1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Racism - It can, and often does, go both ways.

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by Quetzal, Jul 1, 2020.

  1. Quetzal

    Quetzal A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    9,221
    Ratings:
    +7,327
    Sick of talking about this yet? Me either, let's go for it. :D I want to focus this thread on two weaknesses that I see coming from the racism debates across the web.

    The first is "Equality of Opportunity" vs "Equality of Outcome".

    Equality of Opportunity
    is ensuring that all demographics are able to actively participate in some event, with no bias restricting participation. For example, a job posting cannot discourage applicants from applying to a position based on race, sex, etc. This is something I agree with. I believe that regardless of the event, participating should not be restricted to a certain demographic unless that demographic makes sense. A political league of individuals of color makes sense. A committee of women representing women in a political context makes sense.

    Equality of Outcome
    is forcing the results of said event to mold to a certain measurable statistic based on race, sex, etc. For example, if a corporation creates a mandate that a certain percentage or sum of employees must be of a certain race, that is equality of outcome. This is something that I do not agree with. Geographic demographics, personal interest, and social upbringing all impact a persons decision to participate in a profession. For example, women are under-represented in tech organizations because the number of female applicants is lower than males. The number of tenured professors in a university skews towards Europeans and white Americans because the number of white applicants to a university is higher than black applicants to a higher education position. When you have a greater number of people representing one demographic over another, it is reasonable to conclude that, generally speaking, the probability of finding a qualified candidate in that demographic is higher, too. By mandating that the outcome of a position be driven towards a certain race over another is, by definition, racist. The reason is this: favor is given to one person over another solely because of their ethnic background.

    The second weakness I see in a lot of discussions is what I call the "Punching Up Fallacy". The Punching Up Fallacy is creating a double standard based on race, sex, etc; because the demographic in question feels justified due to past events, suffering, or prejudice. For this example, I have a picture:

    [​IMG]

    The first paragraph is nicely written. It is concise, it provides a clear message and it aligns with the progress we are trying to make. The second paragraph, however, quickly turns it into a racist argument. It gets even worse when you look to his comment on the right hand side: "no, it's not racism if POC exclude white people from their sex lives (this is often done to protect from racism)".

    Again, by the very definition, that is racist. What this author has effectively done is create a standard and then exempt his own demographic from said standard. It doesn't get much more clear than that. If his message had simply stopped after the first paragraph, he would have a slam dunk. A TED talk that would probably pack all of the seats. Instead, he took a clear message and immediately muddied the water by drawing a racial line in the sand. A poor decision, in my opinion.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Quetzal

    Quetzal A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    9,221
    Ratings:
    +7,327
    I will save a few of you the trouble: "I knew it, @Quetzal is a racist!"
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  3. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,837
    Ratings:
    +2,512
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    The whole concept of "sexual racism" is utterly ridiculous. A person is not a racist for being more sexually attracted toward members of a certain race any more than gay men are sexist against women for being gay. Let people be attracted to who they are attracted to, and don't put derogatory labels on them for it.
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Koldo

    Koldo Incredible Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    10,763
    Ratings:
    +1,543
    Not just participate. But it also shouldn't be a factor when figuring out the outcome. For instance, if I am applying for a job position I don't want my gender to be part of the decision on whether I get hired.

    As for the rest of your post, I agree with you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Koldo

    Koldo Incredible Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    10,763
    Ratings:
    +1,543
    I think it depends. If you truly only feel attracted to a given race for example, then I see no racism. But if you feel attracted to multiple races but decide to refrain from having sex with many of them just because of their race then it is racism.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Rival

    Rival Noahide
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    16,151
    Ratings:
    +19,807
    Religion:
    בת נח
    Having aesthetic sexual preferences is not racist; everyone has them. I have a preference for olive skinned, dark eyed people and I've no idea how that would make me racist.
     
    #6 Rival, Jul 1, 2020
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. sun rise

    sun rise "This is the Hour of God"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    49,522
    Ratings:
    +20,997
    Religion:
    Love
    I agree with the sexual attraction is not racism posts by several in this thread.

    But the general assertion is another matter.

    If a group has been handicapped by past prejudice, creating equal opportunity could involve having a different standard based on lack of equal opportunity.

    Here's a hypothetical example. Suppose we have two candidates for graduate school both of equal intelligence and equally good ethics and motivation to succeed and theoretically the same likelihood of success.

    One comes from an upper middle-class family, went to a superior high school and graduated from Harvard. The other came from a lower-class family, went to an inferior high school and graduated from a second rate university.

    Ideally the graduate school would take that difference into account because both are equally liable to succeed in spite of the obvious differences due to income, place of birth or whatever.

    So therefore the black Harvard graduate and the white who came from Appalachia should have their admission decided by a coin toss because both had, in this example, the same likelihood of succeeding.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Christine's Uncle Fergus
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    168,234
    Ratings:
    +52,430
    Religion:
    Bokononist Arrogant Atheism
    I say that it is racist. And so what?
    Sexual attraction is highly discriminatory.....height, build, attractiveness,
    race, hair color, nose size, voice, complexion, intelligence, earnings,
    wealth, religion, interests, style, personality....you name it.
    Racism isn't necessarily wrong, current obsessions & fashions notwithstanding.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,690
    Ratings:
    +1,448
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    If two populations are pretty much identical (AKA that they have equality of opportunity) then equality of outcomes becomes a given. Let's take an example. It's a fact that there is no significant difference in, general health and IQ between anglo-saxon and african americans once one accounts for living conditions and culture. Thus, both population should succeed at the same rate or with an extremely small, statistically insignificant level. This isn't the case. Thus, there is no equality of opportunity else both would be equivalent.

    Another problem with the dychotomy you have created is that it ignores the notion of privileges. Let's take another example: men and women. Men and women have differences in terms of biology and face different health challenges thouh they share most of them in common. Men and women have the same average IQ and a similar distribution. Considering there are fundamental, unalterable differences, equality of opportunity between men and women is impossible. What should be the outcome and why in that case?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Koldo

    Koldo Incredible Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    10,763
    Ratings:
    +1,543
    I think that equality of opportunity requires at a fundamental level an equality of education and resources provided to people while they grow up.
     
  11. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,690
    Ratings:
    +1,448
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    It's actually rigorously impossible to guarantee an absolute equality of opportunity to individuals. Life is simply too chaotic and fundamentaly unfair to allow such a thing. It's possible to guarantee a equality of opportunity to a reasonnable degree to populations and groups provided public services are very comprehensive and equally available. It's also necessary to provide equal political representation and legal protection as well as fair representation in the media. It's important to remove "twin systems" like the presence of a non-public education, security or healthcare systems that could provide people with different opportunities.
     
  12. Quetzal

    Quetzal A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    9,221
    Ratings:
    +7,327
    Good question. It depends on the individual, which is the over arching point of my post. The outcome should be determined by the individuals who apply, not the demographic they represent.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Quetzal

    Quetzal A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    9,221
    Ratings:
    +7,327
    By the way, this is a nice post and offers good criticism of my position.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  14. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    64,194
    Ratings:
    +22,754
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    The black Harvard grad was probably brought up to funtion in that world. The white Appalachian was probably brought up in a worpd that frowned upon higher education and probably didnt have much support in a world that encourages prayer and discourages ask tough questions. Realistically, the white Appalachian may have even needed remedial courses to pursue to pursue a college degree.
    The black Hatvard grad probably came from a family who could afford black tutors, and probably has social networks to help them find employment elsewhere that the white Appalachian probably doesn't have. (We could just keep it at Harvard grad and Appalachian grad, and that has profound implications alone).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    64,194
    Ratings:
    +22,754
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    Not all white people are Anglo-Saxon. That refers to a specific cultural group from Europe. But many of us from Europe do not share common heritage or history--in the Old World or New--with the Anglo-Saxons.
     
  16. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    17,371
    Ratings:
    +9,486
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I don't see anything racist in having proper discussions about these issues, which is what you seem to be promoting here.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  17. Stevicus

    Stevicus Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,370
    Ratings:
    +6,734
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    You make an interesting distinction between Equality of Opportunity versus Equality of Outcome. I sometimes make a similar distinction between what is official policy versus what people might think or feel internally. That seems to be the issue we're dealing with.

    For example, without even bothering to look, I am absolutely certain that every police department, government agency, and most private corporations have some sort of official defined policy prohibiting racial discrimination in all circumstances. So, when people say "cops are racist," they're obviously not referring to official policies, but to what individual police officers think and feel internally.

    But the problem with that is that nobody can really know or prove what somebody is thinking or feeling, so they look for subtle clues - such as verbal gaffes, something they might have written or posted - even if it was years or decades ago. Sometimes it might be something rather obscure or vague. As a result, detecting and calling out racism has turned into a kind of politically correct game of whack-a-mole, and it sometimes ends up coming off so badly that it leaves a lot of people more confused than anything else.

    As to the "punching up" fallacy, I've never fully agreed with the notion that "only whites can be racist." (I've sometimes heard it similarly said that "only men can be sexist.") I can understand the reasoning, as the U.S. had white supremacist, racist policies and practices for a very long time. It's referring to institutional racism related to official policies, laws, and rules. Since whites were the ones running society, they were the only ones who could have implemented such laws and policies. Blacks have had no power to be able to do anything like that. Therefore, blacks can't be racist.

    But that's used when the term "racist" is describing an institution, or a set of laws, practices, or customs. In that context, it doesn't really apply to individuals. An individual might be considered "prejudiced" or "bigoted," and those terms can be applied to any person of any race when such behaviors are observed. Any human being is capable of hatred or malice.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,837
    Ratings:
    +2,512
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    That's a good point. Sexual attraction is very discriminatory and there's nothing wrong with that. We all have our preferences.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    7,455
    Ratings:
    +5,482
    Aww I was all set to use my obnoxious gif too. :(
    Oh well I’ll do it anyway

    upload_2020-7-2_9-51-36.gif

    :p:p:p
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  20. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,690
    Ratings:
    +1,448
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    Obviously, what's your point? There are still anglo-saxon american and african americans in the US and both those groups experience very different "outcomes" because they experience very different "opportunities". That seems like a pedantic distinction that has no effect on the argument.
     
Loading...