b0r1s wrote:

I don't think that's what I was saying. I'm saying colour does exist and no point trying to pretend it doesn't. Of course you take people individually, but it doesn't have to start on a negative, which is how a lot of white people seem to see people of colour, then claim "we're all the same". I have a diverse family with mix of black, white and Indian, we don't all think we are the same, but we do treat each other as one family.

I'm saying that a significant portion of people use racial stereotypes to inform life changing decisions, and that needs to stop. Yourself, Andy and Davy make a good point about the detail behind ignoring culture and race. But there is such a thin line between the world you envisage, and the one that the eugenicists and racists imagine, that I suggest you take care in harking it. Even if I do understand the basis of your argument.

As I don't knowingly talk to racists and eugenicists then I think I'll be ok. I also don't think anything I say to my immediate friends and family are gonna give the racists some form of ammunition if my message is we can all be slightly different and to accept it and be positive about it. To pretend that people are not different is more disingenuous and dangerous to me. That thinking seems to lead to the racist football fan bollocks of "level playing field" or the "all lives matter" when they patently know it's not. 

I also don't think people can not make stereotypes, be it race, gender, appearance or whatever (both negative and positive). It seems ingrained in humans. What is needed is education to identify that you do it and ensure it does not encroach into your public and professional life. But I honestly can't see how that can happen, outside maybe publicly funded organisations. Private companies are gonna hire and fire based on the personalities of the individuals running those businesses, that is never going to be policed. I'm seeing more D&I discussion at work, but even my first major meeting about that turned into a shit storm because the white middle class guys at the top didn't like it when it was identified that they were all white middle class men running the company (comes back to the stereotype, were they all the best people for the job or did the person doing the hiring identify with them due to aforementioned stereotypes?). That kind of thing is going to take generations to balance out.

But this is just my personal viewpoint that I voiced in a relevant thread, don't think it's a bad view and don't think I'll change it (never say never) but think I can leave it there.

b0r1s wrote:

To pretend that people are not different is more disingenuous and dangerous to me. That thinking seems to lead to the racist football fan bollocks of "level playing field" or the "all lives matter" when they patently know it's not. 

The other issue with people claiming colourblindness is that it’s a convenient excuse to hide prejudice behind and to allow it to fester unchallenged and unexamined.

"I see low IQ scores"

I suspected as much hon.

I've not read much Malcolm Gladwell, but one story that stuck in mind was how some white dude from a poor family, with a supposed IQ of 190+, went to university as a prodigious candidate, but left uni, because he'd taught himself calculus, the professor wouldn't accept his assignments, and refused to discuss his work.

He became a bouncer.

On the other hand, Robert Oppenheimer, the son of a wealthy fashion magnate, was apparently bad at arithmetic. He was so bad, his PHD supervisor and colleagues often had to correct his work. It probably wasn't the only reason why Oppenheimer tried to poison his PHD supervisor, but it was a large contributing factor. After an internal review, they decided not to kick Oppenheimer out of the college.

He became Vishnu.

I don't see differing IQ scores. I see bullshit.

Also I'm very much hoping you understand that Malcolm Gladwell, regardless of the quality of his anecdotes, is a prime-grade bullshit artist

Yep as I say nice anecdotes. Peter Thiel is also one of life's fuckers, what can you do, all the fuckers don't have to like each other.

Check this on Gladwell if you're inclined, courtesy (I think) Face: https://thebaffler.com/latest/narrative-napalm-kulwin

Because boxing's always recruited from less-well-off groups, too much white success goes down badly in some quarters. White racists embrace it at worst.

I'd rather focus my energy on elitist sports that lock most of us out. Send the Wealdstone Raider to the row-rows and polo.

Gladwell is the gadfly of history, social commentary, psychology. He is a dilettante with interesting anecdotes at best, and a harmful amateur propping up dodgy world views with said anecdotes at worst.

His latest book is the same as all his books - some stories lightly told to illustrate his thesis which is usually banal (work hard to get good, your instincts are often right but can also be wrong etc) but can be nefarious (us airforce bombing the shit out of villages is better for everyone because badly defined and almost always wrong reasons)

His approachable writing style (“you guys are gonna love this”) just makes him seem more innocent and “woah dude” and therefore believable

It is almost impossible to enter his name or books into a search engine without finding hundreds of links to well sourced expert takedowns of his bullshit. Good writing and good stories (if you like his style) are no excuse for harmful bullshit

@Funk Sure. But my point was about the contrast between Oppenheimer, who was shit at sums, and was all but caught for attempted murder.

And a poor, self taught genius, who was kicked out of college because his tutor didn't like him.
Gladwell was my (initial) source, but what did he have to do with my point?

This is how these class and race based calls for justice are smothered.
Through procedural bullshit.

That said, this discussion is academic, and I do appreciate the info on Gladwell.
But I'll take him line for line, as I'd also done for Thiel (who's book was shit, fwiw).

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Fuck's sake. I find this out NOW? In my 9.998th hour of practicing ballet at home?

Alright, Mr 10 hours!

dynamiteReady wrote:

@Funk Sure. But my point was about the contrast between Oppenheimer, who was shit at sums, and was all but caught for attempted murder. And a poor, self taught genius, who was kicked out of college because his tutor didn't like him. Gladwell was my (initial) source, but what did he have to do with my point? This is how these class and race based calls for justice are smothered. Through procedural bullshit. That said, this discussion is academic, and I do appreciate the info on Gladwell. But I'll take him line for line, as I'd also done for Thiel (who's book was shit, fwiw).

Right right sorry. Gladwell just pushes my buttons is all.

Anyway that story is obviously terrible. There is nuance - Oppenheimer was clearly a hell of an organiser and administrator and had some serious theoretical nuclear physics chops, regardless of his maths - but this story seems to me a very common one, no? This kind of institutional racism and favouritism is endemic and I'm sure you could find countless such stories where by "procedural rules and policies" are abused by fuckers to defend their actions "I'm no racist, but rules are rules [for you, but not my white buddy over here]"

Which then becomes a narrative "if only they didn't break the rules eh" or certain kinds of people really needing to work very hard at never over stepping, never being noticed, never breaking any rules or even being perceived to break rules (work twice as hard for half the reward). I mean you're basically defining institutional racism right?

Funkstain wrote:

Right right sorry. Gladwell just pushes my buttons is all. Anyway that story is obviously terrible. There is nuance - Oppenheimer was clearly a hell of an organiser and administrator and had some serious theoretical nuclear physics chops, regardless of his maths - but this story seems to me a very common one, no?

People getting away with murder? You know, at it's root, that is what the subject of racism is about.

Also, imagine getting put in jail for a wrap of cocaine, or a bag of weed for decades, all the while knowing that one of the most famous people in history was caught bang to rights for attempted murder, avoided trial and punishment, and went on to take a high profile government role?

I mean, even you yourself just overlooked that bit.

Openheimer, was actually involved in a second incident where he tried to strangle someone too, not long after the attempted poisoning. The arithmetic thing is worthy of another discussion though, and not just one about race. 

But before we dwell on this, I'm using Oppenheimer as a proxy, not my main singular point of focus, because you know we can find a squillion other such stories, and turn this into the Tinfoil Hat thread.

And tbh, this convo has already moved quite far away from the point I wanted to make, about using Doncic as somekind of focal point for race issues, in an organisation that's often seen as a gold standard of race relations (and in itself the NBA, and the whole idea of it, is very far from perfect).

It’s at best asinine. Put a lot of work into something and you’ll get pretty good at it. A study or two (not sure of quality but likely to be not great) suggested that “expert level” requires around 10k hours. Based on snot like “the Beatles played x nights, x hours a night, for x years in Berlin so that’s 10k and they’re pretty good ergo Plato” Gladwell wrote a bestselling book off the back of it.

I think the idea of putting in the hours is sound. There really is no substitute for it. But I mean that isn't exactly a great insight!  Putting a number to it is silly.