Jewish woman writes doctoral thesis on why US justice system is racist against blacks, and then is stabbed to death by blacks

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/why-racism-problem

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Racism isn't a problem. Diversity is.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

There's absolutely no evidence for this (and plenty of evidence for the opposite). It would be easy for you to study this. It's ever too late to learn something new.

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I notice how often you make declarative statements that have supposed "evidence" yet never actually post any.

Here's some - "In terms of economic magnitudes, the results in Table 5 suggest that going from complete ethnic homogeneity (an index of 0) to complete heterogeneity (an index of 1) depresses annual [GDP] growth by 1.9 percentage points" (column 1).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You'll see evidence in my comments if you read them.

Regarding the essay, the researchers selected relatively brief periods in history in countries that have had serious economic and religious problems. Ethnic and linguistic diversity is NOT the cause of their problems. Post-colonial challenges of corrupt governments are their problems.

Several millennia of cosmopolitan developments offer evidence of the importance diversity. Think also of the importance of biodiversity.

If you don't like to study hisotry, you can can easily google some of the evidence about the benefits of diversity:

https://diversity.social/why-is-diversity-important/

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_diversity_makes_us_smarter

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/business-case-for-diversity-in-the-workplace/

https://ampglobalyouth.org/2020/06/20/5-reasons-diversity-important-21st-century/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/biancamillercole/2020/09/15/8-reasons-why-diversity-and-inclusion-are-essential-to-business-success/?sh=4182e3241824

https://hivelife.com/why-is-diversity-important/

https://www.aperianglobal.com/leaders-diversity-inclusion-5-lessons-top-global-companies/

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Regarding the essay, the researchers selected relatively brief periods in history in countries that have had serious economic and religious problems.

I haven't read that paper so I can't comment on that but in this book author measured ethnic conflict in nations all over the world in the period from 2003-2011. He found that Ethnic diversity has 0.812 correlation with ethnic conflict. Ranging from smaller issues like racial discrimination to ethnic cleansings or separatist wars. Meaning that more diverse countries tend to have more violent conflicts.

Several millennia of cosmopolitan developments offer evidence of the importance diversity.

Yeah, how? Most development throughout history occurred in Europe which was pretty homogeneous.

If you don't like to study hisotry, you can can easily google some of the evidence about the benefits of diversity:

I am familiar with these arguments. I don't know to what degree you read these links because some of them provide literally zero sources, some of them talk about gender diversity which was found to have no impact on company performance. Some cite studies that only found benefits of intellectual diversity which was confounded by racial diversity. I suspect a lot of these findings are just correlational and not causal. You know, big companies having diverse executive boards so they wouldn't get sued by EEOC as opposed to small business owners who don't give fuck and nobody gives a fuck about. Then someone researches this it and goes "oh look, more diverse companies make bigger profits, clearly diversity boosts your business revenue". If that was really the case we would expect to find the same ting on national level i.e. more diverse nations being more richer. However the opposite is true. National diversity correlates with GDP per capita at -0.55.

There is also research showing the opposite - firm productivity decreasing as diversity rises. So who knows. There are some smaller meta-analysis finding negative relationship. Hulsheger and Anderson (2009) meta-analyzed 104 studies and found background diversity correlated at -.133 with innovation.

Williams and O’Reilly (1998) came to this conclusion in their review of the literature:

“There is substantial evidence from both laboratory and field studies conducted over the past four decades that variations in group composition can have important effects on group functioning. These studies show that increased diversity, especially in terms of age, tenure, and ethnicity, typically have negative effects on social integration, communication, and conflict.”

I wish there was bigger meta-analysis like with gender diversity but all available evidence so far suggests that diversity is bad rather than good.

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

Thank you for the book recommendation. After a quick look, I can see that the author has a very specific agenda, whereby problems of political corruption, poverty, and religion are not considered. But I am very interested in seeing his arguments. I should also note that he only selects a relatively brief period in history, and selects areas where there are other problems, so that he cannot argue that diversity was the problem in these areas or over longer periods of time. There is also this problem:

In 2004, the Ombudsman of Minorities, Mikko Puumalainen, asked the police to start an investigation regarding Vanhanen's interview with a Helsingin Sanomat magazine Kuukausiliite, in which he stated that "Whereas the average IQ of Finns is 97, in Africa it is between 60 and 70. Differences in intelligence are the most significant factor in explaining poverty". The Finnish National Bureau of Investigations was considering launching a preliminary investigation on Vanhanen's speech but later decided against it, not finding that he had incited hatred against an ethnic group or committed any other crime.

Regarding cosmopolitan areas, these have been world-wide for thousands of years, only some of which are in Europe. They have been primarily places of trade, among other significant professions.

I see your points about problems with corporate reports, which I agree are manipulated to represent the company. That said, companies have good reason to support an inclusive philosophy. Something I don't like - for example - is the import of Indian IT labor to the US, because they'll work for peanuts and 24/7, knowing they'll otherwise be sent back to India. Americans can do those jobs, but might cost more, and will not be as desperate, to work 24/7.

Instead of company reports I am sure I can locate reports by other groups, some of which I've linked here.

The "research showing the opposite" will not link or download for me. If you reply with the name and title, I'll look for it at the library.

The article from the 'Research in Organized Behaviour' looks interesting. I'll have a look.

I recall that German WWII (WWI?) troop divisions were selected from their same neighborhood blocks, so that they already knew one another from childhood, and were more likely to die for one another, by contrast with Ally troop divisions of soldiers who didn't know each other until they reached boot camp.

In any event, wherever one sees in history a mixing of people in areas where there is eventually some economic progress, the diversity of those societies have helped develop the societies. This is also similar with biodiversity.

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

I should also note that he only selects a relatively brief period in history,

That's because he already wrote a similar book in 1999 which covered almost entire 1990s period. Going further into the past would not be very useful because we do not have very accurate data about their ethnic diversity. For some counters we don't even have precise estimates of GDP.

and selects areas where there are other problems, so that he cannot argue that diversity was the problem in these areas or over longer periods of time.

I don't know what you mean by other areas. He analyzed over 170 countries so there was no cherry-picking. If you mean like poverty and corruption are causing ethnic conflicts rather than diversity itself, this was tested in Table 3.4 where he computed ethnic diversity together with various economic variables. The correlation marginally increased and explained variation rose by few percentage points. So these things do contribute to ethnic conflict in a nation independently of diversity but to very small degree.

There is also this problem:

Yes his work caused a lot of bad feeling in his liberal home country. Why is that a problem?

Regarding cosmopolitan areas, these have been world-wide for thousands of years, only some of which are in Europe.

Not really. London was less than one percent non-white in 1950. The diversification of major cities is very recent trend. And only in Europe. Tokyo or Shanghai are still homogeneous.

The "research showing the opposite" will not link or download for me. If you reply with the name and title, I'll look for it at the library.

sure

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/smj.633

Although they call the relationship U-shaped in the abstract it's really not when you look at Figure 1.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for this. I'll look at the 170 countries. The approach is however obviously biased, and does not appear to balance other factors that have caused problems - especially in southern hemisphere countries - many of which have been in debt to northern hemisphere countries since the end of colonial occupation, or have had - as in Eastern Europe, China and South Asia - extreme income inequality and political corruption. It's not that he's cherry-picking countries, but that a study of ethnic conflicts since the 1990 in all countries are due to new pressures in those places and thus they cannot be exemplars for critiques of diversity during this period. My work centers on pre-20th century approaches, evidence for which ranges from archaeological discoveries, to new regional histories, for trade routes across Eurasia and around Africa and the New World (Samarkand, Damascus, Beijing, Ghandara, around the Mediterranean, Cordoba, and many other cosmopolitan areas where there had been ethnic diversity and exchanges in trade, ideas, technology, etc). The role of diversity in the successful developments in these areas is the subject of recent scholarship. One popular book is: 'Metropolis: A History of the City, Humankind's Greatest Invention.' (There is a free copy online and at libraries.) There is much more work to be done. Even if there isn't much diversity - for example in Japan where there has been a rising number of dozens of weddings with Russian women in the past 2 or 3 decades - this is still an example of diversification. Recent scholarship shows that 'Vikings' were somewhat more diverse than previously believed, due to their human trafficking. The same can be said for what happened during the Khanate invasions, and the subsequent centuries of human trafficking that reached well into what is now Poland. Cosmopolitan regions around the Mediterranien have been known for their diverse populations, some of which has been the subject of research at MUCEM: https://www.mucem.org/en/the-mucem . I am not sure if this addresses everything, but I'll continue to look a the sources you've provided.

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

The approach is however obviously biased, and does not appear to balance other factors that have caused problems - especially in southern hemisphere countries - many of which have been in debt to northern hemisphere countries since the end of colonial occupation, or have had - as in Eastern Europe, China and South Asia - extreme income inequality and political corruption. It's not that he's cherry-picking countries, but that a study of ethnic conflicts since the 1990 in all countries are due to new pressures in those places and thus they cannot be exemplars for critiques of diversity during this period

First, colonial debt is a myth. Quite contrary, third world countries get generous payments in foreign aid from the West. And second, how is any of this relevant? Vanhanen tested how economic variables contribute to ethnic conflicts independently of diversity and they basically do not.