What is Systemic Racism?

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Totally related. We probably all need to buy this book.

GUILT TRIP

How the left emotionally manipulates Americans into accepting an insane and suicidal agenda



GUILT TRIP

How the left emotionally manipulates Americans into accepting an insane and suicidal agenda

It has become increasingly clear that the left’s ever-more-bizarre agenda for America – from passing laws prescribing imprisonment for those who fail to use the correct transgender pronoun (out of over 50 new genders!), to importing into the U.S. as many migrants as possible from impossible-to-vet, terrorist-hotbed regions of the world, to demonizing centuries of American history and destroying statues of the nation’s founders – is simply insane. Not “progressive,” not “radical.” Insane.
How and why, then, is the left able to “sell” this suicidal agenda to millions of otherwise rational people? By what magic do they convince decent, law-abiding Americans to allow men to use women’s restrooms and changing rooms and showers? To support abortion up to the very moment of birth, which is in every way identical to the heinous crime of infanticide? To believe that all white people, just because of their skin color, are automatically racists?
The answer is simple. They manipulate other people’s emotions, and thereby their thinking. And one of their most effective tactics is the guilt trip – essentially an emotional manipulation in which one party tries to induce guilt feelings in a target person or group for the purpose of controlling their behavior.
Of course, in this fallen world people manipulate the thoughts and feelings of others all the time for the sake of power and advantage. But what happens when an entire political movement/ideology adopts these tactics wholesale?
The astonishing answer is in the November issue of WND’s acclaimed Whistleblower magazine, titled “GUILT TRIP: How the left emotionally manipulates Americans into accepting an insane and suicidal agenda.”


oday’s left, which increasingly dominates the Democratic Party, attacks, demeans, demonizes and shames all those with whom it disagrees every day from morning until night – branding them as bigots, racists, misogynists, fascists, deplorables, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamaphobes and so on … in a word, haters.
On one level, the process resembles simple intimidation and compliance: If you oppose the radical, unconstitutional, far-left policies implemented by former President Barack Obama, you’re a racist. If you disagree with unfettered abortion-on-demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy, you want to oppress women. If you are troubled by illegal immigration’s negative impact on America’s economy, culture and security, you’re anti-immigrant. If you oppose same-sex marriage or recruiting open transgenders into America’s armed forces (obligating taxpayers to shell out millions to pay for “gender reassignment surgery”), you’re a hateful bigot.
Such is the warp and weft of current American politics – all day, every day, to the point that America has grown used to it. The left advances a shockingly destructive agenda; the right complains; the left accuses the right of being fascists and Nazis … and the right shuts up.
But there’s more to it. Much more, as “GUILT TRIP” documents.
Issue highlights include:

• “Guilt and redemption in a hyper-divided America” by David Kupelian, who explains how the left manipulates people into betraying their deepest values
• “Guilty of being white” by Scott Greer, an eye-opening and in-depth exposé. “Many years ago, America’s race relations were shaped by white supremacy. Today, they are shaped by white guilt”
• “How about toppling those Margaret Sanger statues?” by Joseph Farah, on why leftists have no problem with Planned Parenthood founder’s overt racism
• “Don’t buy the guilt-trip hoax of ‘privilege'” by Lindy Daniel, who shows why “white privilege” is “an illegitimate slur defaming hard work, success, good behavior and the rewards thereof”
• “‘Diversity’ madness explodes life of white Christian rising star” by Chelsea Schilling, the shocking story of the Christian university dean ordered to hire “people of color” who don’t “look like you”
• “The NFL and millennials’ invented guilt” by Carl Jackson. Memo to football players: The First Amendment restrains government, not your employer
• “Let’s just ban it all!” by Adriana Cohen, a guilt-gone-wild look at the disastrous result of catering to everyone’s feelings

“‘GUILT TRIP’ provides a window into not just the tactics and strategies, but the soul of the left,” says Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian. “It is nothing short of breathtaking what a well-targeted campaign of emotional manipulation can accomplish. Unfortunately, success in this case, while promising victory to those in thrall to the social justice mindset, in reality is unraveling the most thoroughly decent, free and productive culture that has ever existed on planet earth.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/guilt-tri...vrxq5uEsoV3.99
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/#H0IP8bP5ctUd9bdZ.99

[LATechBanjo]

Harvard was just a detail. Substitute a college degree. We often say that if folks are in a bad spot, they should move. Many can't afford it. Are they legally free to move? Sure. Are they actually able to move? No. So, do they have the opportunity to move?

Of course the solution matters, but it's not the only thing that matters. Further, we'll never arrive at a solution if we refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem.

Yes, they have the opportunity to move. They may not be able to move NOW, but that is not a measure of opportunity, but of their present means (outcome).

A hypothetical to illustrate this point:

My neighbor and I both want to buy a $30M yacht. My family has never seen such wealth going back multiple generations. He inherited 1 Billion dollars from his parents. Is our opportunity to buy a yacht any different? I would argue no, and you would argue yes.
If I start a company, run it well, make it profitable, and sell it for multiple millions, then buy my yacht 20 years later, at what point did my opportunity change? My argument is that we both had the same opportunity from day one. The fact that it took me substantially more work/talent/luck/time is not indicative of anything or anyone attempting to limit my attainment of the goal.

The definition of opportunity that you're talking about is related to means vs. my definition of undue/unfair restrictions.

Since I'm getting chastized for talking about wealth too much: Let's apply the same discussion to power.

Did George W. Bush have the same opportunity to run for president as Barack Obama?
The Bush family was a well-established political dynasty, and his dad was president. Obama was a political non-player until his own adulthood. Regardless of my thoughts on him, he rose politically through his own volition, luck, or powerful friends. Still: Equal opportunity, different means and beginnings.

[johnnylightnin]

Opportunity without ability seems like non-opportunity to me.

[techman05]

And to underscore how our culture prefers whiteness, you can look at the various studies that have been done regarding racial cues on resumes (including culturally black names) and the impact that has on getting interviews (and thus jobs).

Here is one of them:

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minoritie...ore-interviews

So, names should be withheld on resumes and applications. Just give a phone number that can receive texts as communication. No email or phone contact as that would possibly give away race.

[Guisslapp]

The answer is simple: hire HR directors and specialists that understand proper hiring practices to not run afoul of the law. An effective hiring manager realizes that race is neither effective nor legal to use in screening applicants. Once again, the law is already clear on this. If you have an employer with a selection process that unfairly discriminates against blacks (intentionally or not), they are subject to punishment under the law.

Firstly, it's important to remember that this study is not evaluating success rates vs. whites. It is intended to study the success rate of various "whitening techinques" among non-white applicants. I think it is conducted poorly when compared to the research they cite (link below).

To the study: I have a few issues with the methods:

1. The sample size is extremely small considering the scope of employers and geographical area covered. A similar study evaluated 2445 resumes in just two major metro areas. This study evaluates 1600 nationwide.
2. Varied industries and various job types were used for the same generic resume. The study doesn't explain it's randomization or the selection rates across the job types.
3. No employer got more than one resume.
4. There was no control group.

They submitted four names:

Lamar J. Smith vs. L. James Smith (Black vs. "Whitened")
Lei Zhang vs. Luke Zhang (Asian vs. "Whitened")

The OVERALL rejection rate (no callbacks) - 83.3% (which is surprisingly low based on my own experience with resumes). The total number of resumes generating some form of response was ony 267. They applied to 1600 different jobs at 1600 different employers across 6 job types.

From the study: "Whitening the name only (versus not whitening at all) didnot make a statistically significant difference for black applicants (13% versus 10%) but led to amarginally significant increase in callbacks for Asians (18% versus 11.5%, z = 1.83, p < .10)"

I believe this means they chose too ambiguous a name in both cases. Luke Zhang and Lei Zhang don't suggest any difference in race to the common observer. I have a similar thought to the name Lamar, but I'll grant them that one.

Quoting again: "If hewhitened both his first name and the experiences, he would receive 2.5 times as many callbacksas he would with the original, unwhitened résumé" - The strongest argument of the study. And a difference of 35 resumes across 1600 (once again, across industries and across employers) is the total difference... I would much rather see the variance between employers, but the university IRB rejected that possibility.

The study shows what it shows, but I don't think it's very useful as it was designed, as there no way to assign causality to any one factor.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf - One of the cited studies, "

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination" -

Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) contains a better design, is much more well-explained, and contains a detailed breakdown of the confounds (page 20-it's worth the read), although the N is still low (2445).

So you think the law solves the problem?

[LATechBanjo]

So you think the law solves the problem?

From my previous response:

“The answer is simple: hire HR directors and specialists that understand proper hiring practices to not run afoul of the law. An effective hiring manager realizes that race is neither effective nor legal to use in screening applicants.”

Hiring practices that discriminate based on race are not only illegal but also bad business for the company.

[Guisslapp]

From my previous response:

“The answer is simple: hire HR directors and specialists that understand proper hiring practices to not run afoul of the law. An effective hiring manager realizes that race is neither effective nor legal to use in screening applicants.”

Hiring practices that discriminate based on race are not only illegal but also bad business for the company.

But that doesn’t answer my question.

[LATechBanjo]

But that doesn’t answer my question.

Let me be more direct.

Do I think the law solves the problem?

No. Laws alone don’t ever solve the problem. If they did, we wouldn’t need enforcement.

In some cases, like this one, market forces will also correct the problem given enough time.

Thus, per my original answer: businesses should hire HR directors that follow the law and understand the negative business consequences of discrimination based on race. Even if it wasn’t illegal and immoral, it is ineffective and disqualifies potentially effective employees.

[arkansasbob]

Thanks Bob. My responses in red.
perhaps i should do a better job of connecting the dots in my thinking. let me know if you disagree with any of these points:
- the term "systemic racism" is misunderstood by most -- its meaning is not obvious or intuitive to those who have not read up on the subject. I don't disagree, but I'm not sure it's pertinent for ME. I didn't come up with the concept, so I interact with it using the same lexicon others have already established. Would I change the words if I were leading some charge? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes being shocked and confused can be the first steps toward teachability. I'm sure many first year engineering students can resonate with that. Ultimately, I think questioning the tactics may not be invalid, but it also seems to miss the bigger point. no. i think it shuts people off to the subject, and is counterproductive for the reasons i laid out below.

- you can show with statistics that blacks are disadvantaged. you can also show the same with stats about people with only one parent, people in rural communities, women, immigrants from latin america, immigrants from eastern europe, refugees, native americans, red-headed step children, people with parents that abuse drugs or alcohol, people impacted by natural disasters, introverts, people with scoliosis, people who love teaching, people with sociology degrees, etc. I don't disagree, but this is the "all lives matter" folly. If there is a case to be made for these groups, feel free to make them and I'll interact with those arguments. That is not the argument in question here. We're not talking about introverts or refugees or immigrants, we're talking about black people. This group makes up a much larger portion of our population...perhaps that's why you don't see movements built around those other groups (save women). Now, the argument could certainly be made that those who champion one group and don't champion another are hypocrites or selective in their outrage. That's fine, but it doesn't invalidate the argument. It passes for debate in our current political climate, but it is fallacious.you're misunderstanding my argument. i'm not advocating looking at other groups. i'm advocating not dividing people into groups.

- there are no extant systems that are specifically unfair to people because of their race (if there are, let's address those specifically rather than speaking in broad terms of "systemic racism"!)
That's the question isn't it? I don't advocate for equality of outcomes, but disparity of outcomes can certainly be an indication of inequality of opportunity when it is regular, persistent, and observed across a number of regions/communities. As Banjo said earlier, explicit racism is illegal. It's also very easy to detect. What we are talking about is far more complex which makes it more difficult to give specifics as the discrimination is more discreet. Incarceration rates and the lending industry are two that I think are closer to explicit. But even these are multifaceted. if all of the evidence is in the outcomes, then you're chasing ghosts. what if everything was fair (i'm not saying it is) and you still got disparate outcomes? would you still say we have systemic racism? there's no way to tell the difference by the arguments i've been reading.

- we can do nothing to change the injustices of the past.
I don't know. In my conversations with people of color, acknowledging the validity of their frustration has been impactful. As a business owner, I can't change the injustices of the past, but I can keep them in mind as I evaluate my hiring practices and how my company will invest in our community. No, that doesn't change the past, but perhaps it can change the future. you don't have to complain about "systemic racism" to do that.

- systems that are unfair to people of color are unfair in their very nature and need to be corrected regardless of the color of the victim.
Absolutely.

- therefore, using the term "systemic racism" gets us no closer to solving any problems.
I think the term can shut some people off to the discussion. I think, eventually, they would be shut off anyway. Perhaps the term saves everyone a bit of time. And again, there are things worse than shock and confusion as far as teaching methods go.maybe so, but i've never found it useful to anger someone right off the bat if i want to convince them to join me in action.

further,
- many people get immediately defensive if they feel they are being accused of racism.
Sure. I don't know that this can be helped. If they actually interact with the argument at all, they'll see that no individual is being accused of racism. I think the right has a term for this...snowflake maybe? now you clearly are being dishonest in your argument. again, i'm talking about what is helpful vs. what is divisive.
- many people find it easier to blame something beyond their control for their problems than to work to overcome their problems.
I think this is universally true, but I don't see how it's pertinent here. Do you know someone who refuses to work to overcome adversity because academics and politicos (and astute message board readers) are discussing systemic racism? i don't think i follow. give someone an excuse and they will take it.

- many people who are disadvantaged by things other than their race are angered by the fact that they are denied advantages afforded specifically to people of color.
Again, I'm not sure this can be avoided and I'm unsure that these folks are going to be relieved of their anger because we stop talking about the concept at hand. they may be relieved of their anger if we work to stop injustices rather than working to stop injustices that impact a specific group of people.

- therefore, to speak about society's problems in terms of race is divisive.
The stats say we're already divided. You say divisive, I say illuminating. After all, the question is not about whether or not people feel a certain way about the conversation, the question is about whether or not some of society's problems are racially disproportionate. "racially disproportionate" is an artificial and unnecessary construct. also "we're already divided, so who cares if we make it worse" is a terrible argument.

i'm not criticizing the analogy so much as the thought process behind it. the race analogy doesn't break down at some point -- its very premise is wrong.
Perhaps, but the race analogy is used very often when race isn't involved. Regardless, nothing rides on the analogy.i'm not concerned with where the analogy is used. it's wrong either way.

regarding your alternative analogy (which is much more apt, but less likely to incite anger/guilt), everyone starts at a different point in the journey to stability, and it is not helpful to divide people up into teams according to their race.
The flaw in your thinking is that you operate as if they races aren't already divided. Race is brought in because the outcomes are so starkly divided racially.show me where i operate as if the races aren't already divided. the ideal is to bring people closer together, not keep them at odds, unless you are someone who profits from the division.

the obstacles are clearly not insurmountable (at least not solely due to race) because many have surmounted them. let's talk about how we can get people on stable footing without trying to divide people over the issue.
Let's talk about getting people on stable footing, absolutely. Let's also not refuse to talk about something just because it makes people uncomfortable. We can do both. We must. i don't think you can argue i am refusing to talk about something. i have spent how many posts talking about it? but if the way we are talking about it doesn't get us any closer to a viable solution, then we need to think about a different way to talk about it.

my responses in bold.

in summary, i think i'm finished on this topic. it is a dead-end street, and whether you agree or not, it is championed by people who have a vested interested in keeping people angry at each other. if you want to talk about how we can fix some specific problems, i'm on board with that.

[arkansasbob]

I am going back 200 years because all of the laws on our books were not created in the past 5. We have a system of laws that disproportionately encode the values of white culture. In the private space, we have companies that prefer attributes of white employees.

Can we not agree on this?

i'm not sure what you mean by "white culture". american culture is influenced by everyone in it, except those who intentionally separate themselves from it. what specific laws on the books are unfair, and how would you propose to change them?

in the private space, my experience contradicts those studies, but perhaps i've just been lucky to work for very good employers. if employers truly are rejecting resumes because they look like they belong to a black person, then those employers truly are stupid. how do you propose we stop that kind of stupidity?

as stated in my previous post, unless we can talk specifics, i don't think there is much value in continuing this discussion.

[Guisslapp]

Let me be more direct.

Do I think the law solves the problem?

No. Laws alone don’t ever solve the problem. If they did, we wouldn’t need enforcement.

In some cases, like this one, market forces will also correct the problem given enough time.

Thus, per my original answer: businesses should hire HR directors that follow the law and understand the negative business consequences of discrimination based on race. Even if it wasn’t illegal and immoral, it is ineffective and disqualifies potentially effective employees.

So why hasn’t the problem been solved if such discrimination is illegal?

[Guisslapp]

i'm not sure what you mean by "white culture". american culture is influenced by everyone in it, except those who intentionally separate themselves from it. what specific laws on the books are unfair, and how would you propose to change them?

in the private space, my experience contradicts those studies, but perhaps i've just been lucky to work for very good employers. if employers truly are rejecting resumes because they look like they belong to a black person, then those employers truly are stupid. how do you propose we stop that kind of stupidity?

as stated in my previous post, unless we can talk specifics, i don't think there is much value in continuing this discussion.

So, I take it then that you don’t think your circumstances would be different if all the laws currently on the book encoded the value judgments of a predominantly. Lack culture?

[arkansasbob]

So, I take it then that you don’t think your circumstances would be different if all the laws currently on the book encoded the value judgments of a predominantly. Lack culture?

i really don't know. can you be more specific?

[Guisslapp]

i really don't know. can you be more specific?

I think you figured out the last three words of my post was supposed to read “predominantly black culture.” Damn iPhone autocorrect.

I am asking you to think about anthropology before you engage in the “fairness” inquiry. The rules were written by white people - for a very long time to the complete exclusion of black point of view and, even today, the black point of view is disporoportionately under represented by those that make the rules.

I think this is something you have to think about a little more broadly before you can rush to solve some issue of “unfairness.”

How might criminal law be different?
How might the constitution be different?
How might the economy be different?
How might skills be valued differently?
What about language?
What about the value judgments of communication styles, leadership styles, how we measure scholastic performance, job performance, entertainment, attire - how might these things be different?
Would Bob be as successful in this environment?

[arkansasbob]

I think you figured out the last three words of my post was supposed to read “predominantly black culture.” Damn iPhone autocorrect.

I am asking you to think about anthropology before you engage in the “fairness” inquiry. The rules were written by white people - for a very long time to the complete exclusion of black point of view and, even today, the black point of view is disporoportionately under represented by those that make the rules.

I think this is something you have to think about a little more broadly before you can rush to solve some issue of “unfairness.”

How might criminal law be different?
How might the constitution be different?
How might the economy be different?
How might skills be valued differently?
What about language?
What about the value judgments of communication styles, leadership styles, how we measure scholastic performance, job performance, entertainment, attire - how might these things be different?
Would Bob be as successful in this environment?

without being more specific, there is no way to answer these questions. the real question is "would it be unfair or unjust for bob?" and my answer is no, unless there were specific things about the criminal law, constitution, economy, etc., that were fundamentally unjust.