24 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

inciting violence you say...

[Lysistrata]

inciting violence you say...

Yes, inciting violence... like causing a riot. What are you implying?

[onbekende]

Who said anything about implying >_>

[ccabal86]

Oh just don't.
I said that if you're finding the people are regularly calling you a racist for your approach to discussing affirmative action, you are probably copying the rhetoric of racist asshats. And if it's something that's happened all of once in your life or even just a thing you've heard happened to other people, then why even bring it up like it's relevant or affects you in anyway. Either it happens all the time and you need to buy a saddle, or it doesn't happen and is in no way relevant. Pick one.

See, that’s the thing, racism shouldn’t even come into play when discussing the actul merits or demerits of a policy like Affirmative Action, unless they are made with a clandestine agenda of „keeping down” certain minorities. But it seems that all to often simply disagreeing with certain established policies will get someone labeled as such. That’s because this too has become dogma. What pisses me off is that I look around and see rational discourse melt away in the world on the Right as well as the Left.

Also you notice that literally nothing in this entire study even defines what political correctness is. Seriously, try to find a single consistent definition anywhere of what political correctness is. You can find studies of people trying to define "political correctness" if you look...and they can't. Turns out If you ask 10 people to define it you'll get 12 answers. And then if you take those 12 definitions, strip the word "political correctness" from them and ask the exact same people to rate how much they agree with the sentiment of each of those definitions, the answers you get back are entirely inconsistent with the first study. Americans agree that "political correctness is a problem" but they sure as hell don't agree on what political correctness is in the first place.
That's because political correctness doesn't exist. It's a boogeyman. All the kids at preschool insist it's under the bed and just waiting to get ya, and there's this one kid who inists that their freidns brother totally had their toes eaten by it, but no one who's looked has ever seen it.

Well, that's just the problem with social sciences as opposed to the natural sciences. In the natural sciences you have the luxury of being able to create precise definitions that are pretty much understood by every (non-layman at least). For example, a Meter is "the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 second", and that's that. In social sciences, it's very hard for even experts to agree on definitions, every school likes to add it's small twists and additions. Just try to find a universally agreed definition for concepts like "Nation", "Elites", "Globalism", etc. AND YET no one denies that Nations, Elites and Globalism exists. They exist because these concepts are shared beliefs invented by humans. Take Corporations for example. They don't exist in the real, physical world, and yet they can make or break fortunes and by association, lives. They're real all right, because we all agree that they're real. It's the same with Political Correctness, whether you're for it, or against it, it has an effect on human society because people agree it's real. Maybe if the study had found that "9 out of 10 Americans have no idea what 'Political Correctnes' means" you'd be right.

Working off this study and taking it's stats entirely at face value....the "pc culture" you envision is as relevant to your existence as flat earthers. Less actually since a full 15% of americans aren't entirely sure that the world is a freaking sphere. It's less relevant than people who think that TVs broadcast mind control waves (14% of americans aren't entirely sure they don't). 13% of americans aren't entirely sure that obama isn't literally the antichrist. It's about as relevant as the percentage of americans that think lizard people control the world (4% of americans).
Complaining about the PC culture you envision existing is like complaining that there's this huge problem in american with people screaming at you for not admitting that the lizard are trying to control your brain. Could you imagine a world where endless op ends go on about the excesses of "Lizard Correct Culture" and politician get up on stage and go "I don't believe lizard correctness". Because it's exactly as real and would be as relevant to the average americans life as "PC culture" is.
Seriously, what kind of logic is this, better than 9 in 10 americans don't support political correctness but it's also somehow a huge problem? really?

No, because Flat-Earthers are not driving the political discourse. Populist assholes are not coming to power in the US and all over the world by pointing to rabid, out-of-control Flat-Earthers that are all over social media and saying "well, at least we're not as bad as THOSE guys" and they doing pretty much the same demagoguery in the opposite flavor. As I said this particular topic is unfortunately relevant, whether you ascribe to it or don't.

See what you're doing there is saying nothing. Affirmative action can refer to any of a dozen different models. A company scrubbing any personal indicators from resumes is affirmative action. The harvard map, which prioritize diversity of candidates and is just as likely to give extra consideration to a poor white farm boy from alabama as it in some inner city black kid from new york is affirmative action. If a company looks at it's internal demographics and goes "You know, women make up 20% of the workers in this industry, but only 12% of our employees, that's unlikely to be a statistical anomaly" and then sits down to examine it's hiring and retention to find out why, that's affirmative action. If Microsoft goes "there are half as many black americans in the tech sector as there are in the rest of the private sector" and decide to run an outreach campaign...that's affirmative action.
What you're referring to is a one model of affirmative action that was a thing of the 70s, is explicitly illegal to use in many of the states, and has pretty much been gutted by the supreme court where it isn't outright forbidden. It hasn't been relevant in decades and dates to a period in time in which littrealty enforcing quotas was the only way to desegregate shit. Not to debate the merits, but given that this was an time where some cities closed every school rather than allow in black kids, buildings removed water fountains and the military was littrealy called in on several occasions, I'd contend that the unambiguous and explicit requirements were appropriate for the era.
You won't find many people who think that it would be appropriate now. It's not a controversial option; if you sit down and go through just about any map of HR policy developed in the last 20 years, it'll be held up as an example as what *not* to do, for exactly the reasons you state. Which means criticizing it is in no way relevant to any modern discussion on the topic. There's no reason to bring it up except as a red herring.

I guess as long as Affirmative Action policies stay reasonable and not become dogma, they’re fine. Unfortunately it does tend to become just that. Funny you should mention Harvard, with that law suit going on, where it very much seems that they've been discriminating against Asian American applicants. Apparently Harvard thinks that Asians are "over represented", and applies face control to correct that. Or the infamous Google memo where nobody cared about Damore's claims which may or may not have been scientifically solid (the jury is till out on that), because he was busy being kicked out of his workplace amids a hysterical screeching of the offended mob. The scientific debate over his points only came well after he was fired. Now I personally don’t agree with Damore, but what exactly was so unforgivably offensive about that memo? You can quote the exact lines if you can find them. As I see it, his crime was going against the established dogma.

"Modern" affirmative action has two common models, one is focused on removing sources of bias and the other encourages diversity with the "action" as a side effect.
Removing sources of bias can mean things like scrubbing names from resumes, and making sure that no one person is always running candidate selection. Or it can mean dealing with systemic issues. Women are less likely to get involved in STEM fields, and it's not because a second X chromosome makes them genetically incapable of doing math but because there are social factors that encourage women to look elsewhere.

I’m a big supporter of higher female involvement in STEM fields, and and there are likely some systemic improvements that can be made there. BUT you have to make sure the hiring is not done by quotas, or you’re definitely ont he wrong track. Scrubbing may indeed work here.
But that’s for a corporate setting. SMEs are very different, since the success of the business often depends more on the chemistry between the members of your small team, than on qualifications. I say let the owner decide how he wants to run his business and the market punish him for his bad decisions.

[Rand0m her0]

 

Oh just don't.
I said that if you're finding the people are regularly calling you a racist for your approach to discussing affirmative action, you are probably copying the rhetoric of racist asshats. And if it's something that's happened all of once in your life or even just a thing you've heard happened to other people, then why even bring it up like it's relevant or affects you in anyway. Either it happens all the time and you need to buy a saddle, or it doesn't happen and is in no way relevant. Pick one.

See, that’s the thing, racism shouldn’t even come into play when discussing the actul merits or demerits of a policy like Affirmative Action, unless they are made with a clandestine agenda of „keeping down” certain minorities. But it seems that all to often simply disagreeing with certain established policies will get someone labeled as such. That’s because this too has become dogma. What pisses me off is that I look around and see rational discourse melt away in the world on the Right as well as the Left.

 

 

In an ideal world I'd agree with you. However the world we live in is one there are people who were born during jim crow who can't retire yet. You fundamentally can't remove the topic of racism from policy. It's a world where the KKK was still active and lynching people less than 40 years ago. The last several decades have taught those bastards that spouting  off their racist crap will get them ejected from the table, but they haven't gone anywhere, just changed their phrasing, at least when outside their  echo chambers. 

 

 

Affirmative action is a rather charged topic and there's not a shortage of bad actors that show up when it comes up. Start a discussion of it on any public forum etc and wait and see how long it takes for someone to start spouting off eugenics nonsense. So if your going to discuss it, it's something that warrants discussing with care, otherwise there's zero way to distinguish you from all the people JAQing off  and otherwise arguing in bad faith. If your approach to the topic mirrors there's or references racist true-ism...your probably gonna get lumped in with them.  And if someone points out how your rhetoric references or mirrors there's and you flip off PC culture.you're defiantly going to get lumped in with them. It might not be fair, but ultimately no one lives in your head but you. Rhetoric and praxis are all you've got and all other people can judge you on.

 

That's *especially* true online. Some of those shits have google alerts and such set up, so you even mention something like affirmative action online and they'll come flooding in to concern troll or just preach the word of white genocide. I sure as hell don't have the time or mental energy to sort someone putting their foot in their mouth vs the actual neo nazis. If your on reddit and want to lose some hope for humanity, go invest in mass tagger and hit up just about any politically charged thread. Like anything  slightly feminist comes up and you find lotsa people Just Asking Questions and being all "reasonable" who wandered in from braincels and similar.

 

 

 

 

Well, that's just the problem with social sciences as opposed to the natural sciences. In the natural sciences you have the luxury of being able to create precise definitions that are pretty much understood by every (non-layman at least). For example, a Meter is "the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 second", and that's that. In social sciences, it's very hard for even experts to agree on definitions, every school likes to add it's small twists and additions. Just try to find a universally agreed definition for concepts like "Nation", "Elites", "Globalism", etc. AND YET no one denies that Nations, Elites and Globalism exists. They exist because these concepts are shared beliefs invented by humans. Take Corporations for example. They don't exist in the real, physical world, and yet they can make or break fortunes and by association, lives. They're real all right, because we all agree that they're real. It's the same with Political Correctness, whether you're for it, or against it, it has an effect on human society because people agree it's real. Maybe if the study had found that "9 out of 10 Americans have no idea what 'Political Correctnes' means" you'd be right.

 

Sure but the lack of a definition in this study makes it worthless. Political correctness can mean anything from "people say mean things about me when I say gay people deserve to die" to "We should make sure not to alienate minorities in how we discuss and approach topics" to "that thing we said in the 70s to mock pre sixtys revolutionary groups" . And I could go on listing definitions, The first group thinks potential correctness is a problem. They can also fuck every off they possibly can. The second group can take the question to mean "do i see an issue with that general goal of being respectful" and decide it isn't a problem. Or hell depending on how the question is worded it (If it's a bland "do you see potential correctness as an issue" or example) could be interpreted as "Do I  have a problem with a lack of such basic manners". And the last group you might get some mid 60s socialist who goes "oh ffs yes and if i need to listen to Karen spout off about how tea is a bourgeois affliction one more time....", or who goes "oh god yes, fucking tankies...." If you think eugenics and "Racial Biology "  is bunk science, I can find someone who'll spend 2 hours bitching you out for being brainwashed into political correctness.

 

 

All of those definitions exist. None of them have anything to do with one another.

 

Seriously, find me examples of "political correctness" being raised as an issue, and not being used as a way to deflect criticism. 

 

I guess as long as Affirmative Action policies stay reasonable and not become dogma, they’re fine. Unfortunately it does tend to become just that. Funny you should mention Harvard, with that law suit going on, where it very much seems that they've been discriminating against Asian American applicants. Apparently Harvard thinks that Asians are "over represented", and applies face control to correct that. Or the infamous Google memo where nobody cared about Damore's claims which may or may not have been scientifically solid (the jury is till out on that), because he was busy being kicked out of his workplace amids a hysterical screeching of the offended mob. The scientific debate over his points only came well after he was fired. Now I personally don’t agree with Damore, but what exactly was so unforgivably offensive about that memo? You can quote the exact lines if you can find them. As I see it, his crime was going against the established dogma.
 

Yea ok and? "I guess as long as X stay reasonable and not become dogma, they’re fine." is true for pretty much any X. "I guess as long as people who like chocolate stay reasonable and don't become dogmatic, they're fine"

 

 

Darmore got sacked because he turned himself into a walking hostile workplace lawsuit. The paper he released to the public was bad enough, but it was also heavily edited from the one he published internally. He didn't argue against affirmative action, he  argued that literally every person at the company who wasn't white and male could be genetically unsuited for their position and should not be there. It wasn't a "hysterical offended mob" it was his coworkers and peers going "holy fuck this guy is a massive a hole". I sure as shit wouldn't want to work with him, I really couldn't blame any woman or minority at Google who wouldn't want to be on a team with him, and if you think a company is going to keep an ambulatory tort employed...yea no.

 

Also no the jury is not out on the science. In most cases his claims are entirely unsourced. in the remainder he usually entirely misrepresented those sources. If you want a take down of the science, Erin Giglio published one more than a year ago that is exceptionally through, and there's no shortage of neuroscientists and similar who've ripped into it. It's bunk.
 

Granted right now i'm given even fewer fucks about darmore than usual seeing as we recently had some dumbfuck at work complain about how the "eyecandy" (ie, women) at work are sexually harassing him by walking past his desk, and happened to reference darmore so yea.

 

 

I’m a big supporter of higher female involvement in STEM fields, and and there are likely some systemic improvements that can be made there. BUT you have to make sure the hiring is not done by quotas, or you’re definitely ont he wrong track. Scrubbing may indeed work here.

Quotas are pretty much not used anywhere, and as said are forbidden in the USA. Like *outright illegal. You can probably find *some* dumbass doing it, but I can also find you some dumbass pocketing pocketing their employees tax withholds and telling the IRS they're "contractors". In either case as soon as evidence comes to light, they're pretty much gigafucked. You show me someone using quotas and I'll show you a lawyer drooling like a Labrador looking at a hamburger.

 

 

Also the Harvard lawsuit pretty much isn't going anywhere. The claims are questionable and the Harvard model has been tested in the courts enough times that they'd need to complete ignore precedent for it being an issue. We're talking "The supreme court has dealt with this twice and held it up as a testing model in other cases" level of precedent. The most the court could conclude is that Harvard has allowed unconscious bias into the process, should unfuck that and order something like greater transparency. Even that's iffy.

 

Without getting into it the statistical analysis used based purely off consideration compared to "academic achivement" alone. However Harvard literally receives more applicants with perfect SAT scores than most universities admit in a given year period and SAT scores are a pretty mediocre indicator of future academic achievement. To a large extent, they've managed to prove is that perfect SAT scores aren't enough to get you into Harvard. Which isn't surprising, if you're not entirely useless academically, you can turn money into SAT scores and high grades in AP classes. Harvard actually gives fewer fucks about academics than many universities and someone who came from a disadvantage background and did really well is going to be more interesting to them than someone who's parents paid for years of prep classes and tutoring.