Disgusting display of Racism
- Thread starter i-bert
- Start date
Man of Honour
You're publically supporting a policy of racism that is itself using victim blaming as a "justification". You're a long way from the moral high ground when you're doing what you're accusing (without any evidence) other people of doing.
I'm not insinuating that you're racist. I'm stating categorically that you're advocating racism. Also sexism. Probably some other irrational prejudices too. Of course you regard racism, sexism, etc as "probably the best and most reasonable option". Everyone who advocates any irrational prejudice and discrimination thinks it's the best option - that's why they advocate for it.
As for your claim that you don't really support what you openly support and you'd prefer the opposite but think it can't happen yet...well, I'll be generous and call that evasive.
Man of Honour
I wouldn't be particularly opposed to equity if it meant equity, but it's a "progressive" word now so it means the opposite of itself since "progressivism" is an Orwellian ideology with language that Minitru would be proud of. Equity is, deliberately and explicitly and absolutely, not equality of outcome. Equity is prejudice and discrimination on the basis of sex, "race" and anything else people with enough power decide is of paramount importance.
Some of the above posts are purport that the scholarship is 'racist' and the those that advocates of it / indifferent to it are racist. I presume this is on the basis that the scholarship is discriminatory exclusively on the basis of race.
Is discriminating exclusively on the basic of race always inherently wrong? Does it always justify the label of 'racist'? As I said earlier, I think the answer is no, not always. It depends.
Saying that something is 'racist' infers that there is an inherent 'wrongness' to that thing. Do I think the scholarship is racist? I understand the argument for suggesting it is, but I just don't think that there is enough damage/maliciousness to warrant that labelling, unless we are setting the bar extremely low for suggesting that something is racist (and it's a case of deciding whether it fits a simple 'is there discrimination based on colour' criteria, rather than assessing how truly awful it is).
For that reason, I can't say I agree with your approach, @Angilion (and others), or at least my understanding of what you are saying. If we are saying that every time anyone is treated differently because of their skin colour, it must be bad (or racist), then I think we open ourselves up to further absurdity. The example I gave earlier was targeting individuals for police investigation based on their ethnicity if it can be shown that a particular ethnic group is frequently involved with a particular criminal activity - there is theoretically a point where discrimination along these lines is justifiable. If we have an alien population of 'red blobs' and 'blue blobs' and it's factually only the 'blue blobs' that cause trouble, then it makes sense to focus investigation on the 'blue blobs'. Yet, it would be discrimination wholly based on race. Would that be a terrible thing? It depends.
I think it's more important to focus on harm and outcome rather than how much something falls either side of a solid line. I can't say I find the Stomzy scholarship harmful, other than it causing some discontent (as seen in this thread). I don't think any actual material harm is being caused by offering this scholarship to black students only, but I do find it clumsy (as mentioned).
Is discriminating exclusively on the basic of race always inherently wrong? Does it always justify the label of 'racist'? As I said earlier, I think the answer is no, not always. It depends.
Saying that something is 'racist' infers that there is an inherent 'wrongness' to that thing. Do I think the scholarship is racist? I understand the argument for suggesting it is, but I just don't think that there is enough damage/maliciousness to warrant that labelling, unless we are setting the bar extremely low for suggesting that something is racist (and it's a case of deciding whether it fits a simple 'is there discrimination based on colour' criteria, rather than assessing how truly awful it is).
For that reason, I can't say I agree with your approach, @Angilion (and others), or at least my understanding of what you are saying. If we are saying that every time anyone is treated differently because of their skin colour, it must be bad (or racist), then I think we open ourselves up to further absurdity. The example I gave earlier was targeting individuals for police investigation based on their ethnicity if it can be shown that a particular ethnic group is frequently involved with a particular criminal activity - there is theoretically a point where discrimination along these lines is justifiable. If we have an alien population of 'red blobs' and 'blue blobs' and it's factually only the 'blue blobs' that cause trouble, then it makes sense to focus investigation on the 'blue blobs'. Yet, it would be discrimination wholly based on race. Would that be a terrible thing? It depends.
I think it's more important to focus on harm and outcome rather than how much something falls either side of a solid line. I can't say I find the Stomzy scholarship harmful, other than it causing some discontent (as seen in this thread). I don't think any actual material harm is being caused by offering this scholarship to black students only, but I do find it clumsy (as mentioned).
Man of Honour
For the sake of clarification: I was referring to Stormzy, not bloodiedathame.
Caporegime
If you abide by the belief that all races are equal, then yes. It's always wrong. It shouldn't even be a factor that's taken in to consideration.
What do you think about my 'red / blue blob' scenario?
I'm just trying to show that there are scenarios where it might not be inherently terrible.
(Sorry for the double post - it can be more confusing to edit posts when they have probably already been read!)
I think it's also worth going back to what I said about law and equity. I appreciate that applying a strict methodology to whether something is 'racist/objectionable' or not leads to consistent outcomes and in that sense it is commendable and I appreciate it. But, I think doing so always leads to harsh outcomes and judgements on situations, that don't really feel appropriate all things considered.
It's useful to have a 'strict' approach for an initial assessment ("is there discrimination based on race?" yes/no) but then I think this needs to be supplemented with an assessment of the purpose and the actual harm caused. I appreciate that this opens us up into the realms of subjectivity, but I think that leads to more rounded observations as a whole than strict assessment and judging.
Hopefully that makes sense!
I think it's also worth going back to what I said about law and equity. I appreciate that applying a strict methodology to whether something is 'racist/objectionable' or not leads to consistent outcomes and in that sense it is commendable and I appreciate it. But, I think doing so always leads to harsh outcomes and judgements on situations, that don't really feel appropriate all things considered.
It's useful to have a 'strict' approach for an initial assessment ("is there discrimination based on race?" yes/no) but then I think this needs to be supplemented with an assessment of the purpose and the actual harm caused. I appreciate that this opens us up into the realms of subjectivity, but I think that leads to more rounded observations as a whole than strict assessment and judging.
Hopefully that makes sense!
But plenty of people would argue that racial profiling by say the police is racist and the police ostensibly are supposed to avoid doing it.
Instead, they might conduct stop and search or target areas where crime is high, a byproduct of that is perhaps that if you target a high crime rate area you might well end up disproportionately stopping and searching people of a given racial group relative to the overall population, simply because they make up a higher portion of people in that high crime rate area. That's rather different to stopping people simply because they belong to a given group.
Likewise, if you target funding, support to poorer students in general, based on need, then you might well disproportionately end up funding proportionally more people from particular groups, you're not funding them because they're from those groups though, rather you're funding them because they're in need, along with a bunch of others.
Yes, what you have said here is how the police actually 'get around' it, because 'racial profiling' in a real world scenario (devoid of the simplicity of red and blue blobs) is ethically troublesome. I do think it could potentially be theoretically justified though, albeit in extreme, completely 'not-actually-based-in-reality' scenarios.
Caporegime
I completely agree that there were anti crime policies that worked. But many were stopped cos racist. It can't go both ways. You can't stop some positive action based on race because its racist whilst promoting others.
Thanks for responding.
I have perceived that there is a sort of a subconscious 'tit-for-tat' (poor words, but used for lack of better words!) that frequently arises with this topic. Your response here softly eludes to it ("cos racist" / "It can't go both ways"), but please do understand that I am not suggesting that your own thoughts are 'fickle' on that basis. I understand what you are saying.
I think a problem with the 'strict' "it either it is or it isn't - you can't have it both ways" approach is that is does lead to heightened sensitivity and ultimately divisiveness and demonisation, because people are going to have different views and assessments based on their life experiences and backgrounds. I don't seriously believe that anyone in this thread is being malicious (either intentionally or materially recklessly) with their views and I think it is beneficial personally to see it from both sides and more neutrally.
I think there is much to be gained from embracing, or at least acknowledging, 'the grey area' that exists where there is not deliberately malicious intentions.
I've probably bored you all to death now, apologies
No, it isn't about getting around anything - it's about tackling the actual issue!
Ditto to the example of funding people based on need rather than selecting some arbitrary group for special treatment. It's not just Stormzy's scholarship where this silliness occurs, see also Biden's recent funding for farms, restaurants etc.. if you're black in the US you could get priority for funding purely based on your race. Other racial and ethnic groups varied, with some bizarre results - like Pakistanis OK, Afghans not OK etc..
I agree, forgive my poor phrasing.
This is the crux. This is where it all lies.
If you deviate from this, then you keep the door open for negative racism as you perpetuate difference on the basis of skin colour. Even though you have well thought out, justified intentions, all it does is perpetuate the "othering" of people of different skin colour. It establishes sides and fuels division along those sides.
Caporegime
@Nitefly never boring. No apologies needed from me 
Next, the US Democrats will be pushing black only cafe's and laundrettes as a way to segregate, they will be marketed as special safe spaces away from evil and oppressive whitey. If they can offer scholarships based on race in contravention of anti-discrimination laws that simply aren't enforced then why not? they're a private business they can do what they want?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,414
I could see why you would believe that to be necessary and how it could be beneficial. However you need to becareful about being too flexible or you end up making a statement and attaching multiple astrisks afterwards to account for different scenarios.
The examples was to show that racism doesn't need malicious intent behind it. Therefore it is not necessarily a good indicator.
I have acknowledged that there is discrimination and I don't disagree that there is a like for like disadvantage upon on category of persons. But, really, it is wholly and actually incidental and, again, I'm not jumping to saying that the scope and extent of the disadvantage (in all means) is inherently awful, because it's not. This is exactly what I was getting at where I was saying I think subjects like this require flexibility - I'm particularly drawn to your comment that my logic could be twisted to justify bad things. Yes, it could. But I think a flexible approach is better than a consistent approach than unfairly demonises charitable acts.
Yes there probably are many horrific acts that one could argue to be charitable... although their argument would undoubtedly be pretty crap
...
I think we are ultimately in the same realms of agreement; if you are of the view that it could in some circumstances be justified (40 - 50 years ago in your view, as you say) then it's a case of weighing up the nuances and finding your lines. That's what I was getting at, even if you have a different take on it than I do. It's not just a case that "discrimination is always bad".
Thinking about it further, even if the scholarship wasn't intended to counter some sort of disadvantage (and it say, say, Bill's Scholarship for Boys Only Because Boys Are The Bestest) then I just don't think I could ever be that bothered or offended by it. But there is always a line: if there was a mandatory imposed system where the government paid for boys fees, but girls have to pay themselves (always) I would then say: "hey, that's unfair".
.
I guess the question, is if someone placed at a disadvantage accidentally rather than maliciously is it acceptable?
What about in future? What are the broader implications of saying that this is okay? Will it become the norm to segregate scholarships based on race?
"
I was once (or my great grandfather was once) a poor "insert race of choice" so i want to help "insert race of choice" because it reminds me of my upbringing.
"
Is that an acceptable future? When do we say that scholarships based on race is no longer necessary and should be frowned upon?
Like you said it is about finding your lines and some people have made it clear where they stand, we no longer need things like this. I think only one person tried to make an argument for why we need it and it was a weak argument.
A crap argument has never stopped people doing what they want.
Last edited:
Yup, already happens, see Asian Americans and admissions to elite colleges, medical schools etc.. in the US. The woke are now trying to sabotage or devalue standardised testing, selective schools, programs for gifted school children - all in the name of "equity" because certain groups don't do so well vs other groups.
Has already happened to some extent on college campuses - safe spaces created so "folks of colour" can have a special self-segregated refuge away from whitey...
As far as businesses out in the real world are concerned, the new "equity" thing is to highlight whether businesses are "black-owned", not as per Fubsy's post above, that might be something that the woke see as a form of positive discrimination, but could easily be a negative too if these things are flagged up on the usual business directories.... all sorts of potential side effects, not just the obvious overt racists but also the woke, soft bigotry of low expectations, people who actually buy into the idea that black people need to be coddled, view them like children etc... do they make sure to do their good deed and buy some coffee from black businesses but then use the same black-owned flag to avoid them when they need a skilled tradesperson to come round in an emergency, since they seem to have these low expectations? Will other ethnicities be flagged up in the future? Will these business directories put a little star to highlight all the Jewish-owned businesses?