Where are we right now?

[email protected]

Being able to admit that certain groups are systemically disadvantaged and wanting to do something about it is literally the opposite of racism, what are you talking about?

[email protected]

Not whining or caring either for that matter; and for "engaging" to make sense all the parties involved would have to be ready for some constructive discussion.

[email protected]

The prophecies about the end times, about now. One of them says "and the love of the greater number will grow cold". This, right here. The last few years.

[email protected]

If "doing something about it" means disadvantaging a group of people based on their race or ethnicity, that is the very definition of racism, what are you talking about?

[email protected]

You should really ask yourself why you see raising up one group as necessarily lowering another. One doesn’t follow from the other.

[email protected]

I can ask myself all day but the answer will be the same. Instead, why don't you tell me how that works?

There is a finite amount of positions at any job (unless you're hiring someone to do a made-up job to score points, which would be the textbook definition of "diversity hire"). You can choose to fill those positions with the most qualified applicant, or you can choose to hire one of a specific race. You can't logically do both.

[email protected]

I just recently saw a video shared of an extremist in Maine who attacked his wife, and then recorded himself during a prolonged shootout with the police.

Given that he finds it possible he may die in the next few hours, there's a sort of honesty to his voice; and it's scary to regard the sort of world he believes in, where vaccines are obviously "lethal", etc. The one bit that stood out to me, and maybe not to himself, was his mentioning that he had been out of work for over a year. It's quite possible any employers saw his violent habits and turned him away, but even if that's a suitable explanation, it's a heavy feeling of abandonment.

[email protected]

I'm white, straight, and male. I'm trying to get a book published. Every agent that I've tried to contact, especially ones that match the type of book I'm writing, has been vocal that their focus is on BIPOC, LGBT, and other diverse candidates. I've been turned away at every one. Such racism, right?

Except...most published work in bookstores is still by white male authors like myself. And if I take a step back to look at my whole life situation: I'm not reliant on this book. I'm a well-employed engineer, have my own house and mortgage, and had relatively well-off parents. Little of this is true for these other demographics that have received heavy discrimination even less than a generation ago. All things considered, it is very fair for these agents to champion diverse voices, and they're slammed with requests all over the place.

The scarring effects of discrimination are still felt decades later when we feel them gone. It's still a hard truth that employment is hard even today, but those with experience in staffing can usually only point to the occasional anecdote when someone was prioritized for their race - and usually have just as many stories of inverse discrimination or nepotism.

[email protected]

Okay. Can you point to any studies performed around performance of diverse hires causing problems in the workplace?

Because a lot of workplaces I know that have had "problem hires" who argue with people or flaunt their position have generally exhibited entitlement that links to being white or male (like myself). Do HR firms ever pick people to check a box, in a rush to avoid an all-white panel? Yes, and they could do better in their practices. Whenever I hear that happen, it tends to be isolated incidents - not a habit that leads to a nonfunctional workplace. I admit, that comes from shared anecdotes, but it often feels common-sense. If you'd like to find proof on that subject, I'd be eager to discuss it.

[email protected]

What the current situation is has absolutely zero effect on whether or not it is racism. Being turned away for being a white male is not only racist but sexist and exclusive, plain and simple. There is no other rational argument.

Again, I think this is a good thing. It's also racist. And the fight to redefine the word when it's convenient does not serve the cause.

[email protected]

That’s an entirely different conversation, and a strawman to boot. You clearly aren’t interested in actually discussing this. I can show you study after study proving that a bias exists against equally skilled applicants with an “ethnic sounding” name, but why bother, you’re not serious and I’m done engaging with you.

[email protected]

This is still diving down a rabbit hole of bad definitions, and devalues both what racism is and how it's affected people in their lives.

Racism systemically prefers one race over another; not just on an individual occasion like one hiring session. I guarantee you, if an organization's entire senior leadership of 10+ people were all black men, any diversity consulting would highlight that as being an issue as well. The fact of the matter is, just about every organization currently hires plenty of white men, so that ends up being many levels removed from reality.

If you're trying to pinpoint statistics around who gets turned away from one particular position, the problem is that companies get so many dozens or hundreds of applicants, you'd be flagging that statistic on enormous groups. Asians over blacks? Women over men? You really can't make a concrete determination there, and when your source cases are singular anecdotes, it fails the critical definition of being "systemic".

You're also disacknowledging the negative reinforcement that accompanies racism, where people are treated negatively a certain way based on no known information of them other than their race. If you're attacked on the street anonymously, specifically for being white, and the attacker calls you a "fucking cracker!" then I would have no problems labeling that racism. As it stands, even in 2024, other races deal with that situation far more often from police or other hate groups. I would absolutely call much of the "DEI" labeling racism, given that the people making these declarations have not been given valid assessments of their target's performance on their job.

[email protected]

That’s an entirely different conversation

It is a different conversation from the one you want to have. It is the conversation I was having before you showed up and tried to derail it with a strawman.

I can show you study after study proving that a bias exists

I agree and acknowledge that that bias exists. That bias has no bearing on whether or not discrimination based on race (regardless of what race) is racism.

[email protected]

Racism systemically prefers one race over another; not just on an individual occasion

Incorrect. What you're referring to is called "systemic racism", but "racism" alone has an entirely different, very simple definition: discrimination based on race, which is what this is. And it can absolutely be applied to individuals and to policies.

if an organization's entire senior leadership of 10+ people were all black men, any diversity consulting would highlight that as being an issue as well.

Really? Do you really think that's true? Do you think anyone would "highlight", say, a professional basketball or football team that's 90+% black as "problematic"?

You're also disacknowledging the negative reinforcement that accompanies racism, where people are treated negatively a certain way based on no known information of them other than their race.

Wrong again, I explicitly acknowledged this already.

the people making these declarations have not been given valid assessments of their target's performance on their job.

You don't need to assess performance. The only thing you need to assess is the policies themselves.

[email protected]

I suspect the rise of mental illness has much to do with economy. The more uncertain you are about the future, the easier it becomes to be steeped in resentment.

It is the other end of the wealth horseshoe: The wealthy are free of consequence, and consequence no longer holds meaning among the poor. After all, you don't have friends, a job, or a future. The only way anyone will remember you is if you leave a mark upon them. You may die, but the living are left with the suffering you have left behind.

...that is my guess about the mindset.

[email protected]

Can you link me to the specific comment where you've acknowledged negative reinforcement? I checked over each of your comments in this thread and don't see it.

Basketball teams hire white men frequently. So I'm still not sure what point you're making; DEI does not mandate a perfectly smooth ratio. And as far as I've seen, people are not assessing the policies themselves, but making assertions around them directly to individual long-term hires - based on, you guessed it, race. White people, so far as I've seen, have not had to defend their presence under these policies.

[email protected]

Matthew 24:12

It might be the end times, but many believed this in prior ages as well. Over the last 2000 years, a bunch of humans probably thought, “This is it.”

I do feel like the Christian message, especially the one by Christ for how his followers should act, has been lost to some degree. This is likely the least religious time in history, which isn’t necessarily a good or bad thing.

But post-COVID, people are still rebounding when it comes to socially hanging out offline. We all leaned into echo chambers more during that time. A lot of Americans don’t know their neighbors: I didn’t until 2-3 years ago.

[email protected]

Can you link me to the specific comment where you've acknowledged negative reinforcement?

I'll go ahead and do it again, just for you: Racial and sexual bias is present in our systems. In politics, in employment, and in every other industry. They've been dealt a shit hand via generational poverty, which extends from all the way back in the days of slavery. Marginalized people deserve an upper hand.

DEI attempts to bring balance to that inequality, using racism and discrimination. DEI is a net positive. Discrimination is not inherently negative.

Basketball teams hire white men frequently. So I'm still not sure what point you're making

The point I'm making is the frequency. Unless you want to claim that companies just never hire black men, at which point I expect to see statistics indicating that all black men are unemployed.

Black basketball players comprise ~70% of the NBA, despite making up ~13% of the US population. That's a >500% over-representation. Are you planning to file a complaint?

And as far as I've seen, people are not assessing the policies themselves

What are you talking about? It's called DEI. The policy is in the name.

but making assertions around them directly to individual long-term hires

I don't even know what this means?

White people, so far as I've seen, have not had to defend their presence under these policies.

You just did, in your first reply to me:

I'm white, straight, and male...Every agent that I've tried to contact, especially ones that match the type of book I'm writing, has been vocal that their focus is on BIPOC, LGBT, and other diverse candidates. I've been turned away at every one.

agnos.is Forums

Where are we right now?