I spend a lot of my time thinking about racism and economics

I spend a lot of my time thinking about racism and economics.

I was reading this book chapter by that old cunt Frances Piven and decided on this distinction.

For conservatives, libertarians, and most of the people right of center:
Racism can be an attitude
Racism can be a practice

But for Liberals, Progressives, and all the other degenerates left of center, racism can be other things too.
Racism can be an attitude
Racism can be a practice
Racism can be an OUTCOME (eh...)
Racism can be a SYSTEM (wew lad)

I think if we keep this stuff in mind, we can either figure out what other people are saying when they talk about this issue.

Other urls found in this thread:

ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1093/phr/117.5.426?journalCode=phrg
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16533114
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>I think if we keep this stuff in mind, we can either figure out what other people are saying when they talk about this issue.
I bet you think you stumbled onto some great concept and think you're somehow the only person who has ever considered anything like this. Newsflash: this shit has been parroted and regurgitated since the fucking 50s if we were all GREY BLOBS (the same in every way) eventually a splinter group would form and claim they are MORE GREY than everyone else solely due to human nature and the innate desire to be better than your peers. TLDR: you're full of shit and you should neck yourself. you arent helping the problem and you sure as hell aren't solving it.

my problem is that when i'm arguing with people, they don't know what they're talking about. they just have strong feelings and angry words. So I have to do double the work and figure out what they mean.

why in the hell would this make you mad?

ignore him, he didn't read your post.

you're right btw. lefties look at systems and outcomes to determine isms. probably part of that collectivist impulse. they seem to have trouble with individuals within groups flavoring the group itself.

>talking about subjectivity in objective reality is a good idea
It's not. And fools like you who continue to highlight these differences only yield even greater detriments such as "social capital" which coincidentally arose solely because someone pointed out such differences like you're doing now.

see fucking imbecile. your thoughts only fuel greater pushback from the very same people you try to convince otherwise.

If creating and using concepts that accurately reflect reality are to our detriment, I shudder to wonder what ways of thinking you propose to use instead.

P.S.
>that fucking feel when you have to figure out what the latest idiot is saying, god damn

what is a disparity? Define it. Do you even know? what disproportionately affects one group more than another? you bring this shit up and the natural response is to create a narrative to explain how such a thing could come about. An example would be again, "social capital" where whites are used as the benchmark to compare against all others in academia/economical standing which by DEFAULT will always place those who aren't white at a deficit in contrast to the benchmark. Now where did someone get the idea to use "x group" as the benchmark? Its from fucking pointing out differences in hopes to solve a problem that will never be fucking solved.

Well, my question was actually about ideas, not about differences between racial/ethnic groups as you seem to be going on about.

I'm pretty sure I know the sources of differences between blacks and whites.

My point was about the psychological bases of ideas and types arguments used by different groups of people when talking about this issue. And I'm pretty sure that those were distinct before and independent of ideas like "social capital" or some other such buzzwords.

So you are saying that all argument and scholarship is pointless, and i guess we should just have rahowa and be done with it?

>Racism can be
its stupid shit like this that has caused the term "microagressions" to come about. Now its subjective racism to frown at someone while you walk by them and the reason why subjective racism is considered actual racism? its because idiots spouting objective reasoning to subjectively minded individuals.

fucking A'
you are absolutely madman for these details that don't matter

"Murder can be caused by drowning."
"Murder can be caused by asphyxiation."
Did anyone accuse this of creating unhelpful confusion in favor murderers?

>you are absolutely madman for these details that don't matter
you say that now but ask yourself how did we (collectively) get to this point where you had to post your OP? does the examples albeit small not snowball into a much larger problem(s) that create implications like your original question?

My problem is that some of these idiots pushing for subjective solutions would have never come to such reasoning if it had not been put there in the first place by highlighting objective differences.
>and i guess we should just have rahowa and be done with it?
I don't have an answer

I agree with this post


can you give me an example of the subjective solution to an objective "problem" (maybe it doesn't even need a solution and is just a difference that doesn't and shouldn't matter)

"Blacks are incarcerated more often than others" therefore "society/third party factor or must be the problem"
ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43
To the subjective mind the stats never mattered what matters is the possibilities that lead to such a "problematic" scenario. The subjective mind will focus on the nurture aspect, disregarding the nature aspect entirely.
I only bring up this specific difference because I majored in Health (not kinesthetics) and I talk about it a lot because I have to write the grants for these....individuals

The subjective solution is to naturally create a comparison to assess progress between groups. How does one create equality between objective differences? you cant. So emotional retort trumps practicality in regards to paper evidence.

I follow you and I agree.

If you look at scientific journals and professionals who write about criminology, you will find the problem stated as being caused by

1) differential involvement (blacks are doing more crime and therefore get caught more often)
2) discrimination (policeman is looking for any excuse to put blacks in jail)

All the professionals agree that both 1 and 2 are at work. But they are too embarrassed to say how much is 1 and how much is 2.

On the other hand, this subjective person says differential involvement is impossible and that it is all discrimination.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1093/phr/117.5.426?journalCode=phrg
or just type in "What is a Health Disparity Deborah Whitehead"
The study itself is the "gold standard" by which the UN, WHO, CDC, etc base all economical/social standings. It polarizes quickly because population (due to the subjective mind) is no longer measured by actual numbers, but rather on how well "abc group" fares against "X benchmark"

Under this definition population determines whether or not "abc group" is a minority. Since "x group" is always used as the benchmark only the negatives of "x group" in contrast to "abc group" are focused on.

Thank you, I'll read it.

For the benchmark issue, consider how social campaigners in Western countries ache and moan about how bad the poor have it, when the poor in the West are fantastically wealthy by world standards and the history of the human race.

I think now I get what you mean when you say subjective. The objective reality doesn't matter, only the position of the day.

The solution to "racism" is just ignoring race but over the past few decades this has proven to not be enough because some racial groups under preform in certain areas. We just have to hold out for a few more years until population genetics gets advanced enough to BTFO all the social constructionists.

jbp is absolutely right about the entire SJW tradition being motivated by neo-marxism

>ignore race
>they just say your part of the problem
Our hands are literally tied, if your forced into a conversation about race you either conform or look like some kind of 1488 fucker. White people are being handed an even worse deal since their expected to just say nothing because "all white people are biased" identity politics is a cancer.

objective differences must be met with objective solutions. Probably the same concept as mentioned here however no one points out that 1 can be measured while 2 cannot be measured. For what is discrimination? someone calls me "x name" can bother me or it maybe it doesn't. How does one measure this? That is the inherent flaw of subjective reasoning in an objective scenario and why race relations have and will continue to be at odds.

Its a stupid as asking "on a scale of 1-10 how much discrimination did you experience?" to the objective mind, you either experienced discrimination or you didn't.

Welfare is racist? Great, so when do you leftards abolish it so that you can stop taxing the shit out of me?

Actually, there are some innovative research designs to measure discrimination. You know the job application test?

We send out two samples of identical resumes to companies, the control is white or normal name and the test is a typically stupid black name (DeMarshavion, etc). Although credentials are identical, 2nd group gets ignored more often.

This isn't the end of the matter, but it shows how you can test some of this effect.

It's really perverse. What she writes is that the welfare system doesn't give enough money to blacks, and is therefore racist.

Is that not just seeped in logical fallacy though? if one is privy to "social capital" or any other of the notorious buzzwords explaining objective difference it would only make sense to hire from "X benchmark" since the contrast in relation to "abc group" yields greater efficiency? This fallacy leads to affirmative action, another topic entirely.

Yes completely. So of course Jews hire all the "greenberg" and "liebowitz" and "shapiro" resume that come across their desk.

This discrimination is everywhere all the time, everyone does it. What is wrong is to say that this should disappear (impossible) or that it causes all the problems (it doesn't).

What we could use it for is to measure how much of black people's poverty is due to missing out on a certain job interview due to having a stupid black name. So objective assessment of objective reality. But SJW can't do this, because the results will be bad for them.

Why would the left do that? They are happy with their control over the blacks and getting them to vote for them.

᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎ ᠎

Here was the main study that I focused on in school and have been forced to continually reference ANYTIME an ethical issue arises from behind my desk as directed by my employer (I work non-profit, however for-profit follows the exact same guidelines)
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16533114
same as however it goes over in detail how liberals have declared/excused behavior from "abc group" specifically because of detriments found in contrast to "X benchmark"

case and point, population based on anything other than numbers yields purposeful exclusion of any group holding the title of benchmark. One cannot be oppressed if there is no oppressor and this methodology is used solely to create an "oppressor" so that groups can be "oppressed."

Thank you for this paper also

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16533114
Explains why "racial/ethnic disparities have been the primary focus of government initiatives during this time period" (page 172). My conclusion is that is race determines the amount of USD spent then disproportionately affected subpopulations (blacks) benefit the most at the price of other subpopulations (asians) as well as the majority (whites) as EQUAL OUTCOME is forced not EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. This causes paying into a system that they (asians, whites, Benchmark groups) will never use/need themselves allowing "abc group" to live off the backside of the comparison group.

is that (if) race determines.....*

and in the end, assuming my conclusion is correct, that is true racism.