all 85 comments

[–]firebird 76 insightful - 2 fun76 insightful - 1 fun77 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

Isn't that supposed to be the ideal? Being hired purely on merit, without any other quality you happen to be born with mattering?

[–]Girlwiththeraventat 39 insightful - 11 fun39 insightful - 10 fun40 insightful - 11 fun -  (12 children)

No that's now racists don't you know. Unless you consider the person's skin color before anything else, you are a racist. Actually if you dont favor POV over white people, you are racist.

[–]Shinjin_Nana 21 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I've been seeing this more and more. It's not the end of racism, it's just more racism with different targets. POC and minorities don't want equality anymore, they want privilege. It's all punching down at 'karens', back to racial quotas, and the evils of 'white feminism'.

[–]RedditHatesLesbians 43 insightful - 2 fun43 insightful - 1 fun44 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Respectfully disagree. These articles aren't being written by POC, they're being written by white virtue-signalling morons with way too much time on their hands, and they're actually purposefully provocative for clicks. Anger is the most effective emotion to get people to share articles online. Equality doesn't exist yet, so how could they overshoot? Look at America. This is only happening online. In real life, minorities are being murdered every day.

[–]Shinjin_Nana 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

So hiring musicians for an orchestra should exactly match the demographics instead of blindly looking for talent? The blind audition increased diversity in an organic way, and was proven to work.

"In real life, minorities are being murdered every day." Statistically speaking, by other minorities. A vast majority of homicide and crime is intra-racial, regardless of what those provocative click bait anger inducing articles want you to think.

[–]RedditHatesLesbians 18 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Blind hiring is wonderful. Never said that I disagree with that concept. I doubt that the people writing these articles believe it should change either, they're just written to be provocative.

If even 2 black people were being murdered every year by police that would be too many. Yes statistically black on black violence is a huge issue, do you think that that shouldn't be addressed? That it's somehow okay just because it's interracial? All murder is bad, not just murder that fits your political view. White people are murdered by police too. That's also a problem. You cannot however deny the institutional oppression on a huge scale that minorities face. America was founded on racism and imperialism.

[–]Realwoman 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

No one ever mentions repealing the second amendment and taking away people's guns as the solution even though it will obviously help decrease the deaths. But guns are sacred for Americans on both sides. I wish the far left was focused on something sensible like that, not on performative wokeness and oppression Olympics.

[–]DimDroog 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I wish the far left would focus on the working classes, but we can't have that can we?

Spoiled little upper middle class brats.

[–]Lilith_Fair 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They've long since abandoned the working class. The working class don't get all the campus woke speaks, woke ideologies, and PC culture. A lot of them are cultural conservatives (oh the horror!). If anything, they've been at war with the working class because "those people are uneducated and stupid."

[–]DimDroog 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If anything, they've been at war with the working class because "those people are uneducated and stupid."

Don't forget racist Bible thumpers who cling to their guns.

It really angers me.

[–]Shinjin_Nana 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with your first paragraph.

With the rest: you put the lack of equality next to minorities getting killed, as if to infer being murdered by their evil oppressors. I stated a fact to the contrary. So now I'm magically an evil person that is ok with intra-racial violence.

I have a feeling you're reading more into my statement and replying emotionally. I will end the conversation here.

[–]spinningIntelligence 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Equality doesn't exist yet, so how could they overshoot?"

Well said.

[–]Realwoman 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I saw studies that most POC in America don't agree with many of the "woke" dogmas about them. It's mostly white saviors that push the ridiculous agenda.

[–]Shinjin_Nana 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I stalk on LSA and Twitter so I both agree and disagree with you, simultaneously.

[–]Realwoman 9 insightful - 7 fun9 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Are you a white supremacist supporting the patriarchy? /s

[–]loq453 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Isn't that supposed to be the ideal? Being hired purely on merit, without any other quality you happen to be born with mattering?

Problem you have is that genetics determine your merit, so qualities you are born with matter. Intelligence is to a large degree heritable and the older a person gets the bigger the correlation between IQ and genetics.

If you had truly blind acceptance in universities in US Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians would be the majority of students. Ashkenazim have the highest IQ and East Asians after them.

Other issue you run into is with sexual dimorphism, IQ studies done on large scale have shown that while women have equal or slightly higher average IQ compared to men, men have a higher variability, so men produce more mentally retarded people as well as more geniuses, so almost all fields where very high IQ is important will have a disproportionate amount of men.

[–]Realwoman 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

And this is a problem why? Also, is IQ all that applicable when it comes to music?

[–]loq453 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

And this is a problem why?

It's not in homogeneous in societies like China or Japan, but for example in Israel where you have groups which have developed apart from each other and have significant difference genetic differences, Ashkenazi vs Mizrahi Jews, you get one group, the more capable one, taking over all important positions in society, and it creates strife. In that case the society should create systems of equalizing outcome to lower the strife. A lot of large empires in history had such social programs.

And again I've heard numerous complaints about the small amount of women among nobel prize winners and generally in high positions in science, but a lot of that is a result of biological differences, and the fact that while on average the intelligence between men and women is equal, men have a lot more extremes, so geniuses are predominantly men.

Hiring people purely on merit will result in massive discrimination, that is all I am saying.

Also, is IQ all that applicable when it comes to music?

Not IQ as such, but I am certain there is a genetic component to musical talent.

[–]Realwoman 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

How is the it discrimination if the most capable people end up getting the job? This is true equality. Are you advocating for equality of outcome? I want the best musicians to play music when it go and listen too it and I want the smartest people to be in charge. Otherwise, it's unfair to to the capable person that gets looked over in favor of someone of inferior talent or achievement, purely for who they are. This is not justice, it's tyranny. And I don't want the doctor operating on me to be a diversity hire, sorry, I want her to be good at her job.

A lot of the differences between groups are cultural btw, not genetic.

[–]loq453 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is not discrimination, but your outcome will end up skewed. Just look at affirmative action and racial structure of US universities. As it stands a quarter of students at high end universities are Asian, yet Asians make up only ~6% of US population, and this is with affirmative action hampering their enrollment and making it harder for them to enter universities. I personally think that it is bullshit what is being done to Asians in America, but it is done because people at large have complained about the racial inequalities in education.

A lot of the differences between groups are cultural btw, not genetic.

IQ is genetic, this has been shown time and time again, and in almost all of the modern day jobs IQ is the primary determining factor of success. It has been shown that high IQ correlates with high success in life. There are other forms intelligence, which are also genetic, but those are largely unimportant in a modern industrial and information based society.

[–]Realwoman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't understand the first part of what you're saying. I'm against making it harder for Asians to enter university just because they're higher achievers.

IQ is genetic but differences between the IQ of different ethnicities are not well established.

[–]sisterinsomnia 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"And again I've heard numerous complaints about the small amount of women among nobel prize winners and generally in high positions in science, but a lot of that is a result of biological differences, and the fact that while on average the intelligence between men and women is equal, men have a lot more extremes, so geniuses are predominantly men."

There is more to understand than this in who gets awarded the Nobel prizes:

First, in many of the early decades when the prizes were awarded very few women had the kind of training and positions getting to compete for the Nobel required as the first condition. Commonly shared cultural beliefs existed which saw higher education for women as wasted because they were expected to get married and then stay at home. Open sex discrimination also happened, and still happens in some countries, and to some extent who gets nominated for these prizes in the first place may also have been biased against women because the nominations came largely from existing university departments and therefore probably reflected whatever the current power structure might have looked like. It is harder to spot people who don't look the way you expect a genius to look for, if you start with a subconscious idea of how that might be!

Then in many of the relevant academic fields (largely STEM) the actual work is often done by teams, not by some isolated genius toiling in the attic (though Barbara McClintock did work like that for a while, in a shed), and it is possible that women, when very few in a field, have more trouble in getting admitted into teams as the only woman etc.

For these reasons (and for some murkier ones) I would not compare men and women in those Nobel statistics until we come to very recent years. The work someone gets the prize for was usually done several decades before the award is given. That lag means that it is only now we are seeing something more like a level playing field. Women do still get very different cultural messages about the inadvisability of an ambitious career path, the difficulty of combining family and intellectual work when the woman is supposed to do both and so on, which tilts the field a little even now. So I would keep an open mind on this question.

Second, the concept of 'genius' is not that easy to define. We have the myth of the lone genius who is just born that way and can achieve anything he (and it would be 'he' in the myth) without any environmental effects hampering his meteoric rise. But in reality if Isaac Newton had been a shepherd who never went to school we would not know anything about him, and even today there are people born who have minds capable of great things but not the environment needed for those minds to actually produce wonderful findings.

So the culture matters and one's position in the society in general. Women have rarely in the older history received the kind of education that being seen as a genius by others would require as the starting point.

What also matters is understanding that most great discoveries rely on something like the old saw about standing on the shoulders of giants to reach for the stars, and that close scientific communities are very necessary for the development of many of the ideas which later look like they came out of the mind of one person. As I mentioned earlier, women seem still have more trouble in being accepted into male-majority laboratory teams etc, though the Internet is improving their chances of having the necessary debate groups within their fields.

It is difficult to define 'genius,' but clearly it means much more than scoring in the extreme upper tail of some distribution. Producing very important results also requires much hard work, and for someone to be able to do that, others must care for that person's additional obligations, such as children, household chores, care of elderly parents, and so on. And much luck or privilege may be required for someone to pass all the obstacles en route to get to the starting position for the Nobel races. That process is not equal to all demographic groups.

The topic of what intelligence is, if it is inherited (about fifty percent of one (imperfect) measure, the IQ, appears to be), and how we can measure it is far too big to address here, but it's not the same thing as just the IQ, and it's not the same thing as just mathematical IQ.

[–]firebird 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What you're saying in both this comment and your follow-up skips over some very important nuances, and you're equating things that simply shouldn't be equated.

Starting with the latter: you equate IQ with intelligence, while scientifically speaking, these two aren't the same. Intelligence is defined broader than IQ is, and less is known about the group differences in intelligence, which is quite relevant to this conversation.

Aside from that, there are more factors that are relevant to IQ differences than just ethnicity. Time plays an important part: IQ scores have been rising over time, and as you have already mentioned, when a person gets older, genetic factors start to win out over environmental factors. There are also factors like socioeconomic class, and what opportunities someone has when it comes to education. There are even theories about nutrition playing a role.

And this is just talking about genetics. In recent years there has been more attention for epigenetics, and the way genetics interact with our environment. I'll use your example of the genetic component to musical talent. There are most certainly indications that there is in fact an heriditary element to it, but this brings other elements with it. A musically gifted child is more likely to have parents that are also gifted, and more likely to then nurture this trait in their child. When the child gets older, they will then likely seek out other environments that suit this gift, like an education in the field, other people that are also interested and gifted in music (just to give some simple examples). This helps in further developing what the child was born with.

It also seems important to note that a lot of these things that both you and I mentioned are things that are noticed, theorized, speculated about and debated over. In short: there is no consensus over this, especially when it comes to "racial" differences. So I quite frankly think it's potentially dangerous to make claims like you did (especially something like calling one group "more capable" than another) based on something that is very complex and not even fully understood yet. That, and all you took into consideration was the genetic component of IQ, which in most cases is simply not the only thing that comes into play for deciding who's the best fit for a particular job, and was also not what I meant when I used the word "merit". Worst case scenario, comments like these invite people to be racist and sexist. Best case scenario you provide others not with the full picture, but with only part of it.

[–]loq453 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Intelligence is defined broader than IQ is, and less is known about the group differences in intelligence, which is quite relevant to this conversation.

In this specific scenario of music this is true, but in the grander scheme of things IQ is the most important. Almost all of the modern day jobs depend on IQ, and it has been shown that high IQ correlates with high success. IQ is not the only intelligence, but it is the most important one in today's world.

Aside from that, there are more factors that are relevant to IQ differences than just ethnicity. Time plays an important part: IQ scores have been rising over time, and as you have already mentioned, when a person gets older, genetic factors start to win out over environmental factors. There are also factors like socioeconomic class, and what opportunities someone has when it comes to education. There are even theories about nutrition playing a role.

IQ scores have not been rising over time, in fact Flynn effect has been reversing since the 90s and the average IQ has been decreasing. The very fact that influence of genetics increases with age just shows that genetics matter more when it comes to IQ than nurture. Studies have been done on identical twins who separated at birth and raised in completely different environments, and still the biggest factor was genetic.

And this is just talking about genetics. In recent years there has been more attention for epigenetics, and the way genetics interact with our environment. I'll use your example of the genetic component to musical talent. There are most certainly indications that there is in fact an heriditary element to it, but this brings other elements with it. A musically gifted child is more likely to have parents that are also gifted, and more likely to then nurture this trait in their child. When the child gets older, they will then likely seek out other environments that suit this gift, like an education in the field, other people that are also interested and gifted in music (just to give some simple examples). This helps in further developing what the child was born with.

That just means that the underlying genetic factor gets reinforced by environmental factors, in the end genetics still ends up being most important.

In short: there is no consensus over this, especially when it comes to "racial" differences.

It's been shown over and over again that there are differences in capabilities between ethnic groups, and we see these differences manifest in real world results. The lack of consensus and the "debate" is motivated by political correctness and not facts.

So I quite frankly think it's potentially dangerous to make claims like you did (especially something like calling one group "more capable" than another)

Worst case scenario, comments like these invite people to be racist and sexist.

These statements show why you disagree, you see that factually I am right, but "it is dangerous", just political correctness. Why is it dangerous? Reality is sexist, racist, and dangerous then.

I've never even said what we should do, just laid out what would happen in a truly merit based society. Most societies moderate outcome to limit social strife, US does it with affirmative action, it is actively hampering Asian enrollment in universities because they're too successful.

Even when it comes to sexual differences we moderate outcome. We know that men are physically more capable than women, so we have created sports categories for women where they can compete, otherwise all sports would be just men. Is that too dangerous?

[–]firebird 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Based on that entire last paragraph, it seems to me like not only did you not understand the point I was trying to get across, you're actively misrepresenting it. I've spent enough time attempting to debate people who just heard what they wanted to hear instead of actually listening to what I have to say to know that it's no use.

So I suggest we leave it at this. Have a good day.

[–]Yayme 35 insightful - 1 fun35 insightful - 0 fun36 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That's crazy!

Also, kind-of a heads up, I guess "clown world" is a term used by antisemitic people. There was a huge discussion about it on the old GC, and to be honest I thought it was just someone being a drama queen and looking for an excuse to police others language.

Then we get here, where the anti-Semites are rampant, and lo and behold, "Clown World" is everywhere!

[–]FediNetizen 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Eh it's more like the OK sign where the original usage wasn't at all racist. Whenever someone says something retarded on twitter people always reply with clown gifs and make references to clowns like that. Nothing anti-semitic about that.

It does seem like racists have their own take on it, but the original meaning (you are a clown = you are a fucking moron, clown world = the world is being run by morons) is still widely used.

[–]our_team_is_winning 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

something retarded

is that word allowed in Newspeak?

[–]DimDroog 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hope so.

I like the word.

[–]kr66t 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It seems to be used by a pretty diverse group of people. I believe I've heard it quite a few times from some of the people who were involved in the grievance studies thing and it's to signify the absurdity of the sjw pomo politics that are currently in vogue. Like are we supposed to avoid or be careful of words that certain groups also use? Because in that case where does it stop?

[–]Hard_headed_woman 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Just recently read that "clown world" is a racist term.

What about "clown car?" I'll be real disappointed to find out I have to remove that from my lexicon, even if I do use it rarely! LOL

[–]Yayme 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

I'll be disappointed too. My kid keep begging to ride around with four and five kids on the golf cart, and it amuses me to no end to yell "NO, IT'S NOT A DAMN CLOWN CAR!"

[–]Hard_headed_woman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LOL

[–]RestingWitchface 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Can you explain why it's antisemitic? Genuinely curious, I'm trying to figure out how it could possibly be taken that way and struggling.

[–]mambean 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Clown world being a racist phrase is a gray one - if you just mean the words on their own, of course it's not racist. If you mean the meme phrase that's been popularized on the internet - yes it is. It's a phrase that started on /pol/ and white supremacist circles from the black pill ideology - basically talking about how the jews run things and how the world is unchangeable and all you can do it watch as the world is one big jew circus. There's context behind it.

"Clown world" was a phrase used in the subculture from about 2015. Its users claim it simply means that the (Western) world is so "crazy" in its embrace of social justice politics (read: not racist) that the only people who could conceivably be running it are Jews clowns, hence "clown world". In reality, countries without closed borders and which don't allow for the ethnic cleansing or genocide of minorities are "clown countries" because they don't embrace the policies of the Third Reich. The phrase started being heavily promoted on The Right Stuff's podcast "The Daily Shoah" in 2017.[3]

The "Honkler" meme originated on 4chan board /pol/ in February 2019 in a thread titled "Operation Honk".[4] Referred to as Honk Honk or Honkler, it quickly gained popularity across the internet in far-right groups, where Honkler imagery portrays antisemitic, homophobic, transphobic, and racist tropes.[5]

Honkler is the main figure of the Clown World, though other alt-right imagery is also drawn over by clown features, including images of Adolf Hitler and shock imagery.

The alt-right even dress up as clowns for protests, e.g. several Proud Boys at Patriot Prayer's attempted anti-abortion rally in Albany, New York in May 2019.[6]

[–]quickbeam 34 insightful - 1 fun34 insightful - 0 fun35 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, this strikes me as an incredibly bad idea. A better idea would be funding music programs or scholarships for young people of color to help bridge any achievement gaps. Or, you know, raising the minimum wage to a living wage and giving people Medicare for All so poverty doesn't create situations where kids without money have to work crappy minimum wage jobs rather than having enough time to practice instruments.

[–]ThisSiteIsUnusable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, but that would be hard. This just requires removing a screen. Much easier.

[–]Finnegan7921 20 insightful - 14 fun20 insightful - 13 fun21 insightful - 14 fun -  (0 children)

The NBA needs to start hiring more white guys to play. After all, it should reflect the community they play for.

[–]NecessaryScene1 22 insightful - 2 fun22 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Well, those aren't contradictory. The point of ending blind auditions is to re-introduce bias to force the selection process to treat people differently to artificially skew the selection outcomes.

You make the selection process unfair to balance out an (alleged) unfairness somewhere else. Injustice towards individuals in the name of "justice" for groups.

Because clearly an orchestra has to "reflect" a community rather than perform to a community (?)

How helping a mediocre player from a favoured group get an undeserved place because a potentially brilliant one from the same group chose to get a better paying job and never applied isn't clear.

(How long before we start seeing complaints of police sexism and insistence than men and women need to be equally represented in prison?)

[–]Realwoman 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

endprisonsexism

[–]beereadit 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We really are going backwards.

[–]Yayme 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

So, if you're going to talk about this, you have to talk about affirmative action. Which is really what this is. Do you think affirmative action is a bad thing?

I guess I personally don't. I mean, I have benefited from it. I am a small business owner, and I contract with major corporations and government agencies. They are required by law to have a diverse supply chain (if they're a tier 1 government supplier or a government agency.)

And the truth is, it's hard to break in to the "Old Boy's Network" of corporate contracting. I guess I'm fortunate enough in that my line of work is similar to accounting, so men do typically view it as "women's work." But it was still hard as hell to get to a point where my business was operating under it's own momentum, and I wasn't always struggling to prove that I know what I'm talking about when I'm pushing back against a man in the industry.

And I realize that doing it "blind" is suppose to remove all bias. But should we allow for some bias? And I'm honestly pretty skeptical that even when judging "blind" the judges don't know who the person playing is. Don't they all sort of have their own flavor? Like when the judges on Ink Master judge blind, they all sort of know who did the tattoo. I would assume the judges will know who is auditing, and will try to guess, and in some instances can guess.

[–]quickbeam 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I agree partly with you in that affirmative action makes up for generational wealth gaps which are often heavily associated with race/ethnicity in the U.S. I think that an even better way to deal with these wealth gaps would be through raising the minimum wage to a living wage, raising taxes on the wealthiest to 50's or 60's levels and redistributing that money to social programs, and getting everyone Medicare For All. The reason there are probably more white musicians is that more well-off kids will have more time to practice and more money for tutors or music camps, etc. That's pretty hard to bridge unless we start looking at income/wealth inequality in the country as a root cause.

[–]Hard_headed_woman 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Actually, there are a lot of Asian-American musicians who came from quite meager backgrounds. It's not just a money issue, and these kids were excelling. :) They valued the music, they had talent, AND they worked their asses off. :) It's pretty easy to see when you have kids in high school music programs.

[–]Shinjin_Nana 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Hush. No one wants to hear about the Asians succeeding as a minority /s

It's because their families value education and teach their kids to value it too. I live in the sunset and every commercial block has at least one tutoring or art school and is full of small asian owned businesses. The parents work their butts off so their kids can go to college and get a high paying techie, doctor, or lawyer job and this starts the process of creating generational wealth.

Social programs to stop people from being destitute is a good thing, but you need the work ethic to prevent those handouts from becoming a culture of dependency.

[–]WrongToy 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The Sunset's typical home value is over a million dollars now. Let's not pretend they are all Horatio Alger stories free of racism themselves. You live there so you know what the attitude is toward Lowell. It's like people's mission to get their kid into Lowell and that's often what they care about more than their kid's mental health.

Asians are just OTHER PEOPLE. They are not more inclined toward mechanical engineering, or medicine, or Big Tech, or anything else. Their culture can be insane on kids.

[–]Shinjin_Nana 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Home value isn't always derivative of personal wealth. If you bought the home before the spike you would have to sell it to see that wealth as liquidity to reinvest in other things. That wealth only exist once it is cashed out, much like stocks.

There's a popup food bank across from where I live and there are plenty of people there of all ages and stripes. My own landlord sends his wife a couple times a week and their house is definitely over a million.

There's no such thing as being free of racism. The Asians here thrive to spite it. When white businesses wouldn't serve them, such as banks, they made their own banks, their own green grocers etc. They saw these things as business opportunities. You don't have to live in some anti-racism scrubbed utopia to find your way to wealth.

"Asians are just other people, not inclined toward... etc" So is everyone else. Why bother talking about ethnic groups, sex classes, or wealth classes if this is the case. So everyone is an individual who should rise and fall based on individual traits, and the culture that raised them plays no part?

[–]WrongToy 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If you own in the Sunset you have multimillion dollar options. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Sure you can not be taking in income, but then you have the option of a second mortgage or reverse mortgage.

There hasn't been anti-Asian financial discrimination in SF, and especially the Sunset, for the past half century. Well, unless you count Lowell. And that got consent decreed so that Chinese Americans had less of an advantage than say, Filipinos or APIs.

A lot of Asian culture is INSANE. Let's face it, very few can be the best but Asians drive and drive their kids to the brink of mental health issues and sometimes suicide over not living up to their insane standards. Lowell. Cal. Julliard. Whatever they can brag about to their other friends.

[–]Shinjin_Nana 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Now you're pretending that their good sense to buy up most of San Francisco when it was cheap just popped out of nowhere. Also a second mortgage is not wealth. It's debt.

Of course there isn't financial discrimination against Asians. They have no fewer than three Asian focused banks here (East-West, Bank of the West, and Bank of the Orient, which was the first), build by Asians for Asians. Here's more information about Chinese banking on the West coast: https://imdiversity.com/villages/asian/a-history-of-chinese-american-banking-in-los-angeles/

They knew they were financially underserved and didn't wait for old ytee to fix it for them, and there is generational wealth because of it. It became their business and the business they passed down to their children.

We were talking about how to build generational wealth, not mental health issues. I'd rather drive a kid crazy trying to get into a good school then having them shot on the street playing gangsta. But, pick your poison, I guess.

[–]WrongToy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The multimillion-dollar asset still stands. Yes it's debt against your house. You are milking it BUT you have it. I'm not a big believer in generational wealth and I'm not a big believer in torturing children either over status either. Maybe some of them are JUST HAPPIER going into skilled trades, haircutting or having a liquor store or working for UPS or driving Uber.

Those are just as valid careers as being a bank consultant, or a doctor, or a lawyer or whatever. Besides the doctors, I'd say they've been less necessary recently than the above.

[–]Shinjin_Nana 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But it's just an asset that can as easily be devalued as it can be milked. It's not actual liquid wealth until it's sold.

Well, if you don't believe in generational wealth, or think that valuing education and getting a kid into a good school is just for status, then I don't know why we're bothering to discuss this at all.

I work as a self-employed freelance artist and know that being poor (18-20k annual gross) and happy (and loaded with student loans lulz) is a thing, it's my lived reality. BUT I also understand that it's a privilege of the family and culture that raised me and I rely on peace in the neighborhood that I choose to inhabit.

I can be poor and happy in a low crime area because others before me have made it possible.

You're trying to skip that intermediary step that stabilizes the home environment and I think at this point you're mixing generalities and race/class disparities with individual goals and pursuits and it is not adding to the discussion.

I have nothing more to say on this.

[–]quickbeam 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If these Asian American students had come from richer backgrounds, they'd be even better. And having parents who support your ability to play music is also an institutional advantage. So I do think we should be doing more to make a more equitable society where students without economic advantages or supportive families could potentially become musicians. Nothing wrong with that.

[–]Hard_headed_woman 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Unless you plan on raising kids in orphanages, the family and the immediate community will always have a strong influence on children. How do you expect to get a child to practice the violin 5 hours a day without parental involvement? Social programs are supposed to be safety nets to protect families when they fall. They don't and never will replace actual families. That might suck, but it is the reality.

[–]quickbeam 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Are you aware that many families are unable to support their kids emotionally because they have to work 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet? A lot of people can't afford a violin, period. And schools are unequally funded by property taxes instead of using some more equitable means. What we do on an economic basis absolutely affects the ability of families to support their children emotionally and artistically.

[–]Realwoman 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think funding schools through property taxes is an abomination. Kids should have access to quality schools no matter where their parents live. And for high school/middle school even, it might be a good idea to separate schools based on achievement, with entry tests. That's how it where I grew up and it was such a relief to finally be surrounded by other motivated students, not have the unmotivated/lazy students drag down everyone.

[–]DimDroog 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And some parents don't support their kids emotionally b/c they are screwed up themselves.

What do we do then?

My folks were like that.

[–]quickbeam 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would say that we need to provide the best community resources we can to make up for bad parenting whenever possible. A lot of schools don't even have music classes or teachers anymore because of funding issues.

[–]Realwoman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's no institution that makes parents support their kids playing music. Did you mean cultural advantage?

[–]Realwoman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, when it comes to kids, there needs to be enforced equality, so that if the kid is smart/talented /hardworking she can succeed no matter what her background is, and if she's lazy, she doesn't get special privileges thanks to her rich parents.

[–]oofreesouloo 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And I'm honestly pretty skeptical that even when judging "blind" the judges don't know who the person playing is.

As a former professional musician (I'm changing career path now), no, they don't usually know who the person playing is. Usually, there are LOADS of people doing auditions and the competiton is fierce and if it's orchestral auditions, we're all playing exactly the same excerpts (according to our instrument). When it reaches a professional and high level, it can make it really hard to guess who is playing what. We, for sure, don't play all the same, and yes, we all do have some uniqueness that makes us "characteristic". Heck, even the fact that we have different instruments from different luthiers makes our sound different from each other. But in professional auditions, ESPECIALLY for orchestral auditions, you REALLY need to respect what the score tells you to do, meaning there's not that many space for interpretation. There are SOME cases in which it IS unfair and the judges know BEFOREHAND that X or Y person will compete and are expecting to hear that person. But they know it beforehand or look at the candidate information. Basically, it can be possible to guess, but it's not that easy at all as you seem to imply.

NOTE: This is based on my personal experience and country.

[–]Realwoman 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I personally don't support affirmative action, it think it makes people resentful. It could be useful in some situations as an initial boost, when it's about interest representation more than merit (for instance, lawmakers). But in general, I'm against it.

[–]Yayme 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

And that's fair enough.. but I'll be honest, people being resentful would never be enough reason to persuade me to be for or against anything.

People will always be resentful. If you could say that it doesn't help the people it's targeted to help, or show how it's not necessary (not you specifically, just people who are against it in general) then I might be persuaded to change my mind. But resentful people are going to resent. And, I would wonder if they have my best interests in mind if they're so resentful of institutions trying to level the playing field a little.

[–]Realwoman 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I don't think it helps minorities either. People will not respect someone from a minority or an oppressed class if there are rumors that they only got the job/university entry thanks to their ethnicity or sex. It slows down equality and perpetuates stereotypes. Also, if you need certain skills in order to do something, then it makes sense to do hiring based on merit alone and try to either have objective criteria (test scores for example) or blind the judges in some way.

Also, it's important to address the reasons disparities in achievement exist and try to fix those. It's important to give kids equal opportunities, no matter what their parents' background is. It's important that kids have access to educational opportunities independent of their parent's income or neighborhood. And that they don't end up in debt for persuinh that same education.

But when it comes to hiring and university admissions, merit should be the only criteria. I don't want my doctor to have been admitted to medical school only thanks to to his ethnicity, with lower scores than others that were not admitted.

[–]Yayme 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Again, I'm not worried about people "respecting me" so that argument carries no weight with me. I don't care if someone I beat out on a job "respects me." I'm worried about being successful.

I agree that addressing disparities would be a much better solution.

Just because someone gets admitted to college because of preferential treatment doesn't mean they get to graduate, so the doctor argument seems invalid. too.

Again, I feel that anyone arguing against affirmative action, which has benefited me, doesn't really have MY best interests at heart, so I'm not really going to care what they say. BUT, I 100% agree that it would be better to address these issues at the root, rather than way on down the line, like we do now.

[–]Realwoman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I meant, respect the group as a whole.

And of course that there are competing interests when it comes to limited resources. In a competition, some lose, some win. I don't have transwomen's best interest at heart when I don't want them to compete against actual women in sports. I don't have the interests of low performers at heart when I want high performers to get the privilege they're applying for and that they deserve.

I don't see how the doctor argument is invalid at all. So if that person is admitted and doesn't graduate, she just wasted resources and time that could have been used for someone more capable that can graduate and can become a doctor.

[–]Yayme 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't see how the doctor argument is invalid at all. So if that person is admitted and doesn't graduate, she just wasted resources and time that could have been used for someone more capable that can graduate and can become a doctor.

is not the same thing as

I don't want my doctor to have been admitted to medical school only thanks to to his ethnicity, with lower scores than others that were not admitted.


I don't have the interests of low performers at heart when I want high performers to get the privilege they're applying for and that they deserve.

And maybe AA is outdated, maybe we have made enough progress where it's unnecessary. But it doesn't really seem like it from where I'm sitting.

And I think there's a difference between forcing people to give the chronically overlooked a chance, and forcing them to keep incompetent students/contractors/musicians. Except I guess maybe in Europe where they pretty much can't get rid of people for any reason.

[–]Realwoman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think we will agree, especially since you have a vested interest in affirmative action. The same way rich kids have a vested interest in college admissions taking donations into account when admitting students.

I don't understand your remark about Europe.

[–]Yayme 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't think we will agree

Probably not fully. I can see where you're coming from - I get frustrated when an RFP in my wheelhouse is put out, but 100% set aside for disable veterans. But not frustrated enough to want to do away with AA altogether.

Can I ask - have you ever been impacted by AA at all? Either negative or positive, or do you just dislike it in theory?

[–]Realwoman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, I haven't been impacted by it directly but I have the potential to benefit from it.

[–]ThisSiteIsUnusable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You don't know what affirmative action is, do you?

[–]Realwoman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Enlighten me

[–]jet199 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

One big problem here is saying arts instead should only reflect the communities they serve.

We get this a lot in London form people who think London is the whole world.

The trouble is that London attracts people into the arts from all over the country, not just the local community. So while some areas of London are 50% white British the applicants they are getting will be reflecting the make up of the UK, which is around 90+% white British. So they would have to discriminate against white people by a huge extent to get parity.

Then you have the fact London also draws its audience from all over the country so the audience is also likely to be a different ethnic make up again.

Then you have the fact that it's vital for cultural growth to get people from different countries mixing and working together so good local kids will often get looked over for good kids from abroad. This brings more diversity but will usually make an institution look even less like its neighbourhood.

Then you have the issue that some ethnicities have their own arts which they are quite happy to enjoy and want nothing to do with boring plays, modern art, etc no matter the colour of the creators or which cultures they are representing.

And finally you have ethnicities who won't let their kids go into the arts because they aren't stable or even sensible carers and they want their kids to be happy. I've known a couple of women leave orchestras because it's gotten to the stage where everyone had slept with everyone else, this isn't a life which will suit people of all backgrounds.

So to say an arts institution has to reflect the community it serves is in the end not understanding its community at all.

[–]NecessaryScene1 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

We get this a lot in London form people who think London is the whole world.

The same problem gets even more ridiculous when it goes international. In the knitting purity spiral you had Americans getting upset that events and organisations in Scotland or Finland were so much whiter than they thought the "correct" ratio was. Because everything has to reflect American racial sensibilities apparently.

The trouble is that London attracts people into the arts from all over the country, not just the local community.

I saw a bizarre sight on YouTube recently - footage from a "Black Lives Matter" march in London which was so incredibly white, it must have been whiter than the average London Tube commuter crowd. It looked like a load of white middle-class college students had travelled in with their pink-white-and-blue flags. Something for anthropologists/sociologists to analyse...

[–]RestingWitchface 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have always noticed from a young age that Americans appear obsessed with race... for example, so much of American humour relies on racial stereotypes that we don't necessarily have in Europe. Now I see peope trying to impose an American analysis of race on Europe. In Europe of all places, you can't just treat "white people" as a homogeneous blob. You had better be clear which white people you are talking about. We define each other by nationality much more than by our heritage or our race (e.g. I am of Polish descent but would never call myself that, not speaking a word of Polish). I know many Finns who resent being told they have "white privelege" after enduring centuries of occupation by Sweden and Russia. Finland never participated in the slave trade. Our immigrants came here to work or as refugees. That's not to say we shouldn't deal with racism that exists here, just stop trying to superimpose an analysis that doesn't work for our population, history or culture.

[–]NecessaryScene1 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have always noticed from a young age that Americans appear obsessed with race...

Indeed. But there is a reason for that - they have this large black population that are largely descended from a transplanted population, and that population's history and culture is uniquely American. They were, as a policy, decoupled from the culture of the countries they were brought from. That makes American's black population a form of diaspora, with their own unique culture.

American's "race" issue is really about the collision between the three groups that combined to form America - the indigenous population, the settlers, and the settlers' slaves.

They view that 3-way collision in terms of "race", approximate that by skin colour, and then nonsensically reassign the American historical roles to people with the same skin colours in another country. Which is just dumb.

The ending of that response to that Harpers open letter was a gob-smacking example of this American genre:

The intellectual freedom of cis white intellectuals has never been under threat en masse, especially when compared to how writers from marginalized groups have been treated for generations. In fact, they have never faced serious consequences — only momentary discomfort.

PS, recommended if you haven't seen it - Bret Weinstein's recent round table with a bunch of black writers and academics. More sense than you'll hear from any of the Woke crowd.

[–]Realwoman 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, they're basically showing their American privilege and imperialism with this nonsense.

[–]DimDroog 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whooo boy, I wished I saved this particular post: way back on Livejournal, in a "woke" community, someone made a post about American privilege, to the community of multiracial Americans.

They flipped out on the OP.

It was hilarious.

[–]kwallio 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So apparently diversity doesn't apply to women, we're all racist Karens or something. Blind auditions were implemented for a reason.

[–]PassionateIntensity 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Women are not and never have been oppressed. /s This seems to be the new woke left talking point. Sex doesn't exist so neither does sexism. The joke has become real.

[–]Hard_headed_woman 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Meritocracy is racist. Get over it.

We are clearly not going to excel in anything anymore. We're already on the descent as a country, and this is the nail in the coffin.

[–]Revision10 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Holy shit, affirmative action in music?

[–]ShieldMaiden 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of women musicians weren't being hired when they were actually seen, but when they were only heard and not seen, suddenly they sounded better and a lot more skilled to the people vetting them. Funny that. Also, women are kept out of music professionally in other ways, too. For example, piano size: women have smaller hands and can incur permanent nerve damage from playing instrument designed for and by men (completely forgetting that the female sex exists, as usual). There have already been extremely talented pianists' careers ruined over this. There are now 7/8 size piano keys for women, but the pianos that have those cost about $10,000 (USD, I think), and so not easy to get access to. There is only one digital keyboard with smaller keys and it only has 61, not 88, keys. So not enough to practice classical pieces on for auditions. There is another upright piano with 7/8 keys for 5 grand, that's more affordable but still expensive Some universities have thankfully purchased these 7/8 key size grand pianos so some students can access them, but there's only one manufacturer so far meeting this very widespread demand. Just another example of women being ignored and erased for so long, this is an issue that should ahem been addressed ages ago.

So, yeah, blind auditions and anything else that makes it physically possible for women to become pro musicians where they previously would be prevented by the extent male supremacy is a good thing. Getting rid of blind auditions is dumb as shit, they might as well stop making those smaller pianos, too.