Mythbusting white privilege

[Savy]

This is something I would like to focus on because I view the sentiment as the backbone of the privilege and social justice narrative. I have yet to be able to explain what I want to on it, but it does not sit right with me.

An example, a small proportion of people have been scrutinized by traffic enforcement to the degree that my brother once was. He fit the description: teenaged white male, crazy hair, and an aesthetically souped up car. He probably got pulled over a hundred times in two years because of his profile. It does not sit right with me to call his situation anti-privilege, which means it shouldn't sit right with me to call situations like my own (I drove a normal car and had a normal hair cut and I rarely entered cops' radars) privilege.

Is this you getting at your point previously where it exists but it does so for a reason, hence profiling etc being ok? I've only ever been stopped by police a few times in my life, those times when I've been committing minor crimes (i.e. pissing in the street) which I've talked my way out of & those times when I've been with black friends & been stopped for no reason. Admittedly only in London never in Manchester but at the same time most of my friends in Manchester are white, whereas in London they were much more mixed.

The reality is stereotyping exists as it's an easy way for humans to process the world, as communities get more mixed it goes away. If you create laws that destroy this mixing of people or enabling people to live among each other then it creates the tension which is the problem in the first place.

There's a difference in realising this is a thing and expecting it to disappear & it disappearing more naturally. I'm sure there are ways to force it but they tend to readjust negatively. I'm all for policies which expect x amount of people to be from certain backgrounds but they need to be done on a lower bound because that is what highlights the issue.

[wufwugy]

The reality is stereotyping exists as it's an easy way for humans to process the world

Indeed. It's a great leap from here to privilege.

I'm all for policies which expect x amount of people to be from certain backgrounds but they need to be done on a lower bound because that is what highlights the issue.

Those policies have been enacted and have made things worse for those groups. Example: affirmative action increases failure rates among blacks by placing a larger proportion of them in academic institutions and curriculum above their scores and skills.

[Savy]

Those policies have been enacted and have made things worse for those groups. Example: affirmative action increases failure rates among blacks by placing a larger proportion of them in academic institutions and curriculum above their scores and skills.

This is where I disagree, most policies don't address things the way I want them do. That's the whole point of a lower bound & that lower bound should raise issues not dictate them. For example if I own a company of 200 people and only 5 of them are women you should be able to explain why. Whereas explaining why it's not 50/50 is stupid.

[wufwugy]

This is where I disagree, most policies don't address things the way I want them do. That's the whole point of a lower bound & that lower bound should raise issues not dictate them. For example if I own a company of 200 people and only 5 of them are women you should be able to explain why. Whereas explaining why it's not 50/50 is stupid.

Even the most well-crafted and well-functioning policy and agency for this would provide results less good than having none in the first place. The economic principle at work is that when a company discriminates on things like this, it increases their costs and lowers the costs of their competitors, which undermines the poorly discriminating company's ability to continue to do so and rewards the competing companies better behavior. Governmental policy is not that good at undermining bad behavior (it inadvertently supports bad behavior more often than not), but the free market has undermined bad behavior consistently.

[boost]

Even the most well-crafted and well-functioning policy and agency for this would provide results less good than having none in the first place. The economic principle at work is that when a company discriminates on things like this, it increases their costs and lowers the costs of their competitors, which undermines the poorly discriminating company's ability to continue to do so and rewards the competing companies better behavior. Governmental policy is not that good at undermining bad behavior (it inadvertently supports bad behavior more often than not), but the free market has undermined bad behavior consistently.

This is a model of the effects in a vacuum. Maybe the model holds accurate, but there's no reason to think so.

Institutions were prejudice and the old boys club was a real thing, I don't think you're interested in disputing this. So with that as a given, we can assume things like prohibitive short term opportunity costs of integration that continue to affect the racial make up of an institution so that the diversity of the institution lags behind the society's, and even the institution's level of prejudice.

As an example, we know that there are far more efficient keyboard layouts than QWERTY, however you see no institutions adopting them due to the short and medium term setbacks in productivity needed to implement a better layout. To imagine that no such hurdles exist when it comes to putting an end to the old boys club or to declare for certainty that there are no lasting effects of the old boys club seems flippant.

[wufwugy]

This is a model of the effects in a vacuum. Maybe the model holds accurate, but there's no reason to think so.

Institutions were prejudice and the old boys club was a real thing, I don't think you're interested in disputing this. So with that as a given, we can assume things like prohibitive short term opportunity costs of integration that continue to affect the racial make up of an institution so that the diversity of the institution lags behind the society's, and even the institution's level of prejudice.

As an example, we know that there are far more efficient keyboard layouts than QWERTY, however you see no institutions adopting them due to the short and medium term setbacks in productivity needed to implement a better layout. To imagine that no such hurdles exist when it comes to putting an end to the old boys club or to declare for certainty that there are no lasting effects of the old boys club seems flippant.

It doesn't work



Additionally, attendance and graduation rates from Ivy League institutions by minorities was far greater before affirmative action than it is today. It's not just affirmative action but all welfare and its ethos that has created this problem. Before the 60s, black employment, home ownership, and graduation rates were competitive with whites. In some cases they were better. I've posted sources for this stuff all before but am having difficultly finding them again. They're buried in Thomas Sowell interviews. IIRC it's something likee 17x more Ivy League African American attendance in the early part of the 20th century compared to the latter, but I may not be remembering it perfectly.

[JKDS]

Indeed. It's a great leap from here to privilege.



Those policies have been enacted and have made things worse for those groups. Example: affirmative action increases failure rates among blacks by placing a larger proportion of them in academic institutions and curriculum above their scores and skills.

That seems to take personal responsibility out of the equation. It seems like it's not the policy that's to blame, but the person who chose to challenge himself beyond his capability

[wufwugy]

That seems to take personal responsibility out of the equation. It seems like it's not the policy that's to blame, but the person who chose to challenge himself beyond his capability

I love me some personal responsibility, but this isn't an area where I think the prospective student has much capacity to inform their decisions. My n=1: I'm attending an average difficulty university. At least I think it is, I really have no clue. I have no idea how much harder, easier, or the same Harvard would be. Attending Harvard is such a net good regardless of aptitude that most would be fools to turn it down. The job of the admissions personnel is almost entirely to make sure that the right candidates are selected. If somebody were to be accepted, it is reasonable for them to think that they have the mettle for the institution.

Affirmative action is a causal factor in misplacement.