Reddit mentions of Discrimination and Disparities

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X

Whole book about this, just came out. It’s unlikely the author is racist since he’s black himself. Main point is that a lot of “discrimination” comes from people making logical choices about individuals based on group data in situations we don’t have access to individual data.

If group Y beats women twice as much as group X you’re nit racist for preferring to have sex with men of group X even if the vast majority of both groups don’t beat women. If those are the only two groups and that group data is all you have access to you’re cutting your risk of being beaten in half by only sleeping with group X.

He has written maybe a dozen books about it:

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Culture-World-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465067972

https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Economics-and-Politics-of-Race-Audiobook

https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/067930262X

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X

But here is a speech he wrote about three such books (Race and Culture, Migrations and Culture, and Conquests and Cultures.)

https://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html

Note he immediately points out not only that things aren’t equal or just, but also that there’s no reason one should expect equality, nor that we should expect everyone to behave morally. That’s specifically what I was responding to re. your post.

Read Thomas Sowell's Discrimination and Disparities. 200 pages of narrative critique shouldn't be too hard to digest before embarking on an activist career. Worst case scenario is that you learn what other people think about these issues and you can become proficient at countering it.

I'm doing my part — even got me a spray painted frowny face as you head up the mountain =P

----

All joking aside, "median household income" is an absolutely terrible metric. If you'd like to know more about this, you should read Dr. T. Sowell's "Dicrimination and Disparities" (it's his shortest work at <130 pages). To summarize (as it applies to Chattanooga): with our CoL being much lower than the average geographic area, it's more likely that households are going to be smaller since housing costs much less (and there is much more housing available than say NYC or SF).

Instead, the metric of "average income per person" should be used to truly show income growth.

Example (from Sowell's book):

>"Household income data ... [is] often used to indicate ... economic disparities in a society. But to say that the top 20 percent of households have X times as much income as the bottom 20 percent ... exaggerates the disparities between income brackets. That is because, despite equal numbers of households in each 20 percent, there are far more people in the top 20 percent of households [69m v 20m, 2002].

>"As the ... Census pointed out, more than half a century ago, the number of households has been increasing faster than the number of people. In short, American households tend to contain fewer people per household over time — a trend continuing into the 21st century.There are not only smaller families in later times, more individuals are financially able to live in their own individual households, rather than live with relatives or roommates."

>"When income per person is rising over the same span of years when the average number of persons per household is declining, that can lead to statistics indicating that the average household income is falling, even if all individual incomes are rising."

>"Household income statistics can be misleading in [many] other ways. If two low-income people are sharing an apartment ... [and] if either or both has an increase in salary, that can lead to one tenant moving out to live alone ... and that, in turn, can lead to a fall in average household incomes."

"Median Household Income" is usually used when the intent is to skew data through an "Error of Omission" (i.e. the household income statistic is highly manipulatable).

Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle

Just finished that book...it was mostly a long essay. I'm looking for another one now while I work towards finishing To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism.

I toy with the idea of reading Discrimination and Disparities...but I just don't hate myself enough...

I highly recommend reading this book Thomas Sowell describes three types of discrimination. What you are talking about is discrimination but not racism. It is not racism because race is not the primary factor in your judgement, it is past interactions. Anyways, if you read the book, you'd understand what I am talking about.

It's out on the 29th!

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Don't be sorry, that was great! Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. There was some uhh...drama, that kept me away for a spell.

I understand a lot of the points you are making and I'm sorry that my reply is going to be LONG. If I may, I'm going to respond to snippets -- not as rebuttals per say but as "yes...but!" -- if only so my comments have more context to what I said already. I don't think we can maintain an ongoing discussion and partly because my formatting and editing can be scattershot, so i apologize for that but want to thank you for having taken the time to compose a thoughtful reply. I wrote this first part last, so the tone might shift later. It's getting late so I just gotta send it.

+++

WRT your link about employment: Have you read Sowell's work on discrimination types? In absence of other information, people in positions to hire will try to hire someone they think they identify with. So if John and Mary are hiring someone, naturally they will select for a Catholic sounding name first -- all else being equal. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it just is. Take for instance, hiring by personality type is a newish thing and this is leading to its own discrimination pattern within workplaces, for ex Google and big techs left-leaning systemic biases.

WRT to school punishment: I would argue much of that problem is representation. I used to scoff at this as a racial notion thinking as an adult and projecting that onto kids. But for young kids I think there is something to be said, much less so with adults voting for candidates that look like them. But I came to understand this issue as a man when I learned the difference with how boys are treated.

Christina Hoff Sommers discusses this quite well. She doesn't say this but I take her points and would also add that young boys would be more disciplined with more male teachers in elementary. Especially since the rate of black single moms is so high, those young boys need positive male behavior modeling in their lives, and early. I hope you understand I bring this point up because I don't want that problem to perpetuate.

+++

>By your comments, it sounds like maybe your views of racial inequality is that it is insignificant in america today to validate a cultural movement towards seeking equality, but correct me if i'm wrong there.

We have to be honest: is the inequality and racism today as bad as 100 years ago? No. 50? No. 20? No. It's not insignificant, but I think we are reaching the point of diminishing returns.

Many of the outcomes we see today are the vestiges of the inequalities of the past. Of which, the oft contributing factors in culture are somewhat responsible for perpetuating those outcomes. That is to say: Yes, there has been (and sometimes continues to be) inequalities of enforcement and opportunity, but there has also been a culture that has exacerbated the problem. That's my "but" answer.

+++

Let's speak specifically to those two groups I might have mentioned earlier. American blacks (not derogatory, just a descriptor I've seen commonly used) have had a culturally enforced anti-academic culture. There are slurs they use to police behavior that don't need to be repeated here, but you can imagine what impact this will have on personal drive. Which, actually is a symptom of all poor communities. People that live in poverty can often be toxic to people who are striving to achieve. It can be seen as an uncomfortable threat that the people not achieving tend to feel. Shame, I guess.

Contrast that American Poor attitude (not exclusive to the AB group, but emblematic of an exacerbating condition for a group with historical barriers and troubles) with that of high drive immigrants, specifically Jamaican/Barbados blacks. Of course, the immigrants that come here will usually be higher status in their home countries but they promote academic and commercial achievement and the families tend to stay together. As such, their crime and outcome statistics are better, in general.

+++

Given that, how much more can society be adjusted for to make opportunity equal to all -- but when outcomes between groups differ, how much of that do we recognize as differences in culture and/or ability?

For example, the Scandinavian countries are often cited as an example of cultural egalitarianism between the sexes. Yet there are disparities in chosen industries. Are these countries crypto-sexists still? Or are people making their choices as they see fit when free to do so?

Now, for a terribly rough segue: People aren't prone to crime by dint of birth, but a subculture of resentment will foment more criminality. So is the outsized idpol attributing everything to the white patriarchy helping or hurting? I'm glad we agree they can go too far, it's just a matter of where we all draw the line.

+++

On idpol, I've heard it argued that the original sin lies with white people because of racist western science and scientists in the 1800-early 1900s. I don't think we can retroactively apply our moral concept of race to the past since everyone was more tribal back then. Not a cop out, just that we have a different moral matrix that didn't exist then. Just because western literature shows our history, warts and all, doesn't mean that white westerners were the only racist/tribalists then. And no, I don't think everyone is a racist today, unless you stretch that definition paper thin to encompass all incidents of ingroup preference. At which point, the critique is moot.

>The struggle that people of color face is a struggle that disadvantage whites face as well, and should be a rallying cry for solidarity.

I'm more on board with the unification by class than anything but I don't see social stratification as a bad thing in of itself (too much is bad, and we may arguably be at that point but global poverty rates are way down which says something). Only when people on top hamper and try to immobilize the economic opportunities of the poor and working class, that gets my goat. This is most often done through corporatism and state enforced mechanisms that violate free market principles. That's obviously a broad topic but that's just my quick take on it as I see it.

>the fact of the matter is that POC are generally more oppressed, so in an effort to fight overall oppression, we must address the concerns of those who have it worst

I can't agree with that definition only because each group has differentials that makes them not the same, so I find the POC term erroneous. I also think it's taken it's current form to "Other" white people. Again, broad topic. Let's table that for now.

Natives have different concerns from American Blacks, from Latinos, etc. It is not for me to dictate what they need, I'll listen, I'll help where I can, I certainly won't impair their striving for a better life, but I won't be dictated to about how I go about that. I despise the Peter Singer model of Effective Altruism and consequentialism that influences many left leaning, and especially idpol circles. Partly because I used to have many sanctimonious vegan friends and the people who criticize others for not doing enough encourages nothing but narcissistic grand-standing, cannibalism (figuratively) and purity spiraling.

I and most white people are not inheritors of wealth or beneficiaries of out-sized privilege. Other than the privilege any majority member gets in the circumstance they are born to (ie Japanese people benefit the most in Japan). These are the consequences of history, and we are not guilty of the sins of the father and so on -- and most of human history was brutal with people just barely making it day to day.

Why do poor nations not succeed when given free cash, infrastructure, food, and medical aid? Innumerable. But one thing is certain: “Nothing of value is free. Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain.” ― Robert Heinlein

+++

You don't have to agree with me on anything, but if you can understand why I said these things based on my references, without moral impugning (not that you in particular would) -- then I'd say we had a good row. Mistaken Identity piqued my interest, even if I'm reticent of leftism at the moment, thanks for sharing this because I may have to check it out!

I recommend Thomas Sowell's "Discrimination and Disparities" (https://www.amazon.ca/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1550347311&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+sowell+discrimination+and+disparities). He's an African-American ex-Marxist, by the way.

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X

Actually not. When you compare individuals equal in education, current experience, hours worked, and equal skill sets gender makes no difference in pay. There are in fact areas where women are paid more than men. You only achieve the $.78 for every $1 figure if you total all income for each gender and divide by total in each gender, thereby comparing a part time waitress with a doctorate level physicist.

The sad part is that this was known as far back as the 70's. Thomas Sowell even wrote a book on it.

Karsh

Literally just read this book and you will come to find me (and others like me) much less of a thought-enemy than you once did. https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X/ref=nodl_

Racism in America was on life support until a few years ago. It is still very weak and nothing compared to the 1950s.

Those studies show nothing contradictory to my point—just because black people are more likely to be pulled over does not in and of itself prove racism was the cause.

In fact, the NYPD is majority-minority and pull over, frisk, arrest, etc blacks at similar rates of other areas with majority white officers.

The banking study is garbage too. Leftists like to point out that black families have $1 of wealth for every $13 a white family has...well maybe thats why banks in predominantly black areas require higher minimum deposits as well as credit screenings for loans.


Again I know racism exists, but it is not one iota as prevalent or consequential as you claim.

You would like this book:
https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwiJsrWdqI3iAhXFRIYKHf8eA48YABAHGgJ2dQ&ae=1&sig=AOD64_1MYjSLVAfZ5CeuGXFFEjbHj6_L4Q&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwiM66ydqI3iAhWxo1kKHXNIBucQwg8IMQ&adurl=https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X/ref%3Dasc_df_154164560X/%3Ftag%3Dhyprod-20%26linkCode%3Ddf0%26hvadid%3D312025908234%26hvpos%3D1o1%26hvnetw%3Dg%26hvrand%3D11099025303217042655%26hvpone%3D%26hvptwo%3D%26hvqmt%3D%26hvdev%3Dm%26hvdvcmdl%3D%26hvlocint%3D%26hvlocphy%3D9008191%26hvtargid%3Dpla-447243434080%26psc%3D1

>What statistical averages are you speaking of?

Things like taking the average income of a group of people. So because blacks earn X% on average and whites earn Y% on average, therefore the value of X-Y% is due to racism. There are plenty of other examples.

You have to actually demonstrate that non racist factors have no influence before you can conclude that the primary factor is racism. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on the topic that thoroughly debunks this notion.

> Until the place across the street doesn't want "your kind" in there either.

Do you know how stupid that is? A lot of segregation laws concerning businesses (like separate restaurants) were created because business owners cared more about making money than the minority of racists in the region and would happily accept black customers.

Sorry but greed trumps ideology 99% of the time. If it didn't people wouldn't bitch about the corruption in congress and campaign finance reform.

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X

Go read it. Clearly explains why regulating businesses in regards to discrimination is a bad thing with data and statistics to back it up.

> Allowing discrimination only serves to dehumanize people.

So I assume you live in the hood with gangs and are completely fine with it?

If not, then shut up cause you're clearly discriminating against the hood by living someplace "nicer" (i.e. less colorful).