Woke is a Joke

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 7/11/2021 at 4:22 PM, winsor said:

I agree that a 'diversity hire' is often as competent (or incompetent, as the case may be) as candidates that otherwise work their way through the HR system.

Having said that, I have encountered people who were downright scary (von Moeltke's fourth type of officer: stupid and energetic and thus dangerous). 

Lots of dangerous old white guys in the workforce who never would have been hired or kept their jobs if it was based on competence.

[winsor 236]

14 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Lots of dangerous old white guys in the workforce who never would have been hired or kept their jobs if it was based on competence.

Making it about race is an exercise in obfuscation.

One of the points that was made in orientation for the pilot's union was that, once you're in you're basically unfireable.  I find that unconscionable and never became a member.

If we agree that competence and character are the primary considerations by which one should be employed, we are on the same page. 

[billvon 2,991]

31 minutes ago, winsor said:

I will credit you with being pedantic regarding the '19 year old kid,' but in context it applies to U.S. Servicemen, not 'white.'

Again, white US servicemen - certainly not those US servicemen who are Vietnamese.

Quote

People of arctic heritage in general handle very cold climates better and people from tropical heritage tend to do better in hot climates.  None of this is universally true, but it fits with my experience.

Yes, and black men generally do better with the heart medication Bidil.  There are certainly differences.  Acknowledging them is no problem.  Where you get in trouble is when you say "oh, he's black, so he must be a diversity hire - so let's keep an eye on him."

Quote

 

If a biological man wants to live as a woman, that's his prerogative.  The same goes for a woman who wants to live as a man.  As a matter of etiquette I'll play along with the role, but when people get excited about a 'man' giving birth, I call bullshit.

 

You can call "bullshit" on whatever you like.  (Note that Southerners called "bullshit" on interracial marriages for over a century.)  As long as you let them live how they like, then no worries.

Quote

If you think I should get all hung up on these 'differences,' I guess I'll have to disagree with you.

And if you think those "differences" do not result in bigotry and discrimination - and go away if you simply ignore those problems - then I will have to disagree with you.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

5 minutes ago, winsor said:

Making it about race is an exercise in obfuscation.

You have Affirmative Action as one of your gripes in the OP.

 

6 minutes ago, winsor said:

If we agree that competence and character are the primary considerations by which one should be employed, we are on the same page.

Do you believe that you have always cleared that bar? Don't think you maybe have been given some leeway along the way? You honestly 100% believe your achievements have only been based on competence and character?

[winsor 236]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Again, white US servicemen - certainly not those US servicemen who are Vietnamese.

Yes, and black men generally do better with the heart medication Bidil.  There are certainly differences.  Acknowledging them is no problem.  Where you get in trouble is when you say "oh, he's black, so he must be a diversity hire - so let's keep an eye on him."

You can call "bullshit" on whatever you like.  (Note that Southerners called "bullshit" on interracial marriages for over a century.)  As long as you let them live how they like, then no worries.

And if you think those "differences" do not result in bigotry and discrimination - and go away if you simply ignore those problems - then I will have to disagree with you.

You are going to have a hard time believing this, but easily 6 or 7 of the servicemen who were Southeast Asia were not white,  I seem to recall the odd Chiracahua, Navajo, Negro, Mulatto, Turk, Chicano, etc,, to include a Major General in the chain of command.  It was actually a Black guy who told me that "gooks are all the same."  Nice try..

When did I say "oh, he's black, so he must be a diversity hire - so let's keep an eye on him?"  Again, nice try.

Also, your apparent conclusion that I think "those "differences" do not result in bigotry and discrimination - and go away if you simply ignore those problems," is more indicative of a failure to communicate than anything I might conclude.

Like many issues, my point is not that there does not exist a problem, but that what is put forth is anything but a solution.

Two wrongs do not make a right.  Three lefts do.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[winsor 236]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

You have Affirmative Action as one of your gripes in the OP.

 

Do you believe that you have always cleared that bar? Don't think you maybe have been given some leeway along the way? You honestly 100% believe your achievements have only been based on competence and character?

Argumentum ad Hominem - Circumstantial does not make a point.

Beats Argumentum ad Hominem - Abusive, I suppose.

[jakee 1,489]

41 minutes ago, winsor said:

Also, your apparent conclusion that I think "those "differences" do not result in bigotry and discrimination - and go away if you simply ignore those problems," is more indicative of a failure to communicate than anything I might conclude.

And. Yet, despite the fact that it’s been pointed out many times, you persist in communicating poorly.

39 minutes ago, winsor said:

Like many issues, my point is not that there does not exist a problem, but that what is put forth is anything but a solution.

Your argument was explicitly that there is no need for any kind of solution.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Argumentum ad Hominem - Circumstantial does not make a point.

Beats Argumentum ad Hominem - Abusive, I suppose.

Not at all, it specifically speaks to the points you are trying to raise. Do you think you have enjoyed a certain privilege along the way or not?

[winsor 236]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Not at all, it specifically speaks to the points you are trying to raise. Do you think you have enjoyed a certain privilege along the way or not?

No, I don't give it much thought at all. 

You play the hand you're dealt, and if you choose to bitch about it you can't expect much sympathy.

[mistercwood 287]

There's no finer example of privilege than being comfortable saying "I don't think there's a problem anymore, so no one else should either".

[billvon 2,991]

6 hours ago, winsor said:

You are going to have a hard time believing this, but easily 6 or 7 of the servicemen who were Southeast Asia were not white,  I seem to recall the odd Chiracahua, Navajo, Negro, Mulatto, Turk, Chicano, etc,, to include a Major General in the chain of command.  It was actually a Black guy who told me that "gooks are all the same."  Nice try..

So you are saying that US servicemen who were Vietnamese called the people in Vietnam "a bunch of gooks?"  Yeah, I'm going to call bullshit on that.  I think you made a very standard, safe assumption and got called on it.  Which you can do 99.9% of the time and get away with it - white privilege and all that.

Quote

Like many issues, my point is not that there does not exist a problem, but that what is put forth is anything but a solution.

Good.  Yes, there is a problem.  There are a lot of potential solutions.  "I am race blind, and so from my perspective there's nothing to change!" is not one of them.  Nor is "I don't give it much thought at all; not my problem."

 

[jakee 1,489]

7 hours ago, winsor said:

No, I don't give it much thought at all. 

You play the hand you're dealt, and if you choose to bitch about it you can't expect much sympathy.

So again, how do you think it makes you look that this entire thread is about you bitching about having once lost a job to a minority candidate?

[olofscience 480]

11 hours ago, winsor said:

Argumentum ad Hominem - Circumstantial does not make a point.

Your entire argument here is about *your* experience in the workplace, now you're saying that anecdotes and personal experience are circumstantial?

Why don't you present some national statistics and data then to support your argument please.

[winsor 236]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

So you are saying that US servicemen who were Vietnamese called the people in Vietnam "a bunch of gooks?"  Yeah, I'm going to call bullshit on that.  I think you made a very standard, safe assumption and got called on it.  Which you can do 99.9% of the time and get away with it - white privilege and all that.

Good.  Yes, there is a problem.  There are a lot of potential solutions.  "I am race blind, and so from my perspective there's nothing to change!" is not one of them.  Nor is "I don't give it much thought at all; not my problem."

 

You certainly know your way around a fallacy.  Insisting that by U.S. servicemen I am referring to those of Vietnamese origin is beneath you (or at least should be).

As far as 'race blind' goes, I am a big fan of leaving race and sex out of a hiring equation in the sense of a Juilliard audition, where the panel cannot see the musician and has to judge on the merits of play alone.

Professional licensing exams similarly filter out those who know the material cold from those that take too much time to get the answer.  There are Engineers who aren't fast enough to pass the F.E. or P.E. exam, but are knowledgeable and meticulous enough that I'd trust their work with my life.  There are others who have degrees from apparently reputable schools that leave me wondering quite how the hell they got the sheepskin.

Over lunch we may talk about our cultures of origin - cuisine, history, culture and so forth - but on the job the issues are entirely professional, and none of that is a factor.

I reserve the right to decide who I trust with my life.  Whether I trust a Pilot, A&P, Rigger or surgeon has nothing to do with what they look like.  If I'm going into surgery I don't give a damn whether the Anesthesiologist is of Sicilian or Bangladeshi extraction, a stomp down gorgeous female or looks like Quasimodo, if the two are equally competent.. 

If you expect me to give a pass to one group of people or 'oppress' another, I'll have to disappoint you.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[jakee 1,489]

30 minutes ago, winsor said:

I reserve the right to decide who I trust with my life.  Whether I trust a Pilot, A&P, Rigger or surgeon has nothing to do with what they look like.  If I'm going into surgery I don't give a damn whether the Anesthesiologist is of Sicilian or Bangladeshi extraction, a stomp down gorgeous female or looks like Quasimodo, if the two are equally competent.. 

If you expect me to give a pass to one group of people or 'oppress' another, I'll have to disappoint you.

You certainly know your way around a strawman.

But again, if affirmative action exists and you end up working around certain people because of that, well that’s just the hand you’ve been dealt. Why do you feel the need to keep bitching about it?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

...As far as 'race blind' goes, I am a big fan of leaving race and sex out of a hiring equation in the sense of a Juilliard audition, where the panel cannot see the musician and has to judge on the merits of play alone...

 

Great. 

Let me know when (and if) we ever reach that point.

As of a few years ago, having a 'white sounding' name gave a person a significant better chance of getting an interview than a person with a 'black sounding' name.

 

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18/16307782/study-racism-jobs

[winsor 236]

16 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Great. 

Let me know when (and if) we ever reach that point.

As of a few years ago, having a 'white sounding' name gave a person a significant better chance of getting an interview than a person with a 'black sounding' name.

 

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18/16307782/study-racism-jobs

What I said before regarding genetics vs. culture stands.

It's been a few decades since I read the work, but IIRC Darwin observed finches fill niches in the Galapagos occupied by other birds in different ecosystems.  One thing that struck me when living in different cultures is that many of the social roles that are occupied by groups in the U.S. (Italian shoemakers, Irish cops, etc.) were similarly claimed by other subsets of the particular society, just not the same ones that are stereotypical here. 

As The Onion noted, "stereotypes are a real time saver."  I've actually seen people going to great lengths to achieve one stereotype or another - driving through South Philadelphia I recall seeing clutches of young men dressed according to the current uniform and young women with the  identical hairstyles and skirt length, for example.  I have occasionally assumed that someone was pulling my leg when they behaved according to a stereotype, only to find out that they were entirely serious.

What's in a name?  Sometimes quite a lot.  In some societies, there are legal restrictions on nomenclature on the basis of bloodline.  Naming a Jewish child is a big deal, and whether or not one is 'de', 'von' or 'van' has significant implications in a great deal of Europe.

The acting and musical professions are given to selecting names to correspond with the persona of the roles sought.  'Ethnic' sounding names of various persuasions are routinely ditched for more "benign" monikers.  Rather a few technical professionals whose names use a different alphabet will pick a name their colleagues can pronounce when working in the States.

The name on a resume can often give some idea of who is going to walk through the door.  The movie "Ted" had a great bit regarding guessing the name of a female from Boston the protagonist picked up.

Prejudice is a bad thing, where one says 'all people of this group are the same.'  Postjudice, OTOH, is sometimes justified, where experience with a group gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect.  ALL frat boys are not the same, but restaurant owners have said they treat the waitstaff badly, don't tip and often skip out on the check.  When the fleet is in port, one can have general expectations of the sailors, English football fans have a high percentage of hooligans (I've known rather a few), and so forth.

If one's given name is "Billy Bob" or "La-a" (pronounced 'la-dash-ah'), it can affect the expectations of HR.

Oddly enough, the 'old boy' or other network can be a great equalizer.  Having someone you trust vouch for the professionalism and work ethic of an applicant goes a long way.  Getting a tepid endorsement from the same source can take a first pick down a notch or two.

My point is not that these things don't exist, but that it is not always as simple as it seems, and understanding the dynamics can go a long way toward minimizng unfairness.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

 

 

[wmw999 2,447]

So I guess from this, if people fall into groups that are others are prejudiced against, sucks to be them, and the government shouldn't do anything about it because it's human nature.

"Those people" do, in fact, get equal protection under the law, and an equal chance at the pursuit of happiness. Since in the US we've pretty well monetized the pursuit of happiness, that means equal access to the means of making money. Not equal money, but an equal chance -- free of at least some of that human nature. Restaurants can't tell people based on what they look like that they can't eat there, even if they're frat boys or the parents of toddlers (another difficult group). They can based on dress (dress is a choice), and individuals by name or picture, based on prior behavior.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,489]

37 minutes ago, winsor said:

What I said before regarding genetics vs. culture stands.

It's been a few decades since I read the work, but IIRC Darwin observed finches fill niches in the Galapagos occupied by other birds in different ecosystems.  One thing that struck me when living in different cultures is that many of the social roles that are occupied by groups in the U.S. (Italian shoemakers, Irish cops, etc.) were similarly claimed by other subsets of the particular society, just not the same ones that are stereotypical here. 

As The Onion noted, "stereotypes are a real time saver."  I've actually seen people going to great lengths to achieve one stereotype or another - driving through South Philadelphia I recall seeing clutches of young men dressed according to the current uniform and young women with the  identical hairstyles and skirt length, for example.  I have occasionally assumed that someone was pulling my leg when they behaved according to a stereotype, only to find out that they were entirely serious.

What's in a name?  Sometimes quite a lot.  In some societies, there are legal restrictions on nomenclature on the basis of bloodline.  Naming a Jewish child is a big deal, and whether or not one is 'de', 'von' or 'van' has significant implications in a great deal of Europe.

The acting and musical professions are given to selecting names to correspond with the persona of the roles sought.  'Ethnic' sounding names of various persuasions are routinely ditched for more "benign" monikers.  Rather a few technical professionals whose names use a different alphabet will pick a name their colleagues can pronounce when working in the States.

The name on a resume can often give some idea of who is going to walk through the door.  The movie "Ted" had a great bit regarding guessing the name of a female from Boston the protagonist picked up.

Prejudice is a bad thing, where one says 'all people of this group are the same.'  Postjudice, OTOH, is sometimes justified, where experience with a group gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect.  ALL frat boys are not the same, but restaurant owners have said they treat the waitstaff badly, don't tip and often skip out on the check.  When the fleet is in port, one can have general expectations of the sailors, English football fans have a high percentage of hooligans (I've known rather a few), and so forth.

If one's given name is "Billy Bob" or "La-a" (pronounced 'la-dash-ah'), it can affect the expectations of HR.

Oddly enough, the 'old boy' or other network can be a great equalizer.  Having someone you trust vouch for the professionalism and work ethic of an applicant goes a long way.  Getting a tepid endorsement from the same source can take a first pick down a notch or two.

My point is not that these things don't exist, but that it is not always as simple as it seems, and understanding the dynamics can go a long way toward minimizng unfairness.

Please explain to me how exactly this entire post is not just a defence of racist hiring practices?

If it’s not, then I genuinely have no idea what you’re trying to say - which is no surprise, since it’s pretty obvious that the vague and rambling nature of your posts is  intentionally designed to allow you to deny any meaning the reader takes from them.

Edited July 14, 2021 by jakee

[winsor 236]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

So I guess from this, if people fall into groups that are others are prejudiced against, sucks to be them, and the government shouldn't do anything about it because it's human nature.

"Those people" do, in fact, get equal protection under the law, and an equal chance at the pursuit of happiness. Since in the US we've pretty well monetized the pursuit of happiness, that means equal access to the means of making money. Not equal money, but an equal chance -- free of at least some of that human nature. Restaurants can't tell people based on what they look like that they can't eat there, even if they're frat boys or the parents of toddlers (another difficult group). They can based on dress (dress is a choice), and individuals by name or picture, based on prior behavior.

Wendy P.

Equal protection under the law is a good thing.

I referred to an article regarding a biker rodeo some time back.  A restauranteur was asked if he was afraid of all the hairy bikers, and his response was to the effect of 'nah, the guys that can afford a $30,000 bike tend to be pretty responsible, they're polite to the waitresses and they tip well.'

Asked if there was any group that did give him trouble, he responded 'frat boys - they are often rude, don't tip and are given to skipping out on the check.'

I'm pretty sure I do not recommend anything but equal rights and equal opportunities, no more, no less - even for frat boys.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

If it’s not, then I genuinely have no idea what you’re trying to say - which is no surprise, since it’s pretty obvious that the vague and rambling nature of your posts is  intentionally designed to allow you to deny any meaning the reader takes from them.

It is nothing more than a more verbose way of saying "I am not racist, I have a black friend".

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

I'm pretty sure I do not recommend anything but equal rights and equal opportunities, no more, no less - even for frat boys.

So why did you bring it up? What point were you making? How does the example provide anything useful to the discussion of whether it’s ok to discriminate against candidates with ethnic sounding names?

 

Because the way you structured your post really, really, really made it sound like you were saying it’s ok for HR to discriminate against someone called La-a because their name shows they part of an undesirable group, just like the frat boys at the restaurant. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by jakee

[billvon 2,991]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

As The Onion noted, "stereotypes are a real time saver."  I've actually seen people going to great lengths to achieve one stereotype or another - driving through South Philadelphia I recall seeing clutches of young men dressed according to the current uniform and young women with the  identical hairstyles and skirt length, for example.  I have occasionally assumed that someone was pulling my leg when they behaved according to a stereotype, only to find out that they were entirely serious.

Yes, they are.  You don't have to think too hard; just avoid hiring blacks, for example, because they are lazy.  Not a good outcome, IMO.

Quote

The name on a resume can often give some idea of who is going to walk through the door.  The movie "Ted" had a great bit regarding guessing the name of a female from Boston the protagonist picked up.

Yes, that's also true.  People with black-sounding names are hired less often, and admitted to colleges less often, than people with white-sounding names.  Same with female vs male names.  I had a friend who named her daughters ambiguous names so that they would not be discriminated against based on gender.

(And no, that's not a good thing, either.)

Quote

Oddly enough, the 'old boy' or other network can be a great equalizer.  Having someone you trust vouch for the professionalism and work ethic of an applicant goes a long way.  Getting a tepid endorsement from the same source can take a first pick down a notch or two.

Absolutely.  Unless you're black; then you generally don't get to be part of that system.  Same thing for women.

That's a great example of privilege.  It doesn't mean you are guaranteed success.  It just means you get your foot in the door via that network.

Quote

Prejudice is a bad thing, where one says 'all people of this group are the same.'  Postjudice, OTOH, is sometimes justified, where experience with a group gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect.  ALL frat boys are not the same, but restaurant owners have said they treat the waitstaff badly, don't tip and often skip out on the check.  When the fleet is in port, one can have general expectations of the sailors, English football fans have a high percentage of hooligans (I've known rather a few), and so forth.

I've been mugged exactly once, by a black man near Times Square.  If I wisely used "postjudice" to decide that blacks were therefore criminals (because I have direct personal experience) it would still make me a racist.

When I was at my second job, the CEO said loudly (after interviewing a clerk) "We can't hire her!  She just got married.  She'll just get pregnant and take a lot of time off."  Again, he was basing that on past experience.  Again, it still makes him a sexist.

[metalslug 36]

Quote

The issue is that no CITIZEN or HUMAN BEING should ever be treated like that.  White people generally are not.  Black people more often are.  That's the problem.  The goal should be to make sure no one is ever treated like that.  Since it happens to black people more often, you have to do more work there.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease ?  If the ethnicity aspect of crime statistics (Floyd's fate was a crime, I agree) should be used to determine a preferred remedial action then.... if law enforcement were to disproportionately stop, search, detain specific groups based on statistical data indicating a crime trend within such groups, or within an area having a demographic majority of such a group,  then that's OK too ?  ..or does it not cut both ways ?

[billvon 2,991]

10 minutes ago, metalslug said:

The squeaky wheel gets the grease ? 

And the burning house gets the water, yes.

Quote

If the ethnicity aspect of crime statistics (Floyd's fate was a crime, I agree) should be used to determine a preferred remedial action then.... if law enforcement were to disproportionately stop, search, detain specific groups based on statistical data indicating a crime trend within such groups, or within an area having a demographic majority of such a group,  then that's OK too ?

Nope.  The goal would be to prevent cops from profiling due to race, religion, wealth and connections.