Another example of woke hiring practices gone wrong.
Also a glaring lack of skills in that case. How on earth did a bunch of them fail to physically control that guy right up front when they had (wrongly i think) decided to arrest him.
edit: I struck that part thru because i really don't know, the story i heard started with the cops fully activated for untold reasons
Do you seriously believe that all people who protest discrimination in the US believe exactly the same things? Because you're doing the same sort of broad-brush sweeping condemnation of people pushing against different forms of discrimination in this country.
I'm trying hard to be polite here, but you're making that difficult for me.
and hey, you might change my mind.
Of course not. I'm doing no such thing.
I don't think I've given you cause to say anything like that. I think you're engaging in a polite performative outrage for the audience here.
I doubt that, but I'll tell you about an observation from the where-microaggressions-really-come-from paper. There's power that derives from being the victim, allies come to your aid, authority hears you. As equality is approached, that kind of power wanes, less victimhood, less power. In order to maintain the same degree of that kind of power, smaller issues have to be inflated. Hence microaggressions and the oppression of ill-fitting equestrian helmets.
Here's a more clear example of smaller grievances being blown up to maintain this kind of power. Was listening to an NPR interview a few years ago, in the aftermath of George Floyd. Three black police officers from three different generations. The first, as a kid in the 50s, well known dirty cops beat the crap out of him for no reason other than him being black, this was common in Detroit. In the 60s this badass joined the force because of how unacceptable that was. He experienced overt racism on the job, they called him you-know-what and people flat out refused to ride patrol with the you-know-what. He soldiered on and eventually became chief of police (total badass). The second was a middle manger cop lady from LA, surprised her friends when she joined up in the 80s, she needed a job and could do the job and it worked for her. Nothing overt in her face, but she definitely overheard racist/sexist comments, sometimes she thought (and was probably right) that they were doing it on purpose in her presence. The last was a young guy who joined up in the 00s, can't remember where. He didn't hear or see anything that he could point at as explicitly racist or sexist, but he had a vague "feeling" that sometimes his co-workers thought less of him. He was pressed to confess more wrongdoing than that but didn't. What happened after this telling of stories made my jaw drop. The middle manager cop lady says something like "it's so frustrating that even after 60 years we all have the same story and face the same racist discrimination". Even more jaw dropping, the NPR interviewer didn't push back on that at all or ask for clarification given the obvious differences in their stories.
At the time I was listening to that interview I was already familiar with the "victimhood/microaggressions" paper and clearly recognized that social phenomena they had described at work.
Are the police wrong to be more wary depending on circumstances with statistical relevance?
Suppose prejudice is eliminated as a cause. At best, we could expect unarmed black and whites to be killed at equal rates. That would do very little to solve the problem of unarmed PEOPLE losing their life at the hands of the police. In absolute terms we're talking single digit number of lives saved. Imo, focusing on this problem thru the lens of race is genuinely hurting more than helping. I think the narrative that cops indiscriminately kill black people makes it more likely for a black person to resist arrest thus making a bad outcome more likely. There's also opportunity cost being lost on other more effective approaches that would be more broadly supported. Many of the bad outcomes happen after the cop(s) have lost physical control. I think intense skills training to help them avoid losing control could help a lot more than things like racial sensitivity training or preferentially hiring black cops.
For a variety of reasons, including the relative age of the black vs white population, the rate of crime among the black population is higher. When that's controlled for, the disparity largely melts away. Roland Fryer's "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Difference in the Police Use of Force" showed this. Pretty sure other's studies have too. The denominator we should be looking at is "per crime-committing capita" or "per capita-interacting-with-police".
That last portion makes sense: in those circumstances where the police are confronting people, what is the rate at which they use force? Not: how many people in the entire population are the victim of police violence?
But, imagining myself as a policeman, doing the job every day, and knowing that the rate of crime among the black population is higher by statistics (and likely the tone of my fellow officers' experience), then I'm going to see those interactions through the lens of "more likely to be a problem" when the person is black. Add to that the push (via Second Amendment) to make sure there are plenty of guns in our society - and the resulting violence is inevitable.
What can be done to change any of this, assuming we can't miraculously make prejudice go away independently, miraculously? That's probably a much more complex question that doesn't belong on this forum.
Don't know where you pulled that from, but this has more info and breakdowns.
Including the fact that police have killed black Americans at 2.9x the rate of white Americans in 2022 - on a per capita basis.
But, from a different source., looking at total numbers.
Would be nice if everyone said the same thing, huh?
Yes, those are facts I'm familiar with. But "per capita" is not really the right denominator to be looking at. For a variety of reasons, including the relative age of the black vs white population, the rate of crime among the black population is higher. When that's controlled for, the disparity largely melts away. Roland Fryer's "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Difference in the Police Use of Force" showed this. Pretty sure other's studies have too. The denominator we should be looking at is "per crime-committing capita" or "per capita-interacting-with-police".
The propagandistic activism leads people to believe that cops hunt black people because they are black. I know that to not be true.
If this problem were not hyper-racialized, would it be easier to make progress on, would there be more public support for fixing it? Would there be a higher likelihood of identifying and advancing changes that might actually help?
A Texas Republican Judge is wanting to take away the FDA's approval of Mifepristone for women, yet Viagra is still sancrosact for men. One gender's Healthcare is being decided upon religious BELIEF. No gender issues here, right?
What other drugs could lead Republicans to try to overthrow the FDA's ruling on them? HIV meds? Contraception? We're talking real world LIFE implications here based on cultural discomfort, not "Gee, its so irritating not to be able to put a Penthouse calendar on the men's bathroom wall or make jokes about gay men in our dept."
I don't see BLM and woke groups calling for the overthrow of the US government and the rejection of free and fair elections in America. I don't see BLM and woke groups passing legislation at the state level that sharply limits what teachers can teach students about racism, American history, biology, human sexuality, etc. I do see right-wing politician groups and politicians doing those things.
To mollify parents and obey new state laws, teachers are cutting all sorts of lessons
Again: There will always be a spectrum of beliefs and approaches within social movements. There will ALSO be a spectrum of reactions to such movements. Wouldn't you find it objectionable if I claimed that all Republican legislatures are working to control what's taught in schools, overthrow the US government, place minority groups in permanent subjugation, and make Trump king for life? Because you're doing the same sort of broad-brush sweeping condemnation of people pushing against different forms of discrimination in this country.
"Obvious rhymes with revolutionary Maoist Marxism.
Equality is good, equity, not so much.
Have you examined what the woke academics actually say? It's not good."
Do you seriously believe that all people who protest discrimination in the US believe exactly the same things? That they've all been indoctrinated and brainwashed into lockstep fervor, like a mass version of the Manchurian Candidate? Social movements are messy, often incoherent and filled with disagreements among people supporting them. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other organizers of non-violent protests worked hard to instill a disciplined behavior amongst their followers: don't respond to violence with violence, don't damage or loot property. They weren't always successful. And at the end of his life in April 1968, King was eclipsed by other leaders like Stokely Carmichael and the Black Panthers who called for more open confrontation.
There will always be a spectrum of beliefs and approaches within social movements.
I don't see BLM and woke groups calling for the overthrow of the US government and the rejection of free and fair elections in America. I don't see BLM and woke groups passing legislation at the state level that sharply limits what teachers can teach students about racism, American history, biology, human sexuality, etc. I do see right-wing politician groups and politicians doing those things.
To mollify parents and obey new state laws, teachers are cutting all sorts of lessons
Again: There will always be a spectrum of beliefs and approaches within social movements. There will ALSO be a spectrum of reactions to such movements. Wouldn't you find it objectionable if I claimed that all Republican legislatures are working to control what's taught in schools, overthrow the US government, place minority groups in permanent subjugation, and make Trump king for life? Because you're doing the same sort of broad-brush sweeping condemnation of people pushing against different forms of discrimination in this country.
I'm trying hard to be polite here, but you're making that difficult for me.
@mnordman: What you wrote isn't quite word salad...at first. But then you really go off the rails.
Woke thinking and protests point out that prejudices and biases can be embedded in our society, despite law-based attempts to eradicate and prosecute explicit discrimination.
https://www.merriam-webster.co...woke: aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
You wrote: "Race/gender should have less prominence, not more, yet wokeness gives it more."
Because, despite your protest that we were making such good progress, others believe (with overwhelming evidence) that Americans still endure discrimination because of their skin color and gender. Discrimination doesn't disappear just because you have street protests and pass laws, despite the hope of the 1960s. It rises and falls because of changing economic and social conditions. Some groups feel that their jobs or social status are threatened, and they focus on another group on as the cause of that threat. Immigrants are taking our jobs! We'll all have to learn Spanish! Women libbers want to make us apologize for being men! Those Blacks just steal and sponge off welfare! Wokeism will re-order society based on racial/gender lines!
You toss off references to supposed debunkers of signs of discrimination—Susanna Hoff Sommers and Wildred Reilly, for instance. Provide summaries of their thoughts and/or links backing up your claims. If their evidence is so compelling, I'm sure you'll have no problems stepping up—and hey, you might change my mind.
"I'm sure you know the names of multiple black people that died, unarmed, at the hands of the police. It tragically happens about 12 times per year. Do you know that roughly twice as many white people are similarly killed by cops? Do you know any of their names?"
Show your source to back up this claim that twice as many unarmed White people die at the hands of police than Black people. I will say this: I haven't seen any videos of White people dying in such a way. I'm sure that the police do kill unarmed White people. I've seen a lot of videos of Black people dying that way, though. And no, that's not due to media bias:
Don't know where you pulled that from, but this has more info and breakdowns.
Including the fact that police have killed black Americans at 2.9x the rate of white Americans in 2022 - on a per capita basis.
But, from a different source., looking at total numbers.
Would be nice if everyone said the same thing, huh?
I suppose you just pick the chart you want to make the point you want: blacks are killed more than whites as a proportion, but more whites are killed in total.
In the world of the future, centuries out, nobody will imagine starting a sentence with "As a black woman". Wokeness takes us farther away from that world where there is no discrimination on the basis of race/gender. Race/gender should have less prominence, not more, yet wokeness gives it more. If you agree with that vision of the future, this is reason to at least raise a little doubt.
I posted earlier that I notice the same. If the real desire were that everyone is equal (without retribution for some version of history being factored in, because we're supposed to be equal now, not just now subjugating some other group due to our race or gender or religion) then our observations wouldn't have to be prefaced with some sort of "through my race/gender-lens" because we wouldn't need that qualifier.
Now, I can say that, because my people, my freckels-on-my-back people, have always been trod upon by those without freckles on their back.
(See how throwing in qualifiers doesn't make the statement more true or honest. Instead, it implies a bit of "you can't understand me because you're not me" which just invalidates anything the other might be feeling. Does that help create society, or fragment it into us/them?)
Laborious word salad to support Chicken Little's distraction from solving 1. Immigration 2. Inflation 3. Making solvent SS and Medicare 4. Insisting that Citizen's United Corporate Get-out-of-paying-for-20-years-in-Afghanistan-by-implying Medicare and SS caused it all.
Let's ignore massive tax cuts for Corporations that do NOT end; but the Middle Class' does this year. Or a gung ho Bush War that the Pentagon STILL cannot account for $12 and $8 BILLION, respectively. Just ask for the links, dahlinks.
Where are you getting this notion that wokeism is going to lead to segregation? Do you believe that merely by pointing out inequalities and injustices in our society, or by changing the use of the English language to acknowledge a spectrum of gender identities, we are going to separate people into different and distinct groups?
In the world of the future, centuries out, nobody will imagine starting a sentence with "As a black woman". Wokeness takes us farther away from that world where there is no discrimination on the basis of race/gender. Race/gender should have less prominence, not more, yet wokeness gives it more. If you agree with that vision of the future, this is reason to at least raise a little doubt.
Remember Occupy Wall Street? I was a fan at first, but then it got weird. They were segregating groups by race (yes really) and did this creepy thing where a speaker would speak a sentence, then the assembled audience would repeat it back. Bizarre, cultish. This was my first early glimpse of "wokeness". It went back underground for me for a few more years until Fergusson.
Part of the reason we have such different opinions is because what you know to be true, I know to be not true. So in my view, the conclusions you've reached are based on fallacies. And vice versa.
There is no wage gap, that's been debunked. See Christina Hoff Sommers for an explanation. Funny story, a few years ago a woman in San Fran was suing Google for pay discrimination, meanwhile Google was performing an audit of it's pay structure. As a result of the audit, Google had to give a number of men pay raises because the men were being underpaid relative to their female co-workers.
You seem to almost equate disparity with discrimination. Ibram X. Kendi certainly does. But that's grossly over simplistic and ultimately incorrect. Yes there are disparities, for a variety of nuanced reasons. See Wildred Reilly's TABOO - 10 FACTS for an explanation. I'm sure you know the names of multiple black people that died, unarmed, at the hands of the police. It tragically happens about 12 times per year. Do you know that roughly twice as many white people are similarly killed by cops? Do you know any of their names?
Cops are hunting black people. 400 years of slavery. Hands up don't shoot. How many times have you heard such things? None are true. This is how propaganda works. The propagandistic nature of the movement should at least give you a little pause.
Izzy's negative reaction is almost seething, yet she knows absolutely nothing about me. It's reminiscent of religious intolerance towards a heretic. The cultish religiosity is all the more reason to question.
Obvious rhymes with revolutionary Maoist Marxism.
Equality is good, equity, not so much.
Have you examined what the woke academics actually say? It's not good. From a paper entitled "Does Critical Pedagogy Work with Privileged Students'':
"In our notion of a pedagogy for the oppressor", it's more like putting them in the "hot seat".
"However we should not confuse the pedagogy for the oppressor with the pedagogy of the oppressed."
What this paper is saying is to make white kids uncomfortable, put them in a "hot seat", and also that black students should not be treated like that. What they're describing is along the lines of "struggle sessions" for white students. Psychological torture on the basis of race. This is all kinds of wrong.
Have you examined any thoughtful critiques of the critical social justice ideologies? Something that helped me to understand what's going on was a paper by a pair of sociologists in 2014. They expanded it into a full book, but the initial paper is more approachable. I don't have a link to it, but I can direct you to an informative review of the paper which is even more approachable, righeousmind.com / where-microaggressions-really-come-from
At the end of the day, I can't help but notice that something is seriously off with it all and I think you have a sugar coated understanding.
What do you consider the specific problems that need to be addressed that are not ?
My primary concerns, as mentioned in the link, are in regards to how it is affecting employment and corporate cultures. How one must embrace and support these "philosophies" in order to be employed and remain employed for example.
So, I guess what you are primarily referring to are those videos and training that happen during new hire onboarding (and probably annually) that many employees have to complete that involve such areas as: bias, inclusivity, bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment... just to name a few. Not sure which... if all of these... you feel fall into "wokeism". FYI, I have had to do this for at least the last (10 years) maybe more... well before "woke" became a thing.
What is your proposal? Get rid of all of it because you are opposed to it? You are opposed to inclusivity and are pro-bias, pro-discrimination and when you get right down to it... what workplace can't be spiced up with some sexual harassment and bullying from time to time⦠right?
Newsflash: You don't personally have to agree with every policy but "yes" you do need to follow them. That's the price you pay for being employed with said company. The company always gets to set the rules and they expect you to follow them. Don't want to? Well, run afoul of them and risk the consequences. Don't like that?... I guess self-employment would be your best option.
Your sense of entitlement seems to be a little out-of-wack. Or your understanding of corporate responsibility is lacking. Maybe both.
