I sense a certain air of "why are you even fighting anymore" coming from this piece. Which is troubling because inequality is still there and proven to be there [1]. Something the author seems to...
Exemplary
I sense a certain air of "why are you even fighting anymore" coming from this piece. Which is troubling because inequality is still there and proven to be there [1]. Something the author seems to acknowledge but quickly dismisses as "feigning claims of injury". In his view, affirmative action is not trying to balance inequality but recognizing a weakness (??) which... I don't know how that makes sense.
The use of "virtue signalling" in the article cements the idea that today's blacks are more or less unjustly whining about things, simply to acquire social capital. There may be elements of the movement that do espouse views for their gain, but does that make their claims or demands wrong? [2]
The central point which highlights the author's view can be found here:
Are black hands truly tied because whites are more likely to associate black faces with negative concepts in implicit-association tests, especially when evidence suggests that the results do not correlate meaningfully with behavior?
First off, I would like a source on that last part [3]. I would certainly expect unconscious bias to show in important events in someone's life: a job interview, interaction with police, etc...
I would also like to point out what I find to be a dishonest comparison.
One can be fervently dedicated to improving the lot of black Americans without a purse-lipped, prosecutorial culture dedicated more to virtue signaling than to changing other people’s lives. Progressives can battle a War on Drugs that creates a black market that tempts too many poor black men into lives of crime.
How can you compare an established political party with millions of dollars spent on lobbying with a movement that started with disenfranchised people. How can you change other people's lives with such low wealth? These are people that need to work god knows how many hours a week.
However, the most interesting point contained in this article is his first:
Is there any evidence that [this] crusade is making any significant changes in Americans’ deepest thoughts, or ever could?
The response being: is there any other way? The author doesn't say. [4] Given that this movement has been going for quite a while, I'll leave you wondering if truly nobody thought of trying something - anything - else.
[1] Since we're talking of college later on, here's a source https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cpb.pdf
[2] One point I wanted to make was I find this article really disconcerting overall because of what the author's vocabulary says about him. He is apparently a Democrat (even though he worked in a Republican think tank) but the words and arguments he chooses are not distinctly different from any old far-righter: "you have it good enough", "some make it, so if you don't the problem is with you", "why don't you tolerate other opinions", etc...
[3] I'm asking for sources because even though the author is a professor, his credentials are limited to linguistics thus I don't consider him to be an authoritative source for that kind of stats.
[4] I'll admit that I haven't read the author's entire bibliography for solutions. However: not one? Not even one alternative proposed? If it's that easy not to virtue signal, surely you could mention one? Or is it not that easy and, ironically, the author is himself just "virtue signalling" that he doesn't condone social movements? This is why I don't like that term, it's so easy to fall into this endless pit.
While I have not read the article yet, and find your comments compelling, I can clarify this point. It appears that the author is referring specifically to implicit-association tests, which are a...
Are black hands truly tied because whites are more likely to associate black faces with negative concepts in implicit-association tests, especially when evidence suggests that the results do not correlate meaningfully with behavior?
First off, I would like a source on that last part [3]. I would certainly expect unconscious bias to show in important events in someone's life: a job interview, interaction with police, etc...
While I have not read the article yet, and find your comments compelling, I can clarify this point. It appears that the author is referring specifically to implicit-association tests, which are a specific style of test involving rapid and timed categorization of words assumed to be universally considered pleasant or unpleasant and images or words assumed to be associated with particular groups or other categories.
Personally, I am rather skeptical of them. It appears that there are two competing groups of around a dozen core researchers each: one which created the test and argues for its validity, and another which argues that they are unsound and poorly justified by experimental evidence; the debate between the two groups appears to have been going on for a number of years.
It seems to have become a trend that people describe something as "n-wave" whenever they are trying to discredit something well established. It's ironic that even the author brings up "third wave...
It seems to have become a trend that people describe something as "n-wave" whenever they are trying to discredit something well established. It's ironic that even the author brings up "third wave feminism", a term I only hear from people trying to discredit feminism.
To be fair, I don't think the author of this piece is actively trying to be malicious. I just think he doesn't know what he is talking about. Halfway through the piece, he caracatures antiracists as religious fanatics, doing things the way they do without having a logical reason for it and motivated by emotion. But this metaphor mirrors the author more than the group that he attempts to define, as he doesn't understand why antiracists are doing things the way they are. After reading this description there is no point on reading further, as the rest is based on this faulty description.
To be perfectly frank, I figured the piece would go this direction as soon as the author referenced Jonathan Haidt. It is ironic that one can work so hard on the topic of getting people to come together, yet have that work so often used to deepen divides.
"In fact, however, third-wave antiracism is a profoundly religious movement in everything but terminology. The idea that whites are permanently stained by their white privilege, gaining moral...
"In fact, however, third-wave antiracism is a profoundly religious movement in everything but terminology. The idea that whites are permanently stained by their white privilege, gaining moral absolution only by eternally attesting to it, is the third wave’s version of original sin. The idea of a someday when America will “come to terms with race” is as vaguely specified a guidepost as Judgment Day. Explorations as to whether an opinion is “problematic” are equivalent to explorations of that which may be blasphemous. The social mauling of the person with “problematic” thoughts parallels the excommunication of the heretic. What is called “virtue signaling,” then, channels the impulse that might lead a Christian to an aggressive display of her faith in Jesus. There is even a certain Church Lady air to much of the patrolling on race these days, an almost performative joy in dog-piling on the transgressor, which under a religious analysis is perfectly predictable."
Claiming that "whites are permanently stained by their white privilege" is incredibly disingenuous. That's the sort of language used by people who oppose the concept of privilege to make it sound...
Claiming that "whites are permanently stained by their white privilege" is incredibly disingenuous. That's the sort of language used by people who oppose the concept of privilege to make it sound like it's supposed to be some kind of guilt when that's not the case at all. Acknowledging that you've had some advantages that others haven't in life can be difficult, but fighting back like this only makes life worse for everyone.
Is upending stereotypes a dead end? It has been shown repeatedly that Stereotype Threat - the effects of stereotypes on the people being stereotyped - is a real measurable phenomenon. Various...
Feminist history is typically described in three waves: The struggle to secure voting rights, then workplace rights, and third—roughly—to upend stereotypes.
Is upending stereotypes a dead end? It has been shown repeatedly that Stereotype Threat - the effects of stereotypes on the people being stereotyped - is a real measurable phenomenon. Various studies show that when others express that they expect you to do poorly, you end up doing poorly. Why, in this case, is struggling against and rooting out stereotypes not a goal we should aim for?
I sense a certain air of "why are you even fighting anymore" coming from this piece. Which is troubling because inequality is still there and proven to be there [1]. Something the author seems to acknowledge but quickly dismisses as "feigning claims of injury". In his view, affirmative action is not trying to balance inequality but recognizing a weakness (??) which... I don't know how that makes sense.
The use of "virtue signalling" in the article cements the idea that today's blacks are more or less unjustly whining about things, simply to acquire social capital. There may be elements of the movement that do espouse views for their gain, but does that make their claims or demands wrong? [2]
The central point which highlights the author's view can be found here:
First off, I would like a source on that last part [3]. I would certainly expect unconscious bias to show in important events in someone's life: a job interview, interaction with police, etc...
I would also like to point out what I find to be a dishonest comparison.
How can you compare an established political party with millions of dollars spent on lobbying with a movement that started with disenfranchised people. How can you change other people's lives with such low wealth? These are people that need to work god knows how many hours a week.
However, the most interesting point contained in this article is his first:
The response being: is there any other way? The author doesn't say. [4] Given that this movement has been going for quite a while, I'll leave you wondering if truly nobody thought of trying something - anything - else.
[1] Since we're talking of college later on, here's a source https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cpb.pdf
[2] One point I wanted to make was I find this article really disconcerting overall because of what the author's vocabulary says about him. He is apparently a Democrat (even though he worked in a Republican think tank) but the words and arguments he chooses are not distinctly different from any old far-righter: "you have it good enough", "some make it, so if you don't the problem is with you", "why don't you tolerate other opinions", etc...
[3] I'm asking for sources because even though the author is a professor, his credentials are limited to linguistics thus I don't consider him to be an authoritative source for that kind of stats.
[4] I'll admit that I haven't read the author's entire bibliography for solutions. However: not one? Not even one alternative proposed? If it's that easy not to virtue signal, surely you could mention one? Or is it not that easy and, ironically, the author is himself just "virtue signalling" that he doesn't condone social movements? This is why I don't like that term, it's so easy to fall into this endless pit.
*edit: grammar
While I have not read the article yet, and find your comments compelling, I can clarify this point. It appears that the author is referring specifically to implicit-association tests, which are a specific style of test involving rapid and timed categorization of words assumed to be universally considered pleasant or unpleasant and images or words assumed to be associated with particular groups or other categories.
Implicit bias, as a concept, is not, I think, significantly disputed. However, implicit-association tests are controversial as to whether they actually measure implicit bias, and whether their results are actually linked to behavior (as we would expect implicit bias to be). The Wikipedia article on implicit-association tests has an extensive discussion of questions surrounding the tests.
Personally, I am rather skeptical of them. It appears that there are two competing groups of around a dozen core researchers each: one which created the test and argues for its validity, and another which argues that they are unsound and poorly justified by experimental evidence; the debate between the two groups appears to have been going on for a number of years.
It seems to have become a trend that people describe something as "n-wave" whenever they are trying to discredit something well established. It's ironic that even the author brings up "third wave feminism", a term I only hear from people trying to discredit feminism.
To be fair, I don't think the author of this piece is actively trying to be malicious. I just think he doesn't know what he is talking about. Halfway through the piece, he caracatures antiracists as religious fanatics, doing things the way they do without having a logical reason for it and motivated by emotion. But this metaphor mirrors the author more than the group that he attempts to define, as he doesn't understand why antiracists are doing things the way they are. After reading this description there is no point on reading further, as the rest is based on this faulty description.
To be perfectly frank, I figured the piece would go this direction as soon as the author referenced Jonathan Haidt. It is ironic that one can work so hard on the topic of getting people to come together, yet have that work so often used to deepen divides.
"In fact, however, third-wave antiracism is a profoundly religious movement in everything but terminology. The idea that whites are permanently stained by their white privilege, gaining moral absolution only by eternally attesting to it, is the third wave’s version of original sin. The idea of a someday when America will “come to terms with race” is as vaguely specified a guidepost as Judgment Day. Explorations as to whether an opinion is “problematic” are equivalent to explorations of that which may be blasphemous. The social mauling of the person with “problematic” thoughts parallels the excommunication of the heretic. What is called “virtue signaling,” then, channels the impulse that might lead a Christian to an aggressive display of her faith in Jesus. There is even a certain Church Lady air to much of the patrolling on race these days, an almost performative joy in dog-piling on the transgressor, which under a religious analysis is perfectly predictable."
Claiming that "whites are permanently stained by their white privilege" is incredibly disingenuous. That's the sort of language used by people who oppose the concept of privilege to make it sound like it's supposed to be some kind of guilt when that's not the case at all. Acknowledging that you've had some advantages that others haven't in life can be difficult, but fighting back like this only makes life worse for everyone.
Is upending stereotypes a dead end? It has been shown repeatedly that Stereotype Threat - the effects of stereotypes on the people being stereotyped - is a real measurable phenomenon. Various studies show that when others express that they expect you to do poorly, you end up doing poorly. Why, in this case, is struggling against and rooting out stereotypes not a goal we should aim for?
everyone's behaving so well