20 Likes
There are systemic problems, but how do you propose we fix the socket?
ETA:
I’m totally swiping your image for future use.
11 Likes
Talking about the actual issue and the systems that perpetuate is not attacking any person. Making broad statements is the polar opposite of that, because no individuals are named.
We can’t change people’s minds. If they are the sort of person who is more offended by hearing about the system and the idea that they might be benefitting or contributing to inequality than they are about the real injustice that other people deal with on the daily, then they were never going to care in the first place.
17 Likes
Clearly, you think we do…
6 Likes
So you are just asking questions then? Dude stop. Really just fucking stop. Did you not parse that we have been over and over this already.
13 Likes
You can’t make them not white male, so focus on what they doing that is causing issue. Something you can change people’s minds on.
Chances are pretty good that some non-white, non-males are part of the “system”, like the system that elected Trump. Saying that it benefits white men is something, but it’s not a solution.
So, in other words, you want us to shut up, until we have a solution to the problem…
15 Likes
I genuinely can’t tell if that’s what you think is best over text. It looked like you were suggesting we need to dial back the discussion on racism, but I wasn’t sure so I asked.
13 Likes
I do already do that. Having a conversation on the internet and calling out individual behaviors are not mutually exclusive.
I am sure of it. And someday something is going to make them reconsider that, and it will happen when they are ready. Refraining from discussing them as they are, participants in the system doesn’t change that.
It’s the truth.
People need to keep speaking so that those good guy Trump voters will hear it. How they choose to move forward after they hear it is up to them.
12 Likes
Fuck those assholes. They have destroyed the world so they can stick to us libtards. I’m really tired of them getting a pass while the rest of us have to live up to some perfect ideal of humanity. they get to be shitty human beings, while the rest of us have to be paragons of virtue, which is entirely impossible.
14 Likes
So you think white men are going to hear complaining about white men, then know to stop whatever is causing the issue? It seems to be that calling out sexual abuse as a behaviour is much more effective than a complaint about a white male system. It might be true, but it’s not instructive information, or as useful as feedback on behaviour.
When you start calling out exactly what they’re doing wrong, you get results. When broad statements were made about their gender/race, over the past few decades, not much changed.
edit: Sorry mindysan33, that was a reply to @Magdalene
1 Like
Obligatory:
14 Likes
9 Likes
No. I specifically said:
It seems to me that shushing the complaints of and trying to instruct the folks who have the most intimate knowledge of the harm done by system is even less useful.
13 Likes
But we need to shut up and let white men talk! /s
13 Likes
It’s of course always best to use evidence based efforts to attempt decrease and eliminate discrimination. Fortunately, this is exactly the standard used in nondiscrimination programs.
As an example – let’s look at nondiscrimination programs in say – government contracting. I’ll try to briefly outline how that works – but it’s more involved than this. It’s a well-defined area and the standards that apply here apply in other areas. The case law that applies here is Crossun v Richmond for the local area programs and Adderand v Pena for federal programs (I believe Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote this decision) – the same standards apply. For the government to have these programs it must meet the highest standard of legal review – strict scrutiny – rather than intermediate or rational basis. The programs must also be narrowly tailored to address the specific discrimination in this area.
This is done by having a statistically sound disparity study that documents the history of both economic and social discrimination, the current status of this discrimination and how this apples in both the geographic area where that government does business (where the majority of the contractors it does business with are located) and what specific goods and services that government agency purchases. If the strict scrutiny standard is met – then the remedy must be narrowly tailored to address that discrimination and ensure that the efforts to do so only apply to those who meet the strict scrutiny standard as having been discriminated against.
Narrow tailoring efforts include setting participation goals on the actual disparity in purchasing – using not just a rough demographic number – but a using an availability calculation of firms owned by the subject class (minority or women owned and controlled). One doesn’t just say that women are 51% of the population and therefore we should have a goal of 51% of the contracts going to women owned firms. One has to look at the availability of women owned firms in that specific good or service in that geographic area that the agency will purchase. Even these modest efforts are goals – not requirements. If a prime contractor shows that they made sufficient good faith efforts to outreach to the firms in the subject class – they’ve met the requirements. Of course – firms must go through a rigorous certification process to ensure they are members of these classes as part of narrow tailoring.
Of course – this doesn’t address the existing differences in capacity of firms owned by women or minorities and say white men. If your area only has 2% of women owned firms in highway construction you can only set a 2% goal. So – every gov should have some capacity building efforts outside of your goal setting process. But one can see how difficult evening out these disparities to within some reasonable margin would be given the limitations of the tools available.
I’m not sure how one could address a disparity of feelings under the legal requirements. This is perhaps under the purview of group therapy or consciousness raising groups.
9 Likes
I does seem to be a defense mechanism (or something) affecting way too many white people and men that when they are told that this and similar messages, what they hear is blame and attack. But despite the common reaction, no apology is asked for, only acknowledgement of the truths of the historically oppressed.
Also, if every single person on this earth suddenly decided to quit the historical narrative and we all became “color-blind” and “gender-neutral” then likely the new civilization would be better. However, you won’t ever get universal agreement on something like that, and the hold-outs that would cling to their comfortable shield of prejudice and hate would just start the cycle anew.
Edited to add some parentheses. And now to strike out an unnecessary word.
11 Likes
Based on what? Do you have studies, or is this a “common sense” thing?
6 Likes
