Gabby Pettito

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
I don't know anything about this case in particular, for the record.
 

sufi

lala
i don't think gender essentialism is that much relevant to this discussion, but maybe we're not having the same discussion @suspended

if you want to go down that road, you should be a bit embarassd you assumed that the MSM's South London murder vic was "white" (though the chivalry point still applies of course), i don't think she was #SayHerName #SabinaNessa

& tbh comparing the issues around killings of black people and women is ... not a great approach,
 
Last edited:

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
I mean, in this case I think its easy enough to withhold one's instinct to assume demographic qualities, but in more pressing situations would you not agree that it makes sense to assume that a given actor's demographics align with the majority of their setting?

Don't know anything about South London, or what the demographic breakdown is, so for all I know the majority isn't white.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Really I'm just saying go with the odds, which isn't to say that always going with the odds does no damage.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
It seems like we can use a more effective approach to understanding what we call privilege, because I think there are very serious things with sprawling consequences, but some of our terms seem blunt or conflationary.

Personally I'm getting a better understanding of discrimination within a context of bureaucracy, precedent, policy, etc.

Say you are an anglo protestant male working at some consulting firm or some such, where most of the consultants align with you demographically. Let's say 75% are anglo protestant males, 15% are anglo protestant females, and 10% are non-white males and females.

And let's say the income rates are uneven: the anglo protestant males make, on average, 20% more per year than non-white and/or non-male equivalents.

If there is enough of an internal pressure for more equal wages, i.e. enough companypeople pool together for leverage to make demands to higher executives, it is reasonable that such demands may be met.

But if, as an anglo protestant male, you are hiring new assistants or some such entry-level position, knowing that newcomers have the same intentions you do to climb the corporate ladder, and that if enough non-anglo non-males join the firm it may tip the income prospects to a more even playing field, discrimination would seem to be financially incentivized, especially if you can disguise discrimination as adherence to protocol, meeting quotas, etc.

That is, if you know that hiring consultants of non-incumbent demographics will increase the odds that their pay being made more equal to yours may come at the cost of your future bonuses, discrimination becomes a tool, a strategy.

Example: An anglo-protestant male is interviewing two potential assistants, another anglo-protestant male and a black american woman. In the job description is listed a requirement of a 60 word-per-minute typing speed. The two applicants have identical resumes, and they both type at 45 words per minute.

The interviewer, operating according to self-interest (game theory, etc), may be motivated to bias the hiring decision toward whatever outcome would seem least likely to negatively impact his own future income prospects.

And he could say, to the black american female applicant, "Sorry, you don't meet the word-per-minute requirement" - which would effectively guise a tactically racist and sexist (making judgments or decisions on a basis of race, sex) decision. That is, this sort of protocol-enabled social discrimination is a reliable means for gatekeeping, and in this sense racism doesn't require bigotry.

In a way its almost irrelevant what the anglo male here thinks or opines about other demographics, as this was a pragmatic, dispassionate and systematically incentivized act of discrimination.

In this sense, I would say our system is racist, sexist, etc. - not on a basis of general bigotry, but on a basis of financial pragmatism and gatekeeping.

But the reason I say some of our terms are conflationary is that when we talk about "systemic racism" I think that implies, in most people's minds, that the majority of incumbents are operating in a bigoted capacity, when really it seems the social discrimination in question has no need of bigotry to become institutionalized.

And I also suspect that more non-progressives would be more open-minded to systemic change if we understand social discrimination as not strictly being a phenomena of bigotry, but also of dispassionate, strategic self-interest.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Also nearly impossible to account for such acts of discrimination, I would imagine.
 

woops

is not like other people
Example: An anglo-protestant male is interviewing two potential assistants, another anglo-protestant male and a black american woman. In the job description is listed a requirement of a 60 word-per-minute typing speed. The two applicants have identical resumes, and they both type at 45 words per minute.
this takes me back
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
It was an example given by a female relative of mine, that she was told her typing speed was insufficient.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
This kind of pragmatic, bad-faith deferral to standards, policies, protocols, etc. any kind of systematic or regimented framework for decisions.
 

sufi

lala
It seems like we can use a more effective approach to understanding what we call privilege, because I think there are very serious things with sprawling consequences, but some of our terms seem blunt or conflationary.

Personally I'm getting a better understanding of discrimination within a context of bureaucracy, precedent, policy, etc.

Say you are an anglo protestant male working at some consulting firm or some such, where most of the consultants align with you demographically. Let's say 75% are anglo protestant males, 15% are anglo protestant females, and 10% are non-white males and females.

And let's say the income rates are uneven: the anglo protestant males make, on average, 20% more per year than non-white and/or non-male equivalents.

If there is enough of an internal pressure for more equal wages, i.e. enough companypeople pool together for leverage to make demands to higher executives, it is reasonable that such demands may be met.

But if, as an anglo protestant male, you are hiring new assistants or some such entry-level position, knowing that newcomers have the same intentions you do to climb the corporate ladder, and that if enough non-anglo non-males join the firm it may tip the income prospects to a more even playing field, discrimination would seem to be financially incentivized, especially if you can disguise discrimination as adherence to protocol, meeting quotas, etc.

That is, if you know that hiring consultants of non-incumbent demographics will increase the odds that their pay being made more equal to yours may come at the cost of your future bonuses, discrimination becomes a tool, a strategy.

Example: An anglo-protestant male is interviewing two potential assistants, another anglo-protestant male and a black american woman. In the job description is listed a requirement of a 60 word-per-minute typing speed. The two applicants have identical resumes, and they both type at 45 words per minute.

The interviewer, operating according to self-interest (game theory, etc), may be motivated to bias the hiring decision toward whatever outcome would seem least likely to negatively impact his own future income prospects.

And he could say, to the black american female applicant, "Sorry, you don't meet the word-per-minute requirement" - which would effectively guise a tactically racist and sexist (making judgments or decisions on a basis of race, sex) decision. That is, this sort of protocol-enabled social discrimination is a reliable means for gatekeeping, and in this sense racism doesn't require bigotry.

In a way its almost irrelevant what the anglo male here thinks or opines about other demographics, as this was a pragmatic, dispassionate and systematically incentivized act of discrimination.

In this sense, I would say our system is racist, sexist, etc. - not on a basis of general bigotry, but on a basis of financial pragmatism and gatekeeping.

But the reason I say some of our terms are conflationary is that when we talk about "systemic racism" I think that implies, in most people's minds, that the majority of incumbents are operating in a bigoted capacity, when really it seems the social discrimination in question has no need of bigotry to become institutionalized.

And I also suspect that more non-progressives would be more open-minded to systemic change if we understand social discrimination as not strictly being a phenomena of bigotry, but also of dispassionate, strategic self-interest.
that example is one where there is legal process to decide whether illegal discrimination took place, in UK and Yurp anyway

It's still a stretch to achieve justice, since the victim may not even be aware that discrimination took place, but if she was and she had some evidence to demonstrate that the decision not to appoint her was flawed, then it would be up to the employer to show a genuine reason they didnt employ her, or they could be legally compelled to provide compensation for having discriminated against her because of her race and maybe gender & religion

but its always gonna be a stretch to line up all those ducks in a row and win the case
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
I think this is a better explanation for systematic discrimination than “they’re all patriarchal white supremacists” because the latter implies motives of ideology and bigotry that seem largely extraneous in a context of financial self-interest.

That is, John Smith doesn’t even need to be a bigot to make racially motivated business decisions.

Seems to be a system of “control society” where individuals are handled and considered on a basis of data points and other such programmatic terms.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
that example is one where there is legal process to decide whether illegal discrimination took place, in UK and Yurp anyway

It's still a stretch to achieve justice, since the victim may not even be aware that discrimination took place, but if she was and she had some evidence to demonstrate that the decision not to appoint her was flawed, then it would be up to the employer to show a genuine reason they didnt employ her, or they could be legally compelled to provide compensation for having discriminated against her because of her race and maybe gender & religion

but its always gonna be a stretch to line up all those ducks in a row and win the case
I agree, from what I can tell. Difficult to legislate the default assignment of the burden of proof here, I’d imagine. Especially if counterpoints are made, be they in good or bad faith, about how such arrangements can be abused by bad actors falsely claiming they were discriminated against.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
But I do think a lot of people would be more open minded and sympathetic regarding the passing of such progressive policies, if they didn’t feel like they were being called bigots.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
In fact I think constant accusations of bigotry can be self-fulfilling in odd, roundabout ways.

To me, the problem of systemic social discrimination is less about bigotry, and more about some of the ways in which such discrimination is financially incentivized for bigots and non-bigots alike.
 

sufi

lala
Stan these boomers are beyond hope, it isn't worth wasting your hard-won libido
these whippersnappers think they discovered the baby in the bathwater
In fact I think constant accusations of bigotry can be self-fulfilling in odd, roundabout ways.

To me, the problem of systemic social discrimination is less about bigotry, and more about some of the ways in which such discrimination is financially incentivized for bigots and non-bigots alike.
This is may be true but it's important as @suspended said upthread not to prioritise reacting to those secondary effects - the baby and the bathwater
 
Top