this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
562 points (97.6% liked)

People Twitter

5383 readers
1167 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Your theory is sound except for the glaring ommision of the existence of racism. That's why """preferential""" <--(needs more quotes) exists, because in America, systemic racism absolutely does

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

Yeah I agree with you.

When they said:

If there's hidden segregation in education (...) then universities doing less of it will become better over time.

They are totally ignoring the fact that systemic racism is self reinforcing.

E.g. if one group of parents have enough cash on hand to enroll their children in tutoring when they need it, and impressive extra curricular activities when tutoring is unnecessary, then the children of those parents will have stronger university applications than the children that have to work part time jobs. This perpetuates racially inequality.

It's not difficult to understand. It doesn't even require racial prejudice.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

That would be socioeconomic class more than race, and I completely agree. In fact, race doesn't have anything to do with it, other than the historical facts of America meaning there's a racial skew to poverty. Targeting poverty ("wealth privilege) would therefore disproportionately benefit African-Americans, without needlessly excluding the poor from other demographics and continuing to perpetuate the idea that skin colour is somehow the most important thing about people.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

In a system where inherent racism didn't exist that would work, are you assuming that the current system wouldn't disproportionately skew the beneficiaries to the existing racial bias for some reason ?

That just gives you the same problem, a step down in the chain.

Systemic racism doesn't start once you hit a threshold of income, targeting the poor will still skew towards whatever biases exist in the system.

disproportionately benefit African-Americans

Either you don't understand why African-Americans would need additional help or you are framing it that way on purpose.

By what metric are you getting "disproportionate" ?

continuing to perpetuate the idea that skin colour is somehow the most important thing about people

It sounds like systemic racism is over so we can all just go back to seeing everyone as equals. /s

Again, either you have a fundamental misunderstanding or are purposely framing it that way.

To be clear, these measures aren't "skin color is most important so let's base policy on that aspect"

they are closer to

"The system is actively using skin colour and ethnicity to detrimentally target people who should really be equal in standing, let's not pretend that that isn't happening and try to address it"

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

To clarify, I don't believe in the creation of any deliberately biased system, but I believe the main societal issue is overwhelmingly one of wealth disparity.

I'm not assigning a moral value when I use the phrase "disproportionate benefit". I'm alluding to the disproportionate degree of poverty experienced by African-Americans. Poverty relief should therefore benefit them more. If there was no differential distribution of wealth with respect to race, the benefits of poverty relief would be neutral with respect to race.

Additionally, the person I responded to is very clearly describing a situation related to a student's socioeconomic status. I absolutely believe some kind of "blind" application process is necessary to minimise the impact of a number of possible prejudices held by the admissions team.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

To clarify, I don’t believe in the creation of any deliberately biased system.

As in you don't believe it's possible for a biased system to exist or you don't think it's possible to do it deliberately, something else ?

but I believe the main societal issue is overwhelmingly one of wealth disparity.

I agree, and the idea of providing a baseline humanitarian standard of living isn't impossible it's just very unlikely without some hefty and painful foundational changes to how societies are currently working.

I’m not assigning a moral value when I use the phrase “disproportionate benefit”. I’m alluding to the disproportionate degree of poverty experienced by African-Americans. Poverty relief should therefore benefit them more. If there was no differential distribution of wealth with respect to race, the benefits of poverty relief would be neutral with respect to race.

Additionally, the person I responded to is very clearly describing a situation related to a student’s socioeconomic status. I absolutely believe some kind of “blind” application process is necessary to minimise the impact of a number of possible prejudices held by the admissions team.

Fair enough, it seems i entirely misunderstood what you meant, my apologies.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No worries, thanks for replying. When I say I don't believe in them, I mean I don't believe we (i.e. society) should create those systems. Unfortunately I absolutely believe we do create them, both deliberately and inadvertently.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's an interesting perspective.

You think they'd form on their own? or we shouldn't be getting to the point where they are needed or something else entirely ?

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I think some degree of meritocracy (i.e. recognition of a skills hierarchy) is necessary for human advancement, but as it currently stands it's impossible to separate that out from wealth privilege. If I had the answer, I'd make sure to tell everybody.

There's a million other processes by which wealth favours the accumulation of wealth, and it's largely this "logic of capital" that results in the formation of class hierarchies and entrenched inequality/capital enclaves.

That's probably secondary to geography in the first instance, e.g. wealth in the form of agricultural surpluses and the use of grain as a fungible commodity and proto-currency.

At this point a huge amount of wealth redistribution seems like a good start, and if it all flows back to the top, which I'd expect it to, then it'll just need redistributing again.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes what I described is class but as we agree there is a strong racial correlation of class in America. There is also racial prejudice which makes it more difficult for some racialized people to develop strong university applications, eg less encouragement to participate in certain extra curriculars. Racial prejudice that affected a parent's career can affect multiple generations.

I'm not a racialized person. My parents are the same age as Ruby Bridges, but didn't have to face racial discrimination in their careers. In 2018 My parents helped my wife and I buy a house (they gave us a loan against what they expect to leave us in their will, ie when they die we owe the estate $x0,000 dollars plus interest, but our inheritance is expected to exceed that amount). We still have a mortgage, but we were able to buy a house in the city in 2019. This is going to help my children get into university because they are going to be closer to extra curricular activities and summer jobs. This would not have been possible if my parents faced racial discrimination in their careers that suppressed their earnings.

I grew up in an affluent neighbourhood without really being exposed to racism or stereotypes. Also without really meeting people that had experienced racism. I would have agreed that we should focus on class because racism is only historical and will sort itself out when the old people die. I was wrong.

Race and racism divides the working class against itself, we can't ignore it, but we can't fixate on it either. We need to simultaneously advance working class interests, AND the interests of people disadvantaged by racism, because we need unity.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

I entirely agree!

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It's not difficult to understand, except it's wrong in experience.

E.g. if one group of parents have enough cash on hand to enroll their children in tutoring when they need it, and impressive extra curricular activities when tutoring is unnecessary, then the children of those parents will have stronger university applications than the children that have to work part time jobs. This perpetuates racially inequality

(Repeated cuz it's good, and i believe in helping people with special requirements)

Gosh, you're pretty arrogant huh? Ignorant peeps usually are.

Is "systemic" racism, where the parents have less money because racism is systemic too high a bar for your iq to clear?

Sheesh.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago

Not every racialized person reports experiencing racism. That can be for various reasons, one of the potential reasons is that they haven't experienced racism. Although I guess in that case they wouldn't be a racialized person... just a person of colour.