Red Mosquito

I read the entire article.

I've read both of these books this year, I'd recommend either or both of them if you're interested.



Alexander's book is replete with evidence of a shift from overt racist policies to colorblind policies that claim to be race-neutral but whose purpose and application has been to extend those racist policies in a way that is palatable for a society in which it's no longer polite or acceptable to burn crosses and say the n-word. This is an excellent book that is simultaneously easy and extremely difficult to read. She does an excellent job destroying the myth that the Supreme Court's liberal 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rulings of the 1960s have had the impact that is taught in political science classes.

The Rothstein book is written from an interesting starting place. His premise is to accept the modern Supreme Court's contention that only de jure (and specifically not de facto) racist policies violate the equal protection clause and are therefore capable of being remedied by the courts. He then spends the book compiling a depressingly long list of evidence to argue that nothing about the current state of America just happened, rather it has been the deliberate result of intentional state, local, and federal policies. It's a bit drier than Alexander's book but I found its perspective fresh.

tree_ wrote:https://quillette.com/2018/08/24/the-problem-with-white-fragility-theory/

Socialization and acculturation are powerful forces in the development of one’s capacity to think critically about social, political, and economic issues, but they do not make it impossible. To believe otherwise is to replace the scientific method (ironically enough) with a reactionary reflexive need to categorize any objections—reasonable or otherwise—as manifestations of ‘white fragility.’ In other words, ‘white fragility’ becomes an Orwellian device to dismiss objections from white people in the same way that ‘bourgeois’ was a semantic weapon to dismiss the objections of ‘capitalists’ to communist doctrine.

This is the point. He's not saying he doesn't want to talk about it. He's not saying bias isn't a thing. He's saying it's dangerous and irresponsible to believe it's in every white person all the time and to completely abandon science.

Rob wrote:Are you saying implicit bias doesn't exist?

I believe the author is suggesting that the effects of implicit bias cannot be proven via testing, which is well documented:

https://lnu.se/globalassets/lmdswp201511.pdf
https://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/ ... P.2009.pdf

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it means we cannot create reproducible studies proving implicit bias is an actual motivation in detectable discriminatory behavior like we would with researching saying that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. This is besides the point though because it's not the reproducibility that is the issue, it's the automatic attribution of racist motivations to those that question the social science and activism behind antiracism that makes it so irrational and difficult to have an honest discussion on. It's like the inquisition where questioning the charges of the interrogator is proof you reject the church's authority and thus are guilty.

Hey, remember when the RM Braintrust™ tried to convince us that this was just some fringe element that had no real impact on society?

For the record, I believe systemic racism and implicit bias are real. My objection is to the idea that systems that have done so much for so many must be destroyed in order to fix them. In less than a generation we've gone from don't ask, don't tell to enshrining trans rights... that's incredible.

BurtReynolds wrote:Hey, remember when the RM Braintrust™ tried to convince us that this was just some fringe element that had no real impact on society?

oh my god burt what insane shit filters into your brain

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Hey, remember when the RM Braintrust™ tried to convince us that this was just some fringe element that had no real impact on society?

oh my god burt what insane shit filters into your brain

"Haha you're crazy bro none of this is happening bro..."

Guys, I'm legit worried about Burt.

Somebody unscramble burt please

Who's mostly likely to be in this cult, strat or durden?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... semen.html

https://onezero.medium.com/amp/p/f3878f ... ssion=true

Take care of yourself, man.

Bi_3 wrote:For the record, I believe systemic racism and implicit bias are real. My objection is to the idea that systems that have done so much for so many must be destroyed in order to fix them. In less than a generation we've gone from don't ask, don't tell to enshrining trans rights... that's incredible.

What a perfectly bi_3 post

Fight the power, Karen

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:For the record, I believe systemic racism and implicit bias are real. My objection is to the idea that systems that have done so much for so many must be destroyed in order to fix them. In less than a generation we've gone from don't ask, don't tell to enshrining trans rights... that's incredible.

What a perfectly bi_3 post

I wouldn't want to disappoint.

durdencommatyler wrote:Guys, I'm legit worried about Burt.

I don't know, he seems fine to me.

tree_ wrote:I am saying that in order to know something exists, you should require proof first. Otherwise, it is a faith based belief.

Strat, I didn't know who the guy was. I read the article and he made some interesting points. Care to argue against the points? I'm listening.

If I may make a suggestion, I think you would end a read of Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman with a lot of stimulating questions in your head, each of which you would enjoy pursuing.

Birds in Hell wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Guys, I'm legit worried about Burt.

I don't know, he seems fine to me.

4/5 wrote:I've read both of these books this year, I'd recommend either or both of them if you're interested.



Alexander's book is replete with evidence of a shift from overt racist policies to colorblind policies that claim to be race-neutral but whose purpose and application has been to extend those racist policies in a way that is palatable for a society in which it's no longer polite or acceptable to burn crosses and say the n-word. This is an excellent book that is simultaneously easy and extremely difficult to read. She does an excellent job destroying the myth that the Supreme Court's liberal 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rulings of the 1960s have had the impact that is taught in political science classes.

The Rothstein book is written from an interesting starting place. His premise is to accept the modern Supreme Court's contention that only de jure (and specifically not de facto) racist policies violate the equal protection clause and are therefore capable of being remedied by the courts. He then spends the book compiling a depressingly long list of evidence to argue that nothing about the current state of America just happened, rather it has been the deliberate result of intentional state, local, and federal policies. It's a bit drier than Alexander's book but I found its perspective fresh.

I did a quick search of Rothstein and found this interview https://belonging.berkeley.edu/segregat ... o-accident
Would you say that is an accurate summary of the book? I found it really interesting. Anyway, thanks for sharing.

The resultant effects of housing segregation are one of the reasons I think there should be reparations. That was in our parent's lifetimes, not some distant ancestry.