Where I work, a terribly sincere and very woke engineer posted some racial angst on our social media site. He tried to come to grips with the awfulness of his whiteness and made noises about how whites keep People of Color (PoC) from becoming STEM Professionals of Color (SPoC). His post brought up all kinds of questions in my mind, assuming we still have at least a loose association with STEM.
The most important one is this: Who is white? Without an objective definition, we can't effectively choose up sides. For example, I know a young lady who is half-black. Is she white? She doesn't have a lot of stereotypical black features. If her husband is white, will her children be white? After all, they will be a quarter black. Perhaps we should consult one of my favorite infographics of all time, the Nazi racial chart from the Nuremberg Race Laws.
What if we decide that black and white refer strictly to skin color? We could then be issued color swatches to use when classifying our neighbors and coworkers. Imagine the fun we'd have, whipping out the swatches and holding them up against foreheads, arms, legs and scapula. We'd all look like a load of Nazi researchers. Yes, again with the Reich, but, hey, if you're going to obsess about race, why not learn from the master race?
 |
| Caliper nose measurements established Jewish identity. Color swatches could establish white identity. Accurate data collection is crucial in STEM. |
Then we run into the problem of Asians. I've heard tell that a few jurisdictions are now lumping Asians in with whites because, you know, all that success stuff is so very white. We'd almost need a sensor like the ones stores are using to determine body temperature only this one would take color samples off your forehead and compare them to an RGB spectrum of color. That would tell us if you were one of the oppressors.
Yep, that's what we need to do if we're going to remain an organization in the realm of STEM. After all, as the thought leaders of the Fatherland asserted, racial categorization is ...
SCIENCE!
My brother and his wife have a white son and a black daughter. It's mostly about skin color, as (for example) Indians get treated much like black people.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's also about perception. The same person can be seen as white in one situation or by one observer, and black in/by another, and will be treated accordingly.
Do you realize that even people with no racial animus treat white and black people differently? Do you accept the existence of implicit bias with no conscious awareness?
I accept none of it. As in zero. Do you think you can read minds?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think race matters?
^ Because he's a leftist/collectivist (on top of being an intellectually dishonest God-hater).
ReplyDeleteAn accurate metric which can be known by all is exactly the opposite of what is desired-- you need to have the invisible, ever changing spot that only Evil People will stand on, or there's not much power in being the enforcer.
ReplyDeleteThat's who I, with six children and under forty, can be lectured on how I am neither young nor a real woman by a 70 year old man.
It's how pasty mobs in Seattle can blockade the freeway and try to mob murder an African immigrant when he only manages to avoid MOST of them, in the dark, at night-- all in the name of "Black Lives Matter."
It's how Talcum X-- I mean, Shaun King-- gets to say what being black is really like, and really about, while Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas' views are illegitimate.
Oh, need to add folks from India to the list of groups that are no-longer allowed to be minorities, because they're successful/joined the culture.
K T Cat,
ReplyDeleteI accept none of it. As in zero. Do you think you can read minds?
No, all you can do is measure reactions. Are you saying that, when we measure outcomes that are indicative of racism, it's because the people being measured on consistently, consciously racist? For example, a simple test that can be performed by anyone is to post two nearly-identical resumes with different names, one with traditionally European names (such a Bradley Smythe or, to make it really obvious, Bianca Whiteman), and the other with names thought of as being ethnic (Shaquille Harrell, or to be really obvious, Ebony Blackmon), and watch as the the former resume brings in many more contacts. Similar studies have been performed on job interviews, etc. Are you saying that all the HR managers, interviewers, etc. are consciously and deliberately racist?
Why do you think race matters?
Because how we treat people matters, and we treat people differently based on race to a significant, measurable degree.
Foxfier,
ReplyDeleteAn accurate metric which can be known by all is exactly the opposite of what is desired-- you need to have the invisible, ever changing spot that only Evil People will stand on, or there's not much power in being the enforcer.
If progressives had any sort of power to be the enforcer, you wouldn't be seeing protests in the streets.
That's who I, with six children and under forty, can be lectured on how I am neither young nor a real woman by a 70 year old man.
It's how pasty mobs in Seattle can blockade the freeway and try to mob murder an African immigrant when he only manages to avoid MOST of them, in the dark, at night-- all in the name of "Black Lives Matter."
I would really like to believe your depiction of these events is not leaving out and/or distorting significant details in an attempt to color them. Do you have any links to the events in question?
It's how Talcum X-- I mean, Shaun King-- gets to say what being black is really like, and really about, while Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas' views are illegitimate.
You mean, as opposed to Sowell and Thomas being deliberately selected because their views are atypical for black people, instead supporting the regime most black people find oppressive. You can always find a few people who support the oppressor, and they can make a lot of money by so doing.
Oh, need to add folks from India to the list of groups that are no-longer allowed to be minorities, because they're successful/joined the culture.
Yeah, except the actual Indians I work with also experience racism on a regular basis, despite being successful and largely having joined the culture.
If progressives had any sort of power to be the enforcer, you wouldn't be seeing protests in the streets.
ReplyDelete*eyeroll*
Right, the mobs putting people in the hospital, getting people fired for donating to the "wrong" cause which won in a legitimate vote, having violent mobs in front of houses, attempting to murder teenage boys for being seen with a fire extinguisher near a gas station they were trying to set on fire, shutting down talks, shutting down cities-- they don't have any "power".
I guess I should give you a little credit-- at least you recognize the violent mobs as being progressives.
Even if you don't recognize them as merely the logical progression of the illegal-yet-mostly-unpunished violence and manipulation they've been using since at least the 60s.
I would really like to believe your depiction of these events is not leaving out and/or distorting significant details in an attempt to color them.
*smile* Look up the "white supremacist" that "ran down protesters" in Seattle.
Make sure you actually look at the police twitter page, and note that the road wasn't shut back down until after the poor idiot girl was dead.
Was live-streamed from multiple sources, even. You can find the full context of the video.
You probably even saw his car- they carefully cropped him out of the shot at the same time they dropped claims that it was racially motivated, though they didn't do something crazy like correct any of the false claims.
You mean, as opposed to Sowell and Thomas being deliberately selected because their views are atypical for black people, instead supporting the regime most black people find oppressive.
So now it's not how they're treated because of how they look, it's that you get to judge if they are "typical" enough in their views for "black people."
Nevermind that the only group of guys who look like them where they're atypical in anything but being very impressive minds is the group that is sure their life sucks because people are unjustly harsh on them due to skin color, and will respond violently when it's pointed out that white guys who behave the same have similar bad outcomes.
You know, the folks who tell kids that work hard and don't do drugs--and girls that try to be chaste-- that they're "acting white," which is punishable with physical violence.
You are also engaging in your mind-reading conceit again-- I chose those men because I admire them. Read Sowell for years before I saw a picture, because it doesn't matter. He'd be just as awesome if he was a skinny red-head, or a buxom blonde.
Thomas and Scalia I like for the stuff that actually matters-- their reasoning, and ability to build arguments. Same way I didn't know that the guy singing "Kiss an angel good morning" all through my childhood was black, what mattered was that voice.
(One of my dad's favorite singers; I prefer the Possum and little Jimmy Dickens, but de gustibus.)
That you explicitly desire to organize what people can think by where you would group them, visually, and that you respond poorly when it is pointed out that real, successful human beings did not fit your theory-- that is your problem.
Not mine.
"Sowell and Thomas being deliberately selected because their views are atypical for black people"
ReplyDeleteI don't see black people. I deny that the characterization, "black," has substantial value. That's the difference between us. I see individuals and you see races.
I'll follow this up in a blog post today.
Seeing individuals is just too dangerous for leftists -- there is too much danger that one may see the Image/Idol of God; and then where would they be?
ReplyDeleteI changed my mind about the blog post. I wrote it and posted it and then took it back down. It's a tiresome subject that I've already beaten to death.
ReplyDeleteI will note here, however, that the progressive is the only one who cares about race. The rest of us don't think it matters.
K T Cat,
ReplyDeleteI don't see black people.
That differentiates you from about 99% of the sighted humanity. While this might not be true of you, it's also something regularly said by people who don't want to admit how people are treated differently based on skin color.
I deny that the characterization, "black," has substantial value.
I agree. The differentiation is societal, not substantial.
That's the difference between us. I see individuals and you see races.
I see individuals being treated differently by other individuals, in part based upon the color of their skin.
Ilíon,
ReplyDeleteSeeing individuals is just too dangerous for leftists -- there is too much danger that one may see the Image/Idol of God; and then where would they be?
I interact with many leftists who see the image of God in people.
K T Cat seems to prefer to not have commentators engage in an exchange of insults and disparagements, so I'm just going to let the previous comments, and (probably) most of the following comments lie. I'll respond when you offer something of substance to respond to.
Foxfier,
ReplyDeleteRight, the mobs putting people in the hospital, getting people fired for donating to the "wrong" cause which won in a legitimate vote, having violent mobs in front of houses, attempting to murder teenage boys for being seen with a fire extinguisher near a gas station they were trying to set on fire, shutting down talks, shutting down cities-- they don't have any "power".
Aside from your blatant mischaracterizations of some events, and your apparent blindness to other events from right-wing protestors, yes, these progressive protestors don't have institutional power. If they did, they would enact their agenda, instead of protesting for it.
I guess I should give you a little credit-- at least you recognize the violent mobs as being progressives.
There is definitely violence from the progressives as well as the reactionaries.
Even if you don't recognize them as merely the logical progression of the illegal-yet-mostly-unpunished violence and manipulation they've been using since at least the 60s.
Violent protest in US politics goes back to the Whiskey Rebellion, and I don't think we've ever had a 10-year period without it since the Civil War. Of course, since the 60s, the people committing violence have been getting gradually more progressive and less conservative, so I can see why you only want to look back that far. We don't need any more Red Summers or Tulsa after the Depression allowed the government to keep black people down economically.
*smile* Look up the "white supremacist" that "ran down protesters" in Seattle.
*not smiling* I see your Seattle, and raise you Charlottesville, Los Angeles, Utah, and Minnesota.
So now it's not how they're treated because of how they look, it's that you get to judge if they are "typical" enough in their views for "black people."
It's not my judgement; I didn't pay/didn't select them. Surely you're not arguing that their opinions are those of typical black people? Voting patterns clearly indicate otherwise.
Nevermind that the only group of guys who look like them where they're atypical in anything but being very impressive minds is the group that is sure their life sucks because people are unjustly harsh on them due to skin color, and will respond violently when it's pointed out that white guys who behave the same have similar bad outcomes.
Gosh, you sure are quick to dismiss a large variety of my friends growing up, my teachers, my fellow students, and my co-workers, many of whom are just as bright as Sowell and Thomas and/or worked just as hard, but disagree with them politically.
You know, the folks who tell kids that work hard and don't do drugs--and girls that try to be chaste-- that they're "acting white," which is punishable with physical violence.
Your astounding ignorance on how black adults think and react is matched only by the smugness of your words. You ever been to a black church? A black social?
You are also engaging in your mind-reading conceit again-- I chose those men because I admire them.
Right, they tell you want you want to hear, so you admire them. A perfectly human reaction.
Read Sowell for years before I saw a picture, because it doesn't matter. He'd be just as awesome if he was a skinny red-head, or a buxom blonde.
Yet, you laser-focused on Thomas and Sowell for this discussion.
That you explicitly desire to organize what people can think by where you would group them, visually, and that you respond poorly when it is pointed out that real, successful human beings did not fit your theory-- that is your problem.
Not mine.
Now who's mind-reading? What about my "theory" do Thomas and Sowell not fit?
K T Cat,
ReplyDeleteI changed my mind about the blog post. I wrote it and posted it and then took it back down. It's a tiresome subject that I've already beaten to death.
Fair enough.
I will note here, however, that the progressive is the only one who cares about race. The rest of us don't think it matters.
Easy enough to say when you're white. Even the venerated Thomas and Sowell acknowledge that black people get treated differently; they just oppose doing anything to remedy it.
One Brow-
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you are projecting your flaws out on others.
I caught you trying to mislead to score a point, and documented it; any hint of credibility you had was shredded in the flailing you then engaged in. That you repeat the trick again and again does not impress.
I have responded to your flat statements, pointed out your shifting ground, standards and goalposts, and you feign a lack of understanding-- since I do not think people are, generally, stupid, I do not need to explain it.
Foxfier,
ReplyDeleteI am unsurprised that you have decided to resort to insulting, rather than discussing.
I have responded to your highly biased presentation of current events, and since I do not think people learn what they do not want to learn, I also do not need to explain it further.
One Brow-
ReplyDeleteI have not "resorted" to insulting you; I have refrained from even the most strictly accurate of description of your past behaviors, unless it is immediately relevant.
That your behavior is so unpleasant that seeing it identified stings your ego is, again, your problem.
Your contributions to "discussion" have, thus far, been either falsehood or false accusations, ranging from mind-reading to declaring anything you do not wish to hear is "biased." When someone grants you their time, in the mistaken belief that you will display even the slightest hint of respect for the labor of others, you have routinely wasted their effort it in a most gratuitous fashion.
As I have now repeatedly explained, I recognize that I cannot fix you-- and I also recognize that most people will, given the information, recognize you for what you are.
One Brow, who is white? Like I said in this post, the Nazis, who had a serious interest in the topic, came up with rational, practical ways of making those characterizations.
ReplyDeleteSo how would you do it? How would you decide who was white? In all seriousness, I think the color scanner would be the best way to do it, perhaps assisted with some kind of eye shape analysis AI system.
=="... who is white? (or black?)"==
ReplyDeleteMy niece, who has more European ancestry that I, is "black" ... because her "views [and speech patterns] are []typical for black people". At the same time, her husband, who has mostly African ancestry, is "white" ... because his "views [and speech patterns] are atypical for black people". And my great-niece and great-nephews, who are "half-black" (though only one of the boys would be immediately recognized by most people as being black), are really entirely "white", for, again, their "[speech patterns] are atypical for black people".
Foxfier,
ReplyDeleteI have not "resorted" to insulting you; I have refrained from even the most strictly accurate of description of your past behaviors, unless it is immediately relevant.
You gave a partially accurate description of the events of the 2000 election, I gave a complementary description. Naturally, you accused me of dishonesty for not adopting your partially accurate description. However, if you are saying it's not insulting to call someone dishonest, I will keep that in mind.
That your behavior is so unpleasant that seeing it identified stings your ego is, again, your problem.
Seeing my behavior falsely identified does annoy me. I'm sure when you see your behavior identified in what you consider to be a false manner, it annoys you (you would be very unusual if it did not). I am capable of seeing the position of the person with whom I disagree, at least to the extent that I recognize they may feel they are not being accurately described. You have not displayed any such ability.
Your contributions to "discussion" have, thus far, been either falsehood or false accusations,
I appreciate that you seem to think this is true. If so, you are in error. Now, if I were a certain sort of poster, I would say something like "any hint of credibility you had was shredded". Instead, I will just say that I can provide evidence for what I say. Feel free to call me out on any statement you think is flatly false from comments to this post, and ask for evidence.
When someone grants you their time, in the mistaken belief that you will display even the slightest hint of respect for the labor of others, you have routinely wasted their effort it in a most gratuitous fashion.
Please do not respond to me as any sort of favor to me. Please only respond to me when you are doing so for your own sake. I will not take any response from you as some sort of favor from you.
After all, it's not as if you visibly grant me any appreciable amount of respect for the time I put into my responses. This goes back to the point I was making about not showing you understand how others see things.
As I have now repeatedly explained, I recognize that I cannot fix you
I don't need fixing by you, and I have seen no evidence that are qualified to try.
K T Cat,
ReplyDeleteOne Brow, who is white?
Like so many things, different people will see it differently. Even color swatches look a different at different light levels or under different light sources.
Ultimately, it's about being treated like being white, or not. Do you recognize that black people get treated differently on a regular basis, or do you think that is a fiction?
I don't pretend I have any answers. That would be nice! I'm only hoping to convince you of the problem.
Like I said in this post, the Nazis, who had a serious interest in the topic, came up with rational, practical ways of making those characterizations.
Most of society goes with "I know it when I see it". If we try to choose any other standard, we'll miss that mark.
So how would you do it? How would you decide who was white? In all seriousness, I think the color scanner would be the best way to do it, perhaps assisted with some kind of eye shape analysis AI system.
Ultimately, I'm much more interested in improving how people are treated as a group than in classifying individuals. For example, I was not bothered by Rachel Dolezal.
Ilíon,
ReplyDeleteMy niece, who has more European ancestry that I, is "black" ... because her "views [and speech patterns] are []typical for black people".
Quite possibly. As I pointed out earlier, my niece and nephew have the exact same ancestry, yet one is white and one is black.