On the On the controversies around DEI, excuse me, but I just want to eff _ _ _ yell.
Let's talk about Asians as a group. Why, if the current modern world is so damn steeped in bigotry and racism are Asians, as a group (and one that had to deal with historical bigotry and racism at profound levels), demonstrating BETTER outcomes than whites?
This alone DESTROYS the entire DEI mythology and should instead propel us to discuss true root causes of group socioeconomic outcome differences.
Similarly, why is the casting of just white and black actors (for the latter group, typically in excess of their proportional representation) representative of Hollywood’s idea of racial diversity?
Cultural/historical differences in the US (my home, so maybe not relevant for Canadians) are not similar when it comes to Black vs. Asian histories. Look, I am as skeptical as anyone around the results of DEI, even if I get the intent.
I'm a white guy married to an Asian immigrant woman for whatever that's worth- I've seen first hand how hard her family struggled and indeed all four kids went to top colleges coming from public middle and high schools. But you do have to, I think, factor in that Asians in the US or Canada were not part of a national slave class and were not dealt the political, financial and social blows of things like Jim Crow, redlining, sundown towns, etc.
DEI can be pretty intensely misguided and worse, self defeating, to be sure. But it's not *for* Asians. It's almost explicitly *against* them as white-adjacent or 'model minority' tropes. Regard the situation in Lowell High School in San Francisco for one of many, many examples.
You are making the same mistake in logic here. DEI exists because of, and is promoted based on, the premise that systemic racism exists and is the explanation for why some groups suffer lower socioeconomic, or just economic, outcomes. The socioeconomic outcomes for Asians destroys that premise and basis. In addition, black immigrants to the US, when controlled by education attainment, do as well or better than do whites in general.
If systemic racism was/is the explanation (whites discriminating against other racial - let's not get into the gender bias lie here - groups) then Asians and black immigrants would not be achieving these high outcomes relative to whites.
You seem to be conflating an argument for eugenics explaining the difference... that Asians are superior and black Americans are inferior... because of their varied histories of treatment many generations ago. That is a COMPLETELY different argument that what is being pushed as the justification for DEI.
"But you do have to, I think, factor in that Asians in the US or Canada were not part of a national slave class and were not dealt the political, financial and social blows of things like Jim Crow, redlining, sundown towns, etc."
You are making the case that previous historical treatment and events are somehow relevant to what? You cannot claim that systemic racism against blacks exists today (no argument from me that it existed historically) if black immigrants are achieving the same measurable outcomes as whites. So what is your point here? From my perspective it reads like you are saying that American blacks are less desirable because of a difference in behavior and/or capability that is explained by the impacts of history... and that since Asians did not have that same historical experience it explains why their outcomes are also different (much better).
It’s hardly rocket science what he’s trying to say: black Americans are still trapped in ghetto systems (welfare/public housing/prison) and mindsets that can be traced back to slavery and Jim Crow. Newcomer blacks aren’t tapped by the same psychological dynamics and systems that continue to haunt black Americans. They start with a clean slate and take advantages of all the benefits available to all Americans.
I am reminded again how lacking are the critical thinking skills of people educated enough to converse in debates on these topics.
Please pause and think.
If the basis for EDI is systemic racism, then what in the hell do you mean that newcomers start with a clean slate to take advantage of the benefits available to all Americans if America is racist against them?
I do agree that many blacks are trapped in welfare/public housing/prison. So then why EDI? Why not debate the decades of liberal policies that have proven failed, and the globalist pursuit that has destroyed working class economic opportunity and unchecked immigration that has flooded the country with competition for the few remaining jobs and driven down wages? Why not talk about the crappy inner city schools and the lack of school choice?
The reason that we don't talk about these things is that they are inconvenient to the Democrats and the left worldview. Instead they invent a fake narrative of systemic racism and teach it to well off liberal white girls on campus who then run off and make a career out of it. The corporations don't want to stop globalism nor unchecked immigration, so they support this narrative.
You say "it's hardly rocket science" and fail to get the point, and also fail to argue against the point you think you are making.
I can see both sides of the "war" meme, and I don't think they are entirely exclusive. I lost a decades-long friend three weeks ago because I refused to be cowed by the woke paradigm. I was civil but I was also firm. You can be both. When the pearl-clutching and "I'm so offended by what you said!" stuff started, I made it very clear, and in these words: I don't play that game and I don't tolerate those who do. And I avoided the ultimate mistake: apologizing for outraging her delicate sensibilities. I told her that it's like your mother told you: if you want to play in the big boys' sandbox, know that sometimes it gets rough, and if you can't take it, then you don't belong there. That is the thing about Trump that drives the Left crazy. No matter how off-the-chain they get, he never backs down.
You don't have to be unnecessarily mean or crude, but we are IN a war, in my opinion, and when the opponent means to have you down in the dirt and sawdust, you shouldn't be standing there asking about the Marquess de Queensberry rules.
Interesting that Sweden never closed their schools for under age 16 and are reporting no deaths from COVID among students. Teachers apparently had Covid about equal to grocery
There are weeds in the garden. The weeds have roots. The "hope" we are seeing, from my perspective, is just the cutting back some of the weeds, but not the removing of the roots.
I don't feel any real sense of hope until we start discussing the roots and how to remove them.
Ex CBC Trish Wood interviews ex- CBC Marianne Klowak, who "had a long career at CBC, in radio, television and writing for digital. It was a job she loved with colleagues she respected. But then Covid-19 hit and it seemed the journalistic rules changed overnight. After a fruitless struggle to report stories she thought important, Marianne resigned. "
We are transitioning from the bullshit piled on top of bullshit phase of the new world order, to the car is running on the rims with all 4 tires deflated phase, where governments don't care about their obvious dereliction of duty. Whether it's the CDC or our Ms. Tam, they are advocating perpetual IV drug use for children, knowing full well that 3% will die from their first shot within 3 months according to Pfizer data. And people want to talk about nuancing authors? People feel overwhelm? How about getting out of the car, and calling out the government?
Is The Atlantic becoming readable again? I subscribed for over 20 years, then The Atlantic shifted from a thoughtful essay and literary magazine to become a far-left agenda-driven publication. Now, I'm seeing thoughtful writers such as Tara and Bari recommending articles in The Atlantic. Is it time to resubscribe?
A possible name for the shorter author interview podcasts about stories "making waves"... how about "Lean Out Shortwaves" ? kind of catchy, not? Multiple angles to the subject of the name, etc...
Hope? ....maybe......lookie here...just the other day..........Trudeau is about to get covid for a third time along with monkeypox when he sees this......it's the second post once you scroll down....https://gettr.com/user/stellamaris_18
“Similarly, Asians are often seen as desirable employees where as you can still see data showing that a "Black-sounding" name results in a strong decrease in call backs from resumes.”
On the On the controversies around DEI, excuse me, but I just want to eff _ _ _ yell.
Let's talk about Asians as a group. Why, if the current modern world is so damn steeped in bigotry and racism are Asians, as a group (and one that had to deal with historical bigotry and racism at profound levels), demonstrating BETTER outcomes than whites?
This alone DESTROYS the entire DEI mythology and should instead propel us to discuss true root causes of group socioeconomic outcome differences.
Similarly, why is the casting of just white and black actors (for the latter group, typically in excess of their proportional representation) representative of Hollywood’s idea of racial diversity?
Cultural/historical differences in the US (my home, so maybe not relevant for Canadians) are not similar when it comes to Black vs. Asian histories. Look, I am as skeptical as anyone around the results of DEI, even if I get the intent.
I'm a white guy married to an Asian immigrant woman for whatever that's worth- I've seen first hand how hard her family struggled and indeed all four kids went to top colleges coming from public middle and high schools. But you do have to, I think, factor in that Asians in the US or Canada were not part of a national slave class and were not dealt the political, financial and social blows of things like Jim Crow, redlining, sundown towns, etc.
Similarly, Asians are often seen as desirable employees where as you can still see data showing that a "Black-sounding" name results in a strong decrease in call backs from resumes. (citation, one of many one can find: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-29/job-applicants-with-black-names-still-less-likely-to-get-the-interview).
DEI can be pretty intensely misguided and worse, self defeating, to be sure. But it's not *for* Asians. It's almost explicitly *against* them as white-adjacent or 'model minority' tropes. Regard the situation in Lowell High School in San Francisco for one of many, many examples.
You are making the same mistake in logic here. DEI exists because of, and is promoted based on, the premise that systemic racism exists and is the explanation for why some groups suffer lower socioeconomic, or just economic, outcomes. The socioeconomic outcomes for Asians destroys that premise and basis. In addition, black immigrants to the US, when controlled by education attainment, do as well or better than do whites in general.
If systemic racism was/is the explanation (whites discriminating against other racial - let's not get into the gender bias lie here - groups) then Asians and black immigrants would not be achieving these high outcomes relative to whites.
You seem to be conflating an argument for eugenics explaining the difference... that Asians are superior and black Americans are inferior... because of their varied histories of treatment many generations ago. That is a COMPLETELY different argument that what is being pushed as the justification for DEI.
I truly don’t understand your last paragraph. If you think I’m arguing for eugenics we are clearly not communicating.
"But you do have to, I think, factor in that Asians in the US or Canada were not part of a national slave class and were not dealt the political, financial and social blows of things like Jim Crow, redlining, sundown towns, etc."
You are making the case that previous historical treatment and events are somehow relevant to what? You cannot claim that systemic racism against blacks exists today (no argument from me that it existed historically) if black immigrants are achieving the same measurable outcomes as whites. So what is your point here? From my perspective it reads like you are saying that American blacks are less desirable because of a difference in behavior and/or capability that is explained by the impacts of history... and that since Asians did not have that same historical experience it explains why their outcomes are also different (much better).
It’s hardly rocket science what he’s trying to say: black Americans are still trapped in ghetto systems (welfare/public housing/prison) and mindsets that can be traced back to slavery and Jim Crow. Newcomer blacks aren’t tapped by the same psychological dynamics and systems that continue to haunt black Americans. They start with a clean slate and take advantages of all the benefits available to all Americans.
I am reminded again how lacking are the critical thinking skills of people educated enough to converse in debates on these topics.
Please pause and think.
If the basis for EDI is systemic racism, then what in the hell do you mean that newcomers start with a clean slate to take advantage of the benefits available to all Americans if America is racist against them?
I do agree that many blacks are trapped in welfare/public housing/prison. So then why EDI? Why not debate the decades of liberal policies that have proven failed, and the globalist pursuit that has destroyed working class economic opportunity and unchecked immigration that has flooded the country with competition for the few remaining jobs and driven down wages? Why not talk about the crappy inner city schools and the lack of school choice?
The reason that we don't talk about these things is that they are inconvenient to the Democrats and the left worldview. Instead they invent a fake narrative of systemic racism and teach it to well off liberal white girls on campus who then run off and make a career out of it. The corporations don't want to stop globalism nor unchecked immigration, so they support this narrative.
You say "it's hardly rocket science" and fail to get the point, and also fail to argue against the point you think you are making.
Please enlighten us.
I can see both sides of the "war" meme, and I don't think they are entirely exclusive. I lost a decades-long friend three weeks ago because I refused to be cowed by the woke paradigm. I was civil but I was also firm. You can be both. When the pearl-clutching and "I'm so offended by what you said!" stuff started, I made it very clear, and in these words: I don't play that game and I don't tolerate those who do. And I avoided the ultimate mistake: apologizing for outraging her delicate sensibilities. I told her that it's like your mother told you: if you want to play in the big boys' sandbox, know that sometimes it gets rough, and if you can't take it, then you don't belong there. That is the thing about Trump that drives the Left crazy. No matter how off-the-chain they get, he never backs down.
You don't have to be unnecessarily mean or crude, but we are IN a war, in my opinion, and when the opponent means to have you down in the dirt and sawdust, you shouldn't be standing there asking about the Marquess de Queensberry rules.
She may not be on the side you think she is.
“Lean Out Lite”
I hope you’re right, Tara. I still can’t bring myself to watch mainstream news. Too woke. And I avoid Trudeauganda like the plague. Too upsetting.
Interesting that Sweden never closed their schools for under age 16 and are reporting no deaths from COVID among students. Teachers apparently had Covid about equal to grocery
store clerks.
Please read Naomi Wolf’s substack on the overturning of Roe!
There are weeds in the garden. The weeds have roots. The "hope" we are seeing, from my perspective, is just the cutting back some of the weeds, but not the removing of the roots.
I don't feel any real sense of hope until we start discussing the roots and how to remove them.
Glad you are finding, and sharing, these glimmers of hope. The negative does feel overwhelming at times, so happy to hear good news.
https://twcritical.libsyn.com/marianne-klowak
Ex CBC Trish Wood interviews ex- CBC Marianne Klowak, who "had a long career at CBC, in radio, television and writing for digital. It was a job she loved with colleagues she respected. But then Covid-19 hit and it seemed the journalistic rules changed overnight. After a fruitless struggle to report stories she thought important, Marianne resigned. "
We are transitioning from the bullshit piled on top of bullshit phase of the new world order, to the car is running on the rims with all 4 tires deflated phase, where governments don't care about their obvious dereliction of duty. Whether it's the CDC or our Ms. Tam, they are advocating perpetual IV drug use for children, knowing full well that 3% will die from their first shot within 3 months according to Pfizer data. And people want to talk about nuancing authors? People feel overwhelm? How about getting out of the car, and calling out the government?
Peek out. Quarter out. SizzleLean. Lean over. Lean Quisine. Lean-to. Lean-two. Lean over. Halfalean. Lean out part deux.
"deep sense of overwhelm" 😂 I didn't know there is such a noun...
Is The Atlantic becoming readable again? I subscribed for over 20 years, then The Atlantic shifted from a thoughtful essay and literary magazine to become a far-left agenda-driven publication. Now, I'm seeing thoughtful writers such as Tara and Bari recommending articles in The Atlantic. Is it time to resubscribe?
A possible name for the shorter author interview podcasts about stories "making waves"... how about "Lean Out Shortwaves" ? kind of catchy, not? Multiple angles to the subject of the name, etc...
Hope? ....maybe......lookie here...just the other day..........Trudeau is about to get covid for a third time along with monkeypox when he sees this......it's the second post once you scroll down....https://gettr.com/user/stellamaris_18
“Similarly, Asians are often seen as desirable employees where as you can still see data showing that a "Black-sounding" name results in a strong decrease in call backs from resumes.”
Not to pick an argument, but: Chicken, meet egg.
Lean Out/takes.
Looking forward to a weekly second listen.