We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I recommend everyone read this short article about how and why white people push back on any discussion of racism. I've been saying this here (and lots of other places) less eloquently for many years. This is easily the best piece on racism I've read since college and I already bought the book.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page...ronting-racism

TM

I'm going to think about that for a while. There is a lot in there. After I think I'll post something.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not bad, but it didn't move me the way it moved you. What did you think was fantastic about it?

eta: I agree that white people are bad at discussing racism, in predictable ways. I think there's a lot of self-interest in it. I agree with what's said about the good/bad binary. But I don't think it's helpful to talk about how "society is set up", and I think it's wrong to say "that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color," even if they are often self-serving. And I don't think it's helpful to describe (not sure whether this is the reviewer or the author) white racism as "a pathogen that seeks to replicate itself" -- that constructs removes the agency and incentives the author has identified.

I am a lot less likely to defend white progressives in the post-Bernie era than I was in the pre-Bernie era. A lot of really bad shit went down there.

And it's not like Hillary's behavior as Obama passed her in the primaries wasn't kind of shitty already, but the Berners really embraced their white side, and still do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I am a lot less likely to defend white progressives in the post-Bernie era than I was in the pre-Bernie era. A lot of really bad shit went down there.

I'm not going to defend white progressives as such, but I don't think they cause the most daily damage. We do have higher expectations for white progressives, which is fair.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not going to defend white progressives as such, but I don't think they cause the most daily damage. We do have higher expectations for white progressives, which is fair.

Fair enough. I confess, Bernie would be better than Trump on almost every score.

But he's still a shit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Fair enough. I confess, Bernie would be better than Trump on almost every score.

But he's still a shit.

We have higher expectations for white progressives at least in part because we think their hearts are in the right place and it should be possible to bring them around. And when someone like you says that someone like him is a shit, you think they might care. But the racism of the average Trump voter, I suspect, is more damaging, and we don't really have a good idea about what to do about it. (Electing Obama only made things worse, no?) More attractive to turn on the progressives who come up short. According to the reviewer,

The book is more diagnostic than solutions-oriented, and the guidelines it offers toward the end—listen, don’t center yourself, get educated, think about your responses and what role they play—won’t shock any nervous systems.

I don't have any problem with diagnosis if it adds something, but what I really want are solutions.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Does increased racial diversity have a positive or negative impact on America?

ALL AMERICANS
• 64% positive
• 31% negative

DEMOCRATS
• 85% positive
• 13% negative

REPUBLICANS
• 43% positive
• 50% negative

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/statu...21834183811072

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not bad, but it didn't move me the way it moved you.

Yeah. Of course it didn't. Color me shocked.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What did you think was fantastic about it?

eta: I agree that white people are bad at discussing racism, in predictable ways. I think there's a lot of self-interest in it. I agree with what's said about the good/bad binary. But I don't think it's helpful to talk about how "society is set up", and I think it's wrong to say "that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color," even if they are often self-serving. And I don't think it's helpful to describe (not sure whether this is the reviewer or the author) white racism as "a pathogen that seeks to replicate itself" -- that constructs removes the agency and incentives the author has identified.

Look, it is almost impossible to talk to white people about racism. I sit on 3 different diversity organizations. Every single time white people are in the room, a conversation about racism, the effects of racism, steps to fix it, devolves into a conversation about white people's good intentions, feelings about being in the vicinity of racism, their meager upbringing, whatever. It makes it completely impossible to discuss the actual effects of their racism. People who are trying to address racism spend most of their time helping white people with their feelings and ensuring them that they aren't bad people. White people (on the whole) cannot have a conversation about racism.

Like I said, I have been struggling with this phenomenon for quite some time, as have many (actual) prominent people in the diversity field. Focusing on unconscious bias, confirmation bias, etc. is strategic because the message is, "Hey, shhhhh, it's not really your fault. But let's see how we can get past this." And it's because when you say to a white person, "Black people at this firm aren't being given the same opportunities. We need to do this that and the other." All they hear is "You're a racist," and that's that. Conversation effectively over.

And liberals and progressives benefit from racism and actively fight changing societal dynamics that grant them those benefits. As long as they can tell themselves that they aren't part of the problem or would never use a racial slur, they let themselves off the hook. Once again, when they are faced with how they benefit, they completely disconnect from the conversation. I've gone into the examples a million times on this board.

But enough of this. Your post is annoying in that you point out a bunch of stuff you disagree with but never actually say anything. So, if you want to have a conversation, I suggest you do more than sit there and shit on the article without offering even a little bit of insight into why what you are quoting is incorrect or what you think is or isn't "helpful."

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't have any problem with diagnosis if it adds something, but what I really want are solutions.

I have to say that this is the most frustrating response I get at the firm. It is so oblivious to the actual problem being addressed--namely that the people being trained to look at their own actions with some new perspective need to, you know, understand why they act the way they do--that it almost seems intentional. It's like you might see that there's a problem, but you don't want to put any effort into addressing it yourself. If you're going to go to a training session, you just want to be told how to fix it as if the solution is as easy as screwing in a light bulb.
_______

Me - Here's a problem we need to address: People can't see their own biases. There is a phenomenon called unconscious bias in which all societal cues have caused you to act on biases you don't even know you have and one called confirmation bias in which you look for any evidence at all that confirms a preexisting bias you hold and once you have it, you act accordingly (while ignoring that same evidence in someone who doesn't fit that bias).

Partner - That's interesting. But I'm not racist. I'm a good person. I would never make a decision based on race. What are the solutions to this?

Me - No one is saying you're a bad person. We are no longer talking about overt racism. If the baseline problem is one that you did not know existed, then a better understanding of that problem and the knowledge that you, you know, have it should lead you to make changes on your own.

Partner - How so? We need action items.

Me - Well, we've tried to give you examples. When you're talking to incoming associates, gravitating to the ones who share your interests (and giving them work because you're so comfortable with them) doesn't make much sense if your interests are sailing, golf, equestrian, Cape Cod, and Princeton. You have to understand these things about yourself and then actively avoid making connections and decisions based on them. It's up to you to think about how your unconscious biases and tendency toward confirmation bias affects your decision and your practice. Why do you give all your work to the kid from Greenwich, Connecticut? Why do you describe the woman on your reviews as "sweet and friendly" and the men on your deals as "smart and impressive?" Does it have something to do with biases you have of who is competent professionally that you should investigate?

Partner - So, don't talk about sailing and don't call women, "sweet." Got it.

Me - Jesus fucking Christ.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yeah. Of course it didn't. Color me shocked.

Look, it is almost impossible to talk to white people about racism. I sit on 3 different diversity organizations. Every single time white people are in the room, a conversation about racism, the effects of racism, steps to fix it, devolves into a conversation about white people's good intentions, feelings about being in the vicinity of racism, their meager upbringing, whatever. It makes it completely impossible to discuss the actual effects of their racism. People who are trying to address racism spend most of their time helping white people with their feelings and ensuring them that they aren't bad people. White people (on the whole) cannot have a conversation about racism.

Like I said, I have been struggling with this phenomenon for quite some time, as have many (actual) prominent people in the diversity field. Focusing on unconscious bias, confirmation bias, etc. is strategic because the message is, "Hey, shhhhh, it's not really your fault. But let's see how we can get past this." And it's because when you say to a white person, "Black people at this firm aren't being given the same opportunities. We need to do this that and the other." All they hear is "You're a racist," and that's that. Conversation effectively over.

And liberals and progressives benefit from racism and actively fight changing societal dynamics that grant them those benefits. As long as they can tell themselves that they aren't part of the problem or would never use a racial slur, they let themselves off the hook. Once again, when they are faced with how they benefit, they completely disconnect from the conversation. I've gone into the examples a million times on this board.

But enough of this. Your post is annoying in that you point out a bunch of stuff you disagree with but never actually say anything. So, if you want to have a conversation, I suggest you do more than sit there and shit on the article without offering even a little bit of insight into why what you are quoting is incorrect or what you think is or isn't "helpful."

TM

I have a hard time not getting angry when someone (inevitably) says, "I'm against police violence but I can't support BLM if they're going to block freeways" or "inconveniencing people isn't going to get them to support you" or "acting all flamboyant at Pride isn't going to convince anyone that gay people are normal." All things members of my family have said in these conversation all from people who are generally fairly open minded but who are nonetheless reacting exactly as you and the article describe.

I mean, hey, maybe the people doing the work might know more about it than you but even if they don't, they're doing it and you're deflecting.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I have to say that this is the most frustrating response I get at the firm. It is so oblivious to the actual problem being addressed--namely that the people being trained to look at their own actions with some new perspective need to, you know, understand why they act the way they do--that it almost seems intentional. It's like you might see that there's a problem, but you don't want to put any effort into addressing it yourself. If you're going to go to a training session, you just want to be told how to fix it as if the solution is as easy as screwing in a light bulb.
_______

Me - Here's a problem we need to address: People can't see their own biases. There is a phenomenon called unconscious bias in which all societal cues have caused you to act on biases you don't even know you have and one called confirmation bias in which you look for any evidence at all that confirms a preexisting bias you hold and once you have it, you act accordingly (while ignoring that same evidence in someone who doesn't fit that bias).

Partner - That's interesting. But I'm not racist. I'm a good person. I would never make a decision based on race. What are the solutions to this?

Me - No one is saying you're a bad person. We are no longer talking about overt racism. If the baseline problem is one that you did not know existed, then a better understanding of that problem and the knowledge that you, you know, have it should lead you to make changes on your own.

Partner - How so? We need action items.

Me - Well, we've tried to give you examples. When you're talking to incoming associates, gravitating to the ones who share your interests (and giving them work because you're so comfortable with them) doesn't make much sense if your interests are sailing, golf, equestrian, Cape Cod, and Princeton. You have to understand these things about yourself and then actively avoid making connections and decisions based on them. It's up to you to think about how your unconscious biases and tendency toward confirmation bias affects your decision and your practice. Why do you give all your work to the kid from Greenwich, Connecticut? Why do you describe the woman on your reviews as "sweet and friendly" and the men on your deals as "smart and impressive?" Does it have something to do with biases you have of who is competent professionally that you should investigate?

Partner - So, don't talk about sailing and don't call women, "sweet." Got it.

Me - Jesus fucking Christ.

TM

It’s hard for me to do this, and it requires constant effort and awareness. It’s just easier to stay in the default state of bonding with those who are “comfortable” to be around. It’s difficult for me to reach outside of my little circle, but I recognize that that’s what I need to do.

There is no “solution,” as frustrating as that is. Most of us don’t even think that there’s a problem in need of a solution (other than our own good faith) - let’s look at building awareness first.

[ferrets_bueller]

Interesting piece.



It would be silly to state that white Americans, collectively and individually, have not benefited from institutional racism, and continue to do so. Stipulated.


By most definitions I'm a white progressive. Are white progressives, more part of the problem than conservatives? I doubt that. I don't see a lot of white progressives proffering blatant disenfranchisement legislation on the state voting rolls. I don't see white progressives repealing health care which reached minorities in record numbers.



Thurgreed: Although I generally align with white progressives, here is where I have some serious problems: Microagressions....slights so small one must hire an expert to point them out. Trigger warnings. Safe spaces. Shouting down conservative speakers. These are used, particularly on college campuses by both white progressives, and minorities. I find these both offensive and counterproductive. So do my views on this make me worse than, to tear a page from today's truly hilarious news, Jason Spenser?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Adder

I have a hard time not getting angry when someone (inevitably) says, "I'm against police violence but I can't support BLM if they're going to block freeways" or "inconveniencing people isn't going to get them to support you" or "acting all flamboyant at Pride isn't going to convince anyone that gay people are normal." All things members of my family have said in these conversation all from people who are generally fairly open minded but who are nonetheless reacting exactly as you and the article describe.

I mean, hey, maybe the people doing the work might know more about it than you but even if they don't, they're doing it and you're deflecting.

I have some sympathy for the blocked freeway thing - I’m Irish, but it still pisses me off when 5th Avenue is closed to allow knuckleheaded Micks to march while holding “Free Bobby Sands” (yes, I know) signs and an underaged drunken lax douche from Chaminade is busy puking on my sidewalk.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yeah. Of course it didn't. Color me shocked.

Pun intended?

Look, it is almost impossible to talk to white people about racism.

I hear you. Thanks for taking up the challenge here.

I sit on 3 different diversity organizations. Every single time white people are in the room, a conversation about racism, the effects of racism, steps to fix it, devolves into a conversation about white people's good intentions, feelings about being in the vicinity of racism, their meager upbringing, whatever. It makes it completely impossible to discuss the actual effects of their racism. People who are trying to address racism spend most of their time helping white people with their feelings and ensuring them that they aren't bad people. White people (on the whole) cannot have a conversation about racism.

I don't disagree at all.

Like I said, I have been struggling with this phenomenon for quite some time, as have many prominent people in the diversity field. Focusing on unconscious bias, confirmation bias, etc. is strategic because the message is, "Hey, shhhhh, it's not really your fault. But let's see how we can get past this." And it's because when you say to a white person, "Black people at this firm aren't being given the same opportunities. We need to do this that and the other." All they hear is "You're a racist," and that's that. Conversation effectively over.

Ditto.

And liberals and progressives benefit from racism and actively fight changing societal dynamics that grant them those benefits. As long as they can tell themselves that they aren't part of the problem or would never use a racial slur, they let themselves off the hook. Once again, when they are faced with how they benefit, they completely disconnect from the conversation. I've gone into the examples a million times on this board.

OK.

But enough of this. Your post is annoying in that you point out a bunch of stuff you disagree with but never actually say anything. So, if you want to have a conversation, I suggest you do more than sit there and shit on the article without offering even a little bit of insight into why what you are quoting is incorrect or what you think is or isn't "helpful."

Hey, I tried to say that there were things about the article that I liked and things I disagreed with. I'm not arguing about the message -- I'm just surprised that you would say it's the best thing you've read on racism since college, because that sounds like a pretty high bar. So here were my criticisms, with some more explanation:

"how society is set up"

No one "set up" society. Racism is the product of a whole bunch of individuals actions and choices. While it is helpful to get people to realize that racism is systematic and pervasive, talking at this level of generality can become a substitute for illustrating the subject in a concrete way. (Maybe this is just the reviewer's gloss on a book that does the letter.) I want to hear more specifics about how and why people do and think what they do and think. Hearing that society is set up to be racist is about as helpful as Sebby explaining that we are all responsible for the rise of Trump.

"white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color"

I don't think it's true. As I was saying to GGG, I think white progressives can be maddening, because one expects more help and less resistance, but I think Trump voters do more daily damage. For example, Trump voters and the officials they elected are splitting up refugee families. Obama was far from perfect, but he was better on that score.

white racism as "a pathogen that seeks to replicate itself"

From a history of ideas perspective, I'm interested in the way that beliefs evolve. But. If the central problem addressed by the book and the review is that white liberals are in denial about their racism, then talking about racism as a sort of independent agent that goes around infecting people is just another way of letting them off the hooks for their choices, actions and beliefs. To my mind, I prefer the approach of Gordon Allport's Prejudice, which talks about prejudice (or racism, if you will) as thoughts and beliefs that the result of the way everyone thinks.

I wrote my college thesis about racism and the way that it did and did not affect government policy in a particular case, so I guess I am repeating ideas that I have worked over a lot in the last many years.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I have to say that this is the most frustrating response I get at the firm. It is so oblivious to the actual problem being addressed--namely that the people being trained to look at their own actions with some new perspective need to, you know, understand why they act the way they do--that it almost seems intentional. It's like you might see that there's a problem, but you don't want to put any effort into addressing it yourself. If you're going to go to a training session, you just want to be told how to fix it as if the solution is as easy as screwing in a light bulb.
_______

Me - Here's a problem we need to address: People can't see their own biases. There is a phenomenon called unconscious bias in which all societal cues have caused you to act on biases you don't even know you have and one called confirmation bias in which you look for any evidence at all that confirms a preexisting bias you hold and once you have it, you act accordingly (while ignoring that same evidence in someone who doesn't fit that bias).

Partner - That's interesting. But I'm not racist. I'm a good person. I would never make a decision based on race. What are the solutions to this?

Me - No one is saying you're a bad person. We are no longer talking about overt racism. If the baseline problem is one that you did not know existed, then a better understanding of that problem and the knowledge that you, you know, have it should lead you to make changes on your own.

Partner - How so? We need action items.

Me - Well, we've tried to give you examples. When you're talking to incoming associates, gravitating to the ones who share your interests (and giving them work because you're so comfortable with them) doesn't make much sense if your interests are sailing, golf, equestrian, Cape Cod, and Princeton. You have to understand these things about yourself and then actively avoid making connections and decisions based on them. It's up to you to think about how your unconscious biases and tendency toward confirmation bias affects your decision and your practice. Why do you give all your work to the kid from Greenwich, Connecticut? Why do you describe the woman on your reviews as "sweet and friendly" and the men on your deals as "smart and impressive?" Does it have something to do with biases you have of who is competent professionally that you should investigate?

Partner - So, don't talk about sailing and don't call women, "sweet." Got it.

Me - Jesus fucking Christ.

TM

I can see why that would be highly frustrating.

eta: In the spirit of being constructive and trying to find solutions, I just read a fantastic book called the High Growth Handbook, by Elad Gil. I'm sure it's much more relevant to my work than most other people here, but if it sounds like the sort of thing that would interest you then you should check it out. Anyway, in that book is an interview with a woman named Joelle Emerson, whom I don't think I knew anything about previously. That interview was really good. I lent my copy o the book to our CEO but TM I will make a copy of that interview and shoot it to you if you like. I am too new* at my current company to start telling other people how to hire, etc., but I am planning to look for more from Emerson and her outfit.

* For those of you familiar with my last shop, I have moved on to hopefully bigger and better things.