit to ourselves that so long as the lingering effects of inequality are with us, the burden will be borne by those who are least able to pay." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You can take any example of racism or examples of the effects of racism and put it in the "E1 also then E2" pattern, don't get hold up about single example. For example if you switch the two, they are still as valid in my view. And I did not say "reverse racism" — were the fuck did you get that from, ADK?

And I'm not saying you shouldn't do anything about it, I'm only saying that government has no business in these sorts of things. These sorts of things should be regulated by society, not by government. If you hear that McDonalds (or any other company) doesn't hire black people, make it known and make people stop eating/consuming there/their products until they change it. If government get's involved the only thing that is going to happen is that those idiots who actually are racists will get a prosecution complex from it making them believe there actually is such a thing like a contest between the races. AA simply backfires. It kills the actual education through societal means why racism is counter-productive makes those who feel icky about it like there isn't a problem and gives people the feeling as racial equality is forced upon them instead of a trend in society that it is economically lucrative to follow. "Let's make it equal through government action" may be a nice idea but it is neither legitimate, justified nor effective in countering the actual problem, the only thing that is counters are it's effects and with that make believe is generated so that those who feel icky about it can play pretend-everything-is-fine. --★uːʤɱ sinner 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that the majority of corporate (non-governmental, non-university) AA programs are voluntary, right? Seriously, actually read how AA works before you criticize it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AA is voluntary? That makes even less sense then AA itself… Guess that's allready the "laissez fair racism" then. --★uːʤɱ pirate 19:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Super Special Awesome essay readin'

Reading this essay makes me think of something I learned in a sociology class last year. wp:Intersectionality: that traits aren't individual in defining one's social situation. For example, there are serious sociological reasons that there are a lot of African-American individuals stuck in many intercity areas. It's not because of their race: it's because race is only one aspect of a web of factors, such as wealth, income, ethnicity (different from race), even gender, etc. Poorer education due to zoning and comparative lack of skilled jobs in the area are also entangled, until each individual trait becomes part of a group of traits that restrict the individual. This tangle then becomes a social class.

A different example would be a very wealthy business person. There are exceptions, but besides hard work often there is also a web of traits that the success was enabled by. Chances are that person is a he, and he came from a relatively wealthy background, and because that social class is primarily white he's likely to be that too. And because he came from that social class chances are he lived in a good neighborhood with a good school district. And because of that it likely was easier for him to not only get good grades, but notable good grades (perhaps at a private school) that mean more than the grades at say an intercity public school. Which then all got him into a good college, and likely forged him connections to then get into a good career quickly. And so on. All of these events are related: for someone that doesn't have all of these traits to have any of them is an active struggle against a social system.

But none of this is just race. It's social class, of which race is only one tiny aspect. And race often pointed to as a scapegoat, a sign of a downtrodden individual or an indication for need of 'affirmative action.' When in reality... it's not race. It's a whole social system that nobody's questioning or paying attention to. If assistance is to be given, it shouldn't be done based on one factor in a very tangled situation. So yeah, race is bullcrap. It's an easy guilty thing for people to point to when it's a whole mess of factors that nothing is being done about. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 15:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it probably is social class as that is what would produce the greatest real-world effect. But certain other attributes correlate well with that. ^gnostic 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)