Whats worse, being called a racist, or the wholesale rape of hundreds of children? Well, thanks to years of liberal stupidity, the answer is “being called a racist”
Yup, its rapidly becoming clear in my involvement with minority issues in my own culture that our enemy is the systems and institutions at home, and the left in the West. Any Westerner that takes up our cause is immediately attacked and smeared by the left as a racist/islamophobe/imperialist/colonialist etc. It’s now at the stage where Western “progressives” are hampering any reformation in Muslim, African and Asian culture by shutting down our bases and networks in the West, and we can’t build them in our own countries due to lack of safe infastructure. This also includes Western socmedia, tech and comms companies (yes, facebook and google/youtube are included) are working hand in hand with governments to identify our anonymous activists.
It would be absurd of me to say in response “so Magnet, why don’t you replace age with race in your example and see how that sounds?”
“It is a well-established fact that there is a relationship between race and cognitive ability, but as a society we believe it ought not affect employment, so it’s illegal to ask someone’s race in a job interview”
Well that sounds horrible! But it makes no sense for me to ask you to make that comparison because it’s absurd to say it’s a well-established fact that there’s a relationship between race and cognitive ability.
Do we agree so far? That your example about age would be bonkers if we just wondered how it would sound if we literally changed what it was about?
What I’m suggesting is that Damore’s manifesto is in some murky place in the middle that’s not so clear cut, and that’s why any merit to emphasizing the harm in sexism by comparing it to racism is outweighed by the poor fit of the comparison.
To grossly simplify some of the thrust of Damore’s and shoehorn it into the context of the age example, I could say:
“It is a well-established fact that there is a relationship between gender and [a number of claims], but as a society we believe it ought not affect employment, so it’s illegal to ask someone’s gender in a job interview”
So piece by piece:
"It is a well-established fact that there is a relationship between gender and [a number of claims]
I’m again probably conflating who cited what between Damore and the Slate Star Codex piece, but the research provided—on its own, before we decide if it’s being twisted by Damore’s agenda—sounded like there was room for debate. It would not be of value to say it’s just like the well-established relationship between age and cognition, and it would not be of value to say it’s just like nonsense like phrenology.
but as a society we believe it ought not affect employment
Does this mean it ought not affect hiring practices, or does this mean any disparity in distribution of this group in the workforce is indicative of a problem (ageism/sexism/racism)? I think Damore is inconsistent, but that a case could be made that he believes the former, not the latter, and may have expressed it poorly.
The hiring process should not be ageist, and a disparity in age distribution in the workforce does not necessarily indicate ageism was at play. So in this interpretation, you certainly could substitute race or gender for age, but that doesn’t really change anything, because the response to all three is “yeah, and?”
From the article:
On the news last night there was a picture of 18 men convicted and there was no comment that 17 of those were clearly Asian men.
This is dumb. Commenting on the race of the perpetrators does not help the victims. Neither does “commissioning more research”. What does that even mean? Putting a white man and an Asian man in a room with a child and timing how long each one waits before raping the child?
This is just another call to racism dressed up with “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” It’s the same tired trope white supremacists use to “research” black-on-black crime. No thanks.
Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham? There are few people in the UK more involved and more in touch with the issue than her, but if you want to call her a racist, go ahead. It pretty much verifies the issue.
Well, I hope the few that are more involved have more sense than she does.
Ok, she’s not a racist. Just uselessly encouraging racists. Better?
The Rotherham Report said much the same thing she did. It’s an issue embedded in British institutions and systems. This is the what… 8th? large scale conviction of number of organised abuse and rape gangs in a few years, all of whom give the same underlying reason for targeting white girls.
They want to be members of Parliament?
No, to quote my peers, and I’ve literally heard this from dozens of Asian men over the years; “all white women are slags” It’s absolutely embedded in Muslim immigrant culture (working class/neets/gangs rather than secular middle class) that white girls are morally lax, and white society will not do anything about it, and that white culture is sexually and morally degenerate, and white girls are objects to be used and abused.
I’m not the kafir. I get a non-filtered view because they think I’m of the Ummah.
Edit: My experiences are mirrored by this chap
The issue was not being dealt with because “people are more afraid to be called a racist than they are afraid to be wrong about calling out child abuse”, Ms Champion said.
Mohammed Shafiq from the Ramadhan Foundation said the debate needed putting in context. “Amongst these criminals there is a mindset that they think that white girls are worthless,” he said.
"They don’t have any regard for their standing within society and therefore they think they can be used and abused in that way.
“But the vast majority of child sex abuse carried out in this country is carried out by white men - through the home, through family networks and through the internet.”
I don’t see the relevance of the whataboutery tbh.
It really really doesn’t matter in this regard. There’s nothing tongue in cheek about that statement. The problem under discussion here, surrounding prejudice/stereotypes/bias, here is inherently a human behavioral problem. It doesn’t matter what the science says, for our society to function in a just way we have to emphasize that it’s never acceptable to suggest that people may have predisposed inferiority at anything.
There is nothing racist in pointing out that there are differences between races (assuming you have a decent definition of “race”). Just like there is nothing wrong with pointing out that there are differences between Texans and New Yorkers. And those differences might even be cognitive, for all I know. The important thing is that it doesn’t matter: racism is using an observed racial difference to justify how people ought to be treated.
This is not sexist. But this is not what Damore wrote. He wrote that Google ought to change its practices, based on the differences that he thought he observed. And that’s sexist.
It means you set a goal that you consider just, e.g. we want equal representation between men and women in the workforce. Whether or not men and women have innate differences is irrelevant to that goal. Arguing that you should change that goal because of your belief in innate differences is sexist. It’s true that if those differences exist, it would make the goal more difficult to achieve. But achieving a goal doesn’t have to be easy.
It means you haven’t met your goal, and therefore there is room for improvement.
Let’s take another example. A college in Boston wants a diverse student body, so it intends to recruit more students from the West Coast. Now, there might be good reasons why West Coast students aren’t applying to a school in Boston. It’s far away. Or maybe the college admissions committee is prejudiced against Californians. The point is that the reason for the disparity doesn’t matter. Writing a long defense of the impartiality of admissions officers is a waste of time. The college wants diversity, and that’s a worthy goal. And arguing that West Coasters may not really deserve admission presents a serious obstacle to achieving that goal.
So men can’t lift more on average than women? Octogenarians on average are just as good as twenty-somethings at running marathons? Someone with an IQ of 70 can totally make it as a particle physicist? I can be a good dancer?
What is the standard where that emphasis should come into play?
Men can lift more on average than women, but it is not necessary to min-max the lifting ability of the workforce. Even for jobs where lifting is a useful skill.
A lot of arguments like Damore’s seem to assume that the only goal in hiring is to achieve a pure meritocracy. But this is clearly not true. There are many other societal goals to consider. It’s worth considering that in a pure meritocracy, neither Damore nor his colleagues would likely be working at Google - their positions would have been filled by non-Americans. They owe their jobs to laws and customs that ensure American companies hire a sufficient number of Americans. But if that’s a worthy goal, then why not ensure American companies hire a sufficient number of women?
As Magnet says above, it’s less about what is typical and more about creating policies based on those averages.
So men can’t lift more on average than women?
On average they do. It’s fine to point that out. It’s not cool to ban women from using free-weights because “science says” they’ll have a harder time picking them up.
Octogenarians on average are just as good as twenty-somethings at running marathons?
It’s unlikely an 80-something will cross the finish line before a 20-something in a Marathon. But you don’t ban 80-year-olds from attempting to qualify for the race.
Someone with an IQ of 70 can totally make it as a particle physicist?
They probably won’t. But you’d make that determination based on their undergraduate transcript or Master’s/PHD thesis paper, not on an IQ test.
I can be a good dancer?
Based on my experiences with other guys named “Mike”, I don’t like your chances. But best post a video so we can make an informed decision.
Two of those statements dealt with huge swathes of the population, two of them dealt with the circumstances of specific individuals. You mixed up your apples and oranges there a bit I think!
In regards to whether men or women can lift more, or older people can have run better than younger, I have no opinion. I would think it’s down to the fitness of the individual, and their motivation to maintain and enhance that fitness coupled with their physical attributes that drive that far more than gender.
In regards to whether someone with an IQ of 70 can make it as a particle physicist, or you can dance, they both deal with individual fitness and motivation for a task. Which can be measured and assessed. There’s nothing unjust about concluding, with appropriate evidence, that someone just isn’t good at something. The injustice comes when we conclude, or at least assume, the lack of fitness before knowing anything else about them based solely on membership in a certain sex/race/etc.
We start losing some abilities as we get older. If the data supports that (and it does) should we just start forcing retirement all over the replace and replace all the employees with younger more able individuals? There is definitely data out there that points to a decrease in physical and mental abilities… then again, most people prefer to be hired and judged by their specific qualities, not some generality of whatever groups someone else labels them as a part of.
I am not seeing anywhere where Google is lowering their bar to get a more diverse workforce so much as trying to address a culture they think might be discouraging applicants, amongst other things.
I’m responding to Tortilla’s statement that’s it’s never acceptable to suggest that such average differences could even exist. Where am I proposing banning octogenarians from running the marathon, or even proposing that a particular octogenarian couldn’t beat my ass handily at such a task.
It just seems to me that Tortilla’s “can’t even suggest” is an extremely broad statement that it’s clear we don’t apply in practice. As your examples suggest, I think the line should be on pre-judging individuals based on broad statistical averages (or worse, imaginary broad statistical averages).
You have no opinion of whether ON AVERAGE, men or women can lift more?
I think we may be talking past each other. I made my remarks in the context of judging individuals on fitness for specific tasks. For example, in employment situations.