> But by the same token we should not automatically reject everything the woke believe... It would be a mistake to discard them all just because one didn't share the religion that espoused them. It would be the sort of thing a religious zealot would do.
To be fair, he does say the above, which is close enough. The problem with asking "what if they're right" is that there's no single formulation of beliefs shared universally by such large and diverse group, so you can't consider whether they are right or not, only whether each individual expression is.
The whole pattern of people saying what amounts to "the fact that you disagree with me means you haven't bothered to examine the problem" is a very unfortunate trend. Did it occur to you that perhaps he did do the work on studying the problem, and came to a different conclusion?
The Manhattan Institute is so biased that it is not worth spending the time to actually engage with their articles and determine their truth, because their game is not truth, it is politics. If what they say is true, there will likely be other, less politically-motivated groups that say the same.
But I wouldn't be surprised if this is also discarded as biased. The issue is that the allegation of bias is often justified by the outcomes of the research, thus statements like "the research showing people overestimate racism is biased" becomes tautological.
Also, do you have specific critiques of the study? Or is your dismissal solely based on the authorship of the study?
Thank you for that source, I do not discard it as biased.
While some people do, I am not choosing what sources are biased based on whether their findings align with my beliefs. I am choosing based on whether their results consistently align with a certain ideology or political stance, what their goals are, and where their money comes from.
The Manhattan Institute consistently publishes findings that align with American conservatism, their goal is explicitly to influence policy, and while we don't know exactly where their money comes from because they don't make that information public (which I think is generally a bad sign), information revealed by tax filings shows that most substantial donations are from conservatives. This is why I consider them to be biased.
I don't have any specific criticism of the study, because I did not spend the time to engage with it. I have limited lifetime, and I must choose where to spend it based on what is likely to be fruitful. I do not consider engaging with articles/studies from biased think tanks, whether liberal or conservative, likely to be fruitful.
It's also a little suspect when a white man talks the degree to which racism (and by extension, sexism and homophobia) is a problem. The way he writes about it is such a casual dismissal that it sounds like gas lighting to me.
Has anyone ever referred to him with a racial epithet? Has he been stopped and frisked? Racially profiled? When was he last treated as if his ideas aren't as good because of his gender? Or passed up for a promotion for any of these reasons? Was he ever treated as if he is unworthy of marriage because he loves the wrong person? Has he worried about whether or not his name sounds a little too ethnic on his resume? Has he ever been called a dirty ____?
Among other things, including being called racial epithets, and worry about whether or not my name sounds a little too ethnic, I've had to listen to contemporary American politicians talk about how my ethnic group controls lasers from space.
But no, racism is not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be? It's easy to say that when you never experienced it.
That’s not what is happening and I suspect you know it.
The comments have quite clearly laid out how to uninformed this perspective is because it lacks knowledge. It’s not because he’s white ir male it’s because he’s talking over people who have experienced this to tell them they are overreacting.
Gender and race are explanatory of why this is dumb but not fundamental to why it is - that is simply him being misinformed.
The entire thing is an exercise in complaining about a thing that goddamn near everyone agrees is bad, then using that to complain about a much larger movement that probably aims to address a lot of legitimate issues, in such a way that you can always retreat if challenged. There's a memed name for this tactic, and it's extremely on display here.
"Well of course by 'the woke' I only meant the ones I'm talking about, and since I'm choosing what that means let's just say part of the definition includes that they think racism is an even bigger problem than it is—whatever amount you think it's a problem, they think it's a bigger one, so even you think they are wrong! So as you can see I wrote precisely and correctly and you're an idiot who can't read."
But in fact it's all nonsense. This whole essay is a bunch of mealy-mouthed gibbering, because it relies so heavily on that kind of thing. It's either saying something boring that 99% of people already agree with, or it's expressing the more controversial (and dumber) thing that's getting everyone here worked up, but accusations of the latter can be deflected by claiming it's only doing the former (in which case, why bother writing it in the first place...?)
Essays like this are one of the few things LLMs are already entirely capable of replacing us for. Bad ones that mostly lack actual content, and don't even really need to be right because they're constructed such that they can't be wrong.
Moreover, I think the topic of discussion is important. Arguing about how important an issue is almost always is a waste of time and a distraction.
Issues aren't in a que where the most important get done first, and there is rarely a master calculation weighing them against eachother. When there is, it is called a budget, and that come into play after people have agreed upon what they would like to do.
We dont have to fix global racical justice before a pothole in the street just because the former is more important. If you want to talk about racial justice, policy proposals are concrete. Should we have job and education quotas, should we have race based criminal sentencing, how about diversion programs? Now these are topics with some meat on the bones.
Yeah, that's where he lost me too. I get the impression that in his head the firing of a college president is a bigger problem than racism.... like bro 24% of the world lives in a caste system. I don't know if human kind will ever be capable of treating people without preference across beauty, age, race, etc.
I'd be curious how he "sizes" the import of these problems (priggishness, prejudice) and whether it's just drawn directly from personal frustrations of a wealthy white billionaire in the most progressive state in the world.
> > Racism, for example, is a genuine problem. Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be…
Rich, coming from a rich white male. Hey, we're not lynching people anymore!
The whole point of "wokeness" is being legitimately aware of these issues and not just sweeping them under the rug with an "it's a problem, but not as bad as they say".
Therein lies the issue. Just because you believe it's a pervasive issue doesn't make it so. "Wokeness" has many parallels to the "Satanic panic" of the 1980s. People wanted others to be legitimately aware of the Satanic ritual abuse and not just sweeping them under the rug with an "it's a problem, but not as bad as they say".
We're talking about ongoing systemic and widespread social issues that are easily manifested through statistical evidence and therefore not dependent on my belief or your belief. I'm old enough to remember the 80s and no, this is not something like the "Satanic panic" and other similar panics. Not even close.
You're sounding like someone in the 60s saying "yeah, equal rights is a problem but not as bad as they say". The majority of white Americans at that time didn't think there was a problem with equal rights. In 1963, 60% of Americans had an unfavorable view of MLK's march on Washington. In 1964 a survey showed that a majority of New Yorkers felt that the "Negro civil rights movement had gone too far". etc. etc.
If you're not aware that there's a problem, __that's__ the problem.
>We're talking about ongoing systemic and widespread social issues that are easily manifested through statistical evidence and therefore not dependent on my belief or your belief.
Correlation != causation. Evidence of inequity is not evidence of inequality.
White and Asian men were systemically discriminated against for college acceptance up until a recent Supreme Court decision. That was an ongoing systemic and widespread social issue that was easily manifested through statistical evidence and therefore not dependent on my belief or your belief.
>I'm old enough to remember the 80s and no, this is not something like the "Satanic panic" and other similar panics. Not even close.
For sure, this time around it's even more detached from reality.
>You're sounding like someone in the 60s saying "yeah, equal rights is a problem but not as bad as they say".
Not at all, they were de jure discriminated against. Laws on the books, they clearly did not have equal rights, unlike now.
>If you're not aware that there's a problem, __that's__ the problem.
You haven't proven there is a problem, or that the problem is systemic, pervasive, or outsized. You believe that is the truth, and like the good Christians during the Satanic panic, you're clutching your pearls at the sight of people who don't believe your religion.
I don't have to prove anything to you, and it's clear that it wouldn't matter if I did, so no point in wasting time. One day you might want to try opening your eyes.
To be fair, he does say the above, which is close enough. The problem with asking "what if they're right" is that there's no single formulation of beliefs shared universally by such large and diverse group, so you can't consider whether they are right or not, only whether each individual expression is.