45:42 Ding Ding Ding!!! This is the key thing. You don't have to be thinking about race for race to matter (in other words people can "do racism" unintentionally) and at the same time it's possible to be fixated on race (ie be a racist) and use non racial things to covertly produce racially disparate outcomes.
When recipients of public benefits are allowed no input into the public policy at the user level, sometimes agencies overcomplicate and create barriers. If they would ask people for feedback that might help streamline and get help to those who need it which does include poor people of all races. Thanks for this great class, Dean.
They are allowed NO INPUT specifically because any input they have would be.... MORE!!!! Give me MORE!!!!! That is what a recipient of public benefits is thinking. So no, of course, no input from you. Just be gracious and get off the benefits ASAP.
The fact that this has among the lowest amount of views of any class in this series speaks volumes about how much work we still have to do with regards to remedying racial inequality.
This also explains why the "zipper merge" at a narrowing traffic lane due to construction never works the way the engineers think it is supposed to work. Yes, theoretically, the most efficient way to get everybody through the intersection is for the two lanes meeting at the narrowed neck to alternate turns. Even if that means some jerk who pulls up at the last second gets to cut in eight cars in front of you while you've been waiting patiently in stop and go traffic. Even if we understand the mechanics of it from a physics standpoint, and know intellectually that letting the jerk cut in at the last second helps traffic flow more smoothly, letting everyone get through the intersection more quickly and onto their destinations more quickly - it offends our inherent sense of FAIRNESS. And that's why most people will never be able to do the zipper merge the way the traffic engineers would like it to happen. If they really want to make "fetch" a thing, as it were, what they should do is set up a lighted mini stop sign that tells both lanes which of the two gets to go next, baking the zipper merge right into the process. Of course, most people will be confused by that also, so it still won't work to make traffic go smoothly in a construction zone.
Interestingly, the zipper merge works pretty well in other countries-and it used to work here, too. Social bonds have been substantially weakened in recent decades.
@@nuplanner5345 -- Completely. And the people who were working behind the scenes with Nixon and Roy Cohn back in the 60s and 70s got the process started back when Reagan was still in California. And a lot of those same people from the Nixon area were working with Trump in recent years. It's just a different version of the same playbook.
On the slide shown at @58:55 the points 1 and 4 are the same but have different A/SA & D/SD numbers with them. I looked back at the earlier examples, but there are only four, so I'm not sure what's going on with this slide.
Understanding unexamined individual predilections for "justice" is critical to understanding our roles in creating the policies generating the system that we as groups apply to society to establish a degree of fairness in an unfair universe
Dr.Reich...I was listening to your 1st lecture about the increase of productivity around 1979-1980 but without any significant pay raises. Could this have been caused by the mass introduction of calculators and desktop computers? This might have increased productivity geometrically but without pay raises because of management's belief that they were still paying for one hour of work?
I think people may be reading other things into the way a question is asked. Some people may think about "deserving", but they may also think about "why", or the government's rationale or implicit policy goals, that they infer from the concrete action they are asked about. I think this way of asking questions is important, and definitely shows an important effect, but the cause of that effect may be many things or a combination of things, you can't go directly to what's in the mind of the respondent. There is definitely a fairness and consistency issue here, but it's too much of a leap to say why. However it doesn't always need to matter why, from the standpoint of public policy actions - there is a problem, and it can be remedied to a certain degree through certain actions. Real change in the mind of the public is the true long term remedy, but we can do other things to help in the meantime, even if we don't fully understand the attitudes and beliefs causing the problem.
I find it amusing that he assumes that the only reason for a different answer to the same question asked about a specific group is discrimination on the part of the answerer 13:24 A policy that improves the lives of all Americans is a VASTLY different policy than one that only benefits the chosen few judged 'deserving' in some way. I would oppose any policy that was handed out on the basis of race, regardless of what race was chosen, that is not discrimination on the question answerers part, but instead its the proposed POLICY where the descrimination is, and the question answerer is actually ideologically opposed to official government descrimination, and that is the opposite of what he thinks the reason is.
Assertions to Agree or Disagree with: I read this and thought what was being measured was whether or not we consider a pre-existing situation as a valid reason for something - or whether we see it as an excuse.
What David said about resentment made me think how affirmative action policies have sown resentment among whites and inhibited the formation of broad coalitions in support of policies that address the impacts of poverty.
Seems divisive to split on political party instead of the living density. Political choice is a reaction, a choice from experience. Where as so many other factors that are worth looking at are causal to beliefs. That people in large cities share some experiences and have common viewpoints. People in rural areas share some experiences and have common viewpoints. Looking at the aftermath choices is interesting, but it is not actionable beyond blaming without looking at the causality.
14:31 African Americans is the only racial category. How does this compare to saying "White Americans" or "Asian Americans"? Is it possible that some people do not think the government should be helping any people based on race?
The government defines the concept of race to do this public policy. Race is used to divide. Prejudice is real and has been the source of much mixed up with race in the United States.. Color isn’t a race, we are all the same race. How we treat people, and the history behind it, and the lost irony of slave owners creating some utopia is the propaganda we have been taught, by the governments, local, state, federal. Labels.
I heard a lot about behavior characterization but little about remedies. Can we just assess school system performance and form/provide/implement policies to assist?
21:15 Racism can be "positive" as well. Racism as defined as a prejudice based on race can be positive in the same way as you already indicated when describing prejudice being either positive or negative. That said, whether prejudice or racism is positive or negative, it has a negative effect on all of us because it prevents us from seeing things as they actually are.
"If there's no harm, then a private market might do something about it"?! If there's no harm, then do something about what?! Was he just trying to tie in private market in there to not seem so biased?
This lecture is for people in a more advanced class. This man has good points but they are hard to extrapolate. I think he is probably a better administrator than teacher. I hope you don't have any other guest lecturers in our class. I like only you for this subject matter.
Science disagrees with the generalization of genotype presented. I’m fascinated by public policy professors encouraging a belief in different races. The challenge is how do we overcome prejudice without labeling, used by the slave owners, our founding fathers, to create equality in our time. Asia has many different ethnic groups not defined by a ‘race’. Africa too. Ethnic, or your phenotype expression, is what defines us in physical features, we are of one race, public policy argues to maintain the idea of different labels to track effectiveness of policy, or, used still to segregate, A product of public policy.
‘When responding to natural disasters, well we know people can’t control those situations…” This line of thinking isn’t actually true. Many can live in areas of lower risk and do things to further reduce the risk and avoiding things that increase the risk. California and Californians did a lot to bring itself and themselves up to worse wildfire risks. Corporations have done a lot to further increase risk as they see socializing cost as acceptable. Though I like where he’s going that these others seen as less deserving truly couldn’t control their circumstances. Its part of the luck of living in the right zip code. It is the flip side of the success paradox.
It is not resentful to say that race isn't a fair or just method for reward or group enhancement. That's just the truth. Taking the opposite position is racist, where racist is defined as disproportionally discriminating based on race. He assumed that it's WHITE resentment toward blacks, but every not-racist person should feel this "resentment" (obviously not resentment, by any sane definition) toward EVERY person, of ANY race, receiving ANY reward or group enhancement BASED ON THEIR RACE. No rewards should be be distributed based on race. This is not-racist. This isn't resentful. I think it's anti-democratic and completely, utterly, morally wrong to disenfranchise ANYONE from voting, based on felony conviction, age, or any ARBITRARY trait. (The reason racism is wrong, in the contexts that racial discrimination is done wrongly, is that race is usually arbitrary, and is arbitrary in those contexts). White privilege exists. As do other privileges. There is no systemic, American, white privilege that I'm aware of, but if someone made me aware of it, I'm pretty motivated to change that toward equality. Wealth privilege is the biggest ongoing, systemic discrimination in America today, and it needs to change. A wealthy, good-looking black is better off than a poor, ugly white in America. Not just in individual interactions, ABOUT WHICH WE MUST DO NOTHING, but in the way the American systems treat people. I STRONGLY support mass public transit, universal healthcare, and I'm strongly AGAINST private prisons, lower corporate tax rates, corporal punishment, etc, so I don't fit the correlation he found at all, though I'm not surprised at the correlation. It's just shitty fake "science". He's spouting a softer form of the woke-ist, "anti-racist" (actually just racist) rhetoric. We need to stop BOTH this insanity and the insanity of Trumpism. The ACA is less-bad than what came before, but it's still a cocksuck to the "insurance" corporations. Cut them out entirely. Single-payor, Medicare-for-all. Negotiate the prices of healthcare down with mass bargaining power. Let the "insurance" companies die. They're parasites that kill American people and extract massive profits, while masquerading as not-for-profits. Remember, HE labeled it resentment, HE labeled it WHITE resentment, and HE looked (confirmation bias) for it to be against BLACK Americans (almost all of whom are NOT African American, another insane use of language). All of these choices on his part are assumptions, racist, and wrong. There are lots of anti-black racists in America, of all races, including blacks. So if you look for it, you'll find it. The solution is eliminating any CURRENT, SYSTEMIC racism from our institutions, not BEING RACIST and trying to "compensate" under the guise of "anti-racism". Unequal outcomes aren't evidence of ongoing, systemic discrimination. Until you prove that they are, there is not sufficient evidence of a problem to motivate people to do something about it. Mass transit and healthcare are great. Should they be distributed based on race? Hell no. That would be racist. Felony convictions suck. Should they be distributed based on race? Hell no. That would be racist. The woke position is that felony convictions are distributed based on race, but they provide no evidence. Remember-- difference of outcomes isn't evidence that the distribution is CURRENTLY, SYSTEMICALLY, discriminating based on race. The woke position is that we SHOULD (re)distribute wealth and opportunity based on race. That's racist! Why don't we instead either distribute wealth and opportunity to everyone, equally, or based on non-arbitrary characteristics.... like LACK of WEALTH or LACK of OPPORTUNITY? Then, you wouldn't trigger "resentment"! He's pulling a sleight-of-hand with substituting "inequality" for "injustice". By not changing a system that hasn't been shown to be currently, systemically racist, we indeed might be allowing INEQUALITY to persist. That's fine. Be not-racist. It's the morally good way to be. INEQUALITY is not INJUSTICE. There's nothing (necessarily) unjust about unequal outcomes for arbitrarily different groups. Very slimy trick he's trying to pull off by using these very different-meaning words as synonyms. "We have to be accountable for things we might not have even caused" WTF?! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! That is literally the exact things one MUST NOT EVER BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR! What a skeezeball! Nobody is guilty of or deserving of credit for things they DIDN'T CAUSE. That's what accountability means. That you get guilt/credit "aka held to account" for your deeds. "Structural racism is real" WHOA! Just throws it out as an unproven assumption! And he calls himself a social "scientist"? Scientist, my ass!
"Why don't we instead either distribute wealth and opportunity to everyone, equally, or based on non-arbitrary characteristics.... like LACK of WEALTH or LACK of OPPORTUNITY?" Because that's racist, as it indirectly, mis-proportionately helps POC vs White people. That's the great lie of modern american politics, the belief that you can not be racist, when in fact you can ONLY be racist because the system is structurally racist. But this is america and you can choose what flavor of racism you want to be, Classic Racism, Status Quo Racism (choosing to help no one because creating a system that benefits the poor also benefits POC the most and is thus racist), or anti-racism (choosing to create a system that helps the poor but since that mostly helps POC is still racist)
@@unholyrevenger72 "Because that's racist" No, not by the definition I gave, which is disproportionate discrimination based on race. Sure, by a shitty definition, where even actions that cause INDIRECTLY unequal outcomes are considered ___ist just because they cause ____al groups to have unequal outcomes. "the belief that you can not be racist" Fkuc your semantics. In my semantics you can be not-racist. Your semantics are useless because you think nobody can be not-racist. Can people be not-sexist, not-ageist, not-ableist, not bigoted, on ANY dimension, by your semantics? "the system is structurally racist" There is no evidence of this. The systemS WERE structurally/systemically racist. Now they're not. If they are, what specifically needs to change to be not-racist? "choosing to help no one because creating a system that benefits the poor also benefits POC the most and is thus racist" Benefiting colored people (they're not people OF color, JFC) "the most" is not (necessarily) racist, by my semantics. I advocate for either helping everyone equally or helping people based on non-arbitrary properties, like lack of wealth. I'm proposing discriminating perfectly proportionally based on wealth, which wouldn't even be wealth-ist by my definitions of every kind of bigotry. Discriminating based on nothing (distributing wealth equally) or discriminating based on wealth are both not-racist. You can't be racist if you don't even consider the race of the people. Treating people the same or treating people differently based on anything other than race isn't racist. If there's some non-arbitrary difference between individuals or groups, even if it happens to be race in some context, then discriminating (defined as perceiving differences or treating things as if they're different) based on race, in that context, isn't racist. What's the point of noting problems or doing anything about them if one operates under your semantics? Why try to be morally good if you can only be racist? Do you believe that racism is morally bad/wrong?
@@unholyrevenger72 The flaw in the logic of this poster is the concept that its the place of government to decide how to distribute wealth in our society, full stop. This very concept is absurd and obscene. The only legitimate source of personal wealth is to earn it, other sources of wealth are suspect. I don't count inheritance, because that money was earned at some point in the past, and thus the owner has a right to use it as they wish, including passing it on. The idea that government should make people it likes wealthy is pretty much the definition of corruption, but for some reason people can't see that, if the recipient is 'deserving' in some way. Government should be making the trains run on time (system work well), not choosing winners and losers in society, and especially not choosing by race.
this is frustrating because, while he touches on being open to doing something regarding inequality, his only implied solution is to "vote democrat" Nothing about local politics, nothing the problem that this entire issue is stauchly amerio-centric and holds no water in the east and NO data on the perspectives from Native Americans, Asians or Middle Easterners. This is essentially "white people bad" but in academic form.
You don't fix racism with more racism, you fix it with fairness. With the unfairness of things like Affirmative Action you perpetuate racism, you don't fix it. You're justifying racism.
The problem is not so much that affirmative action is racist, which it clearly is, the real problem is that government just can't fix racism, period, and when they try, they just make the actual racism worse, because now not only do some people not like other people for silly reasons, but now they also resent the special privileges that government gives some and not others for reasons that no one can control or choose (race).
If your solution only feeds the problem and you get more power government funding and power to fight the problem the worst it becomes, it kind of makes sense why these ideologues would only work to encourage the problem. It suits their ends.
It's great that you want a fair system, as I think it's safe to say that everyone does. I think a great question to ask yourself might be how it is that you are personally defining fair, and when you believe that fairness is being measured. If we imagine the college admission system as one which exists in a vacuum, free of any outside inputs or outputs, then it is very easy to see how affirmative action could be deemed unfair, as from that perspective one race is getting an advantage. However, what if we were to take into account outside influences? If we imagine a world in which certain sports are prized very highly by universities, but those sports happen to be sports that white communities have far less access to, would we still call that admission system fair? In this hypothetical system, we would expect that, on average, white students will look like less valuable potential students to universities even though it was no fault of their own and they never had any choice in the matter. That seems unfair, but how do we remedy it? On one hand, we could spend billions on installing sports centers in white communities all across the country, but that would require a massive tax increase and expanding the size of the government, so that seems unlikely. But what if instead we simply took this fact into account? What if at the admission level we accept that white kids had less access to this sport, so we judge white applications less harshly for not having participated? Would we still consider that unfair, or would it instead be a way to take into account unfairness that exists somewhere else? Instead of imagining the system as an unfair boost to one person, what if we instead imagined it as a system which only judges people based on circumstances they had control over. After all, if white kids can't control whether they get to play that sport, why should white kids get rejected for having not played it? It's worth asking whether the most fair system is one which completely ignores the outside world, or whether fairness is actually better achieved when we take into account the unique properties of each person's life and try to negate factors that they never had control over in the first place.
I love this lecture series. Everyone in America should watch it. But this particular lecture was the least researched, least valuable, least challenging intellectually, and IMO almost condescending in tone. Nothing new. I was bored, frankly. (PS The lecturers snide aside at time 1:00:00 says a lot.... Hey, you don't like the data YOU are presenting? Just make a denigrating comment about the respondents! Just say their replies must be lies. That's scientific.)
This is NOT a scientific book, take it and its constructs/framework with a grain of salt; but still interesting: "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt
@@pixndoog Thanks! Are you interested in AI? A good book: "Weapons of Math Destruction" (grin.) Written by a data scientist about the Big Data that feeds AI.
The only class I could not watch in it’s entirety. Obvious and well known by the majority. What a waste. You should have just referenced the guy in your footnotes. I am looking forward to YOUR next class.
45:42 Ding Ding Ding!!!
This is the key thing. You don't have to be thinking about race for race to matter (in other words people can "do racism" unintentionally) and at the same time it's possible to be fixated on race (ie be a racist) and use non racial things to covertly produce racially disparate outcomes.
When recipients of public benefits are allowed no input into the public policy at the user level, sometimes agencies overcomplicate and create barriers. If they would ask people for feedback that might help streamline and get help to those who need it which does include poor people of all races. Thanks for this great class, Dean.
They are allowed NO INPUT specifically because any input they have would be.... MORE!!!! Give me MORE!!!!! That is what a recipient of public benefits is thinking. So no, of course, no input from you. Just be gracious and get off the benefits ASAP.
This was such a great class (they all have been!). It really got me thinking in a way I hadn’t before. Great clarity, thank you!
But grossly misleading
these classes have been so wonderful. thank you, Prof. Reich, for making these videos.
The fact that this has among the lowest amount of views of any class in this series speaks volumes about how much work we still have to do with regards to remedying racial inequality.
This was a very informative lecture, the Dean helped me understand the underpinnings of racial Inequality.
Thank you so much for this information.
This also explains why the "zipper merge" at a narrowing traffic lane due to construction never works the way the engineers think it is supposed to work. Yes, theoretically, the most efficient way to get everybody through the intersection is for the two lanes meeting at the narrowed neck to alternate turns. Even if that means some jerk who pulls up at the last second gets to cut in eight cars in front of you while you've been waiting patiently in stop and go traffic.
Even if we understand the mechanics of it from a physics standpoint, and know intellectually that letting the jerk cut in at the last second helps traffic flow more smoothly, letting everyone get through the intersection more quickly and onto their destinations more quickly - it offends our inherent sense of FAIRNESS.
And that's why most people will never be able to do the zipper merge the way the traffic engineers would like it to happen.
If they really want to make "fetch" a thing, as it were, what they should do is set up a lighted mini stop sign that tells both lanes which of the two gets to go next, baking the zipper merge right into the process. Of course, most people will be confused by that also, so it still won't work to make traffic go smoothly in a construction zone.
Interestingly, the zipper merge works pretty well in other countries-and it used to work here, too. Social bonds have been substantially weakened in recent decades.
@@nuplanner5345 -- 'Murica, amirite?
@@TakenTook Sadly. Reagan and his people and heirs have done this.
@@nuplanner5345 -- Completely. And the people who were working behind the scenes with Nixon and Roy Cohn back in the 60s and 70s got the process started back when Reagan was still in California. And a lot of those same people from the Nixon area were working with Trump in recent years. It's just a different version of the same playbook.
Great lecture that enlightened me! Agree completely! Defining racism is very important!
1:09:15 Did he say we have to be accountable for things we didn't cause?
On the slide shown at @58:55 the points 1 and 4 are the same but have different A/SA & D/SD numbers with them. I looked back at the earlier examples, but there are only four, so I'm not sure what's going on with this slide.
Understanding unexamined individual predilections for "justice" is critical to understanding our roles in creating the policies generating the system that we as groups apply to society to establish a degree of fairness in an unfair universe
Dr.Reich...I was listening to your 1st lecture about the increase of productivity around 1979-1980 but without any significant pay raises. Could this have been caused by the mass introduction of calculators and desktop computers? This might have increased productivity geometrically but without pay raises because of management's belief that they were still paying for one hour of work?
I think people may be reading other things into the way a question is asked. Some people may think about "deserving", but they may also think about "why", or the government's rationale or implicit policy goals, that they infer from the concrete action they are asked about. I think this way of asking questions is important, and definitely shows an important effect, but the cause of that effect may be many things or a combination of things, you can't go directly to what's in the mind of the respondent. There is definitely a fairness and consistency issue here, but it's too much of a leap to say why. However it doesn't always need to matter why, from the standpoint of public policy actions - there is a problem, and it can be remedied to a certain degree through certain actions. Real change in the mind of the public is the true long term remedy, but we can do other things to help in the meantime, even if we don't fully understand the attitudes and beliefs causing the problem.
I find it amusing that he assumes that the only reason for a different answer to the same question asked about a specific group is discrimination on the part of the answerer 13:24 A policy that improves the lives of all Americans is a VASTLY different policy than one that only benefits the chosen few judged 'deserving' in some way. I would oppose any policy that was handed out on the basis of race, regardless of what race was chosen, that is not discrimination on the question answerers part, but instead its the proposed POLICY where the descrimination is, and the question answerer is actually ideologically opposed to official government descrimination, and that is the opposite of what he thinks the reason is.
Assertions to Agree or Disagree with:
I read this and thought what was being measured was whether or not we consider a pre-existing situation as a valid reason for something - or whether we see it as an excuse.
Eye opening
WOW. clarity!
David is fantastic.
System has a problem!
Excellent!
What David said about resentment made me think how affirmative action policies have sown resentment among whites and inhibited the formation of broad coalitions in support of policies that address the impacts of poverty.
"affirmative action policies have sown resentment among whites." You have to remember who is telling the story and where it is being told.
Oh yeah, because white people think we are getting something that rightfully should be theirs
Seems divisive to split on political party instead of the living density.
Political choice is a reaction, a choice from experience.
Where as so many other factors that are worth looking at are causal to beliefs.
That people in large cities share some experiences and have common viewpoints.
People in rural areas share some experiences and have common viewpoints.
Looking at the aftermath choices is interesting, but it is not actionable beyond blaming without looking at the causality.
Typo on the slide titled "Resistance to Change and Racial Identification".
This reminds me of a song that goes, "I tried so hard and got so far, but in the end, it doesn't even matter."
Really interesting to hear this perspective of inequality, thank you.
14:31 African Americans is the only racial category. How does this compare to saying "White Americans" or "Asian Americans"?
Is it possible that some people do not think the government should be helping any people based on race?
The government defines the concept of race to do this public policy. Race is used to divide. Prejudice is real and has been the source of much mixed up with race in the United States.. Color isn’t a race, we are all the same race. How we treat people, and the history behind it, and the lost irony of slave owners creating some utopia is the propaganda we have been taught, by the governments, local, state, federal. Labels.
RUclips video: "Global Declaration of Independence - Fight the Power"
Fantastic lecture.
I heard a lot about behavior characterization but little about remedies. Can we just assess school system performance and form/provide/implement policies to assist?
deserving, shmerving
Now I feel bad about myself. I think I'll transfer to Florida State!
Just kidding. Very thought - provoking.
And we still cant fi it.
Where are the Asians and Asian Americans in the studies?
Doing better than whites.
😏 really?
what's up with the dislike
Very informative lecture
21:15 Racism can be "positive" as well. Racism as defined as a prejudice based on race can be positive in the same way as you already indicated when describing prejudice being either positive or negative.
That said, whether prejudice or racism is positive or negative, it has a negative effect on all of us because it prevents us from seeing things as they actually are.
"If there's no harm, then a private market might do something about it"?! If there's no harm, then do something about what?! Was he just trying to tie in private market in there to not seem so biased?
I disagree. Almost ever student has had a course in standing in line. It is called Kindergarten.
This lecture is for people in a more advanced class. This man has good points but they are hard to extrapolate. I think he is probably a better administrator than teacher. I hope you don't have any other guest lecturers in our class. I like only you for this subject matter.
And his research is manipulated for an outcome
@@robertprice9052 I had that same thought too.
Again, where is the notice of persons with a disability, who represent 20% of Americans?
May all being be healthy, be well, be free!
Science disagrees with the generalization of genotype presented. I’m fascinated by public policy professors encouraging a belief in different races. The challenge is how do we overcome prejudice without labeling, used by the slave owners, our founding fathers, to create equality in our time. Asia has many different ethnic groups not defined by a ‘race’. Africa too. Ethnic, or your phenotype expression, is what defines us in physical features, we are of one race, public policy argues to maintain the idea of different labels to track effectiveness of policy, or, used still to segregate, A product of public policy.
The boss couldn't say no?
Yeah. Wish that worked where I work!
‘When responding to natural disasters, well we know people can’t control those situations…” This line of thinking isn’t actually true. Many can live in areas of lower risk and do things to further reduce the risk and avoiding things that increase the risk. California and Californians did a lot to bring itself and themselves up to worse wildfire risks. Corporations have done a lot to further increase risk as they see socializing cost as acceptable. Though I like where he’s going that these others seen as less deserving truly couldn’t control their circumstances. Its part of the luck of living in the right zip code. It is the flip side of the success paradox.
It is not resentful to say that race isn't a fair or just method for reward or group enhancement. That's just the truth. Taking the opposite position is racist, where racist is defined as disproportionally discriminating based on race.
He assumed that it's WHITE resentment toward blacks, but every not-racist person should feel this "resentment" (obviously not resentment, by any sane definition) toward EVERY person, of ANY race, receiving ANY reward or group enhancement BASED ON THEIR RACE. No rewards should be be distributed based on race. This is not-racist. This isn't resentful.
I think it's anti-democratic and completely, utterly, morally wrong to disenfranchise ANYONE from voting, based on felony conviction, age, or any ARBITRARY trait. (The reason racism is wrong, in the contexts that racial discrimination is done wrongly, is that race is usually arbitrary, and is arbitrary in those contexts).
White privilege exists. As do other privileges. There is no systemic, American, white privilege that I'm aware of, but if someone made me aware of it, I'm pretty motivated to change that toward equality. Wealth privilege is the biggest ongoing, systemic discrimination in America today, and it needs to change. A wealthy, good-looking black is better off than a poor, ugly white in America. Not just in individual interactions, ABOUT WHICH WE MUST DO NOTHING, but in the way the American systems treat people.
I STRONGLY support mass public transit, universal healthcare, and I'm strongly AGAINST private prisons, lower corporate tax rates, corporal punishment, etc, so I don't fit the correlation he found at all, though I'm not surprised at the correlation. It's just shitty fake "science". He's spouting a softer form of the woke-ist, "anti-racist" (actually just racist) rhetoric. We need to stop BOTH this insanity and the insanity of Trumpism.
The ACA is less-bad than what came before, but it's still a cocksuck to the "insurance" corporations. Cut them out entirely. Single-payor, Medicare-for-all. Negotiate the prices of healthcare down with mass bargaining power. Let the "insurance" companies die. They're parasites that kill American people and extract massive profits, while masquerading as not-for-profits.
Remember, HE labeled it resentment, HE labeled it WHITE resentment, and HE looked (confirmation bias) for it to be against BLACK Americans (almost all of whom are NOT African American, another insane use of language). All of these choices on his part are assumptions, racist, and wrong. There are lots of anti-black racists in America, of all races, including blacks. So if you look for it, you'll find it. The solution is eliminating any CURRENT, SYSTEMIC racism from our institutions, not BEING RACIST and trying to "compensate" under the guise of "anti-racism".
Unequal outcomes aren't evidence of ongoing, systemic discrimination. Until you prove that they are, there is not sufficient evidence of a problem to motivate people to do something about it.
Mass transit and healthcare are great. Should they be distributed based on race? Hell no. That would be racist. Felony convictions suck. Should they be distributed based on race? Hell no. That would be racist. The woke position is that felony convictions are distributed based on race, but they provide no evidence. Remember-- difference of outcomes isn't evidence that the distribution is CURRENTLY, SYSTEMICALLY, discriminating based on race. The woke position is that we SHOULD (re)distribute wealth and opportunity based on race. That's racist! Why don't we instead either distribute wealth and opportunity to everyone, equally, or based on non-arbitrary characteristics.... like LACK of WEALTH or LACK of OPPORTUNITY? Then, you wouldn't trigger "resentment"!
He's pulling a sleight-of-hand with substituting "inequality" for "injustice". By not changing a system that hasn't been shown to be currently, systemically racist, we indeed might be allowing INEQUALITY to persist. That's fine. Be not-racist. It's the morally good way to be. INEQUALITY is not INJUSTICE. There's nothing (necessarily) unjust about unequal outcomes for arbitrarily different groups. Very slimy trick he's trying to pull off by using these very different-meaning words as synonyms.
"We have to be accountable for things we might not have even caused" WTF?! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! That is literally the exact things one MUST NOT EVER BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR! What a skeezeball! Nobody is guilty of or deserving of credit for things they DIDN'T CAUSE. That's what accountability means. That you get guilt/credit "aka held to account" for your deeds.
"Structural racism is real" WHOA! Just throws it out as an unproven assumption! And he calls himself a social "scientist"? Scientist, my ass!
"Why don't we instead either distribute wealth and opportunity to everyone, equally, or based on non-arbitrary characteristics.... like LACK of WEALTH or LACK of OPPORTUNITY?" Because that's racist, as it indirectly, mis-proportionately helps POC vs White people. That's the great lie of modern american politics, the belief that you can not be racist, when in fact you can ONLY be racist because the system is structurally racist. But this is america and you can choose what flavor of racism you want to be, Classic Racism, Status Quo Racism (choosing to help no one because creating a system that benefits the poor also benefits POC the most and is thus racist), or anti-racism (choosing to create a system that helps the poor but since that mostly helps POC is still racist)
@@unholyrevenger72 "Because that's racist" No, not by the definition I gave, which is disproportionate discrimination based on race. Sure, by a shitty definition, where even actions that cause INDIRECTLY unequal outcomes are considered ___ist just because they cause ____al groups to have unequal outcomes.
"the belief that you can not be racist" Fkuc your semantics. In my semantics you can be not-racist. Your semantics are useless because you think nobody can be not-racist. Can people be not-sexist, not-ageist, not-ableist, not bigoted, on ANY dimension, by your semantics?
"the system is structurally racist" There is no evidence of this. The systemS WERE structurally/systemically racist. Now they're not. If they are, what specifically needs to change to be not-racist?
"choosing to help no one because creating a system that benefits the poor also benefits POC the most and is thus racist" Benefiting colored people (they're not people OF color, JFC) "the most" is not (necessarily) racist, by my semantics. I advocate for either helping everyone equally or helping people based on non-arbitrary properties, like lack of wealth. I'm proposing discriminating perfectly proportionally based on wealth, which wouldn't even be wealth-ist by my definitions of every kind of bigotry. Discriminating based on nothing (distributing wealth equally) or discriminating based on wealth are both not-racist. You can't be racist if you don't even consider the race of the people. Treating people the same or treating people differently based on anything other than race isn't racist. If there's some non-arbitrary difference between individuals or groups, even if it happens to be race in some context, then discriminating (defined as perceiving differences or treating things as if they're different) based on race, in that context, isn't racist.
What's the point of noting problems or doing anything about them if one operates under your semantics? Why try to be morally good if you can only be racist? Do you believe that racism is morally bad/wrong?
@@unholyrevenger72 The flaw in the logic of this poster is the concept that its the place of government to decide how to distribute wealth in our society, full stop. This very concept is absurd and obscene. The only legitimate source of personal wealth is to earn it, other sources of wealth are suspect. I don't count inheritance, because that money was earned at some point in the past, and thus the owner has a right to use it as they wish, including passing it on. The idea that government should make people it likes wealthy is pretty much the definition of corruption, but for some reason people can't see that, if the recipient is 'deserving' in some way. Government should be making the trains run on time (system work well), not choosing winners and losers in society, and especially not choosing by race.
this is frustrating because, while he touches on being open to doing something regarding inequality, his only implied solution is to "vote democrat" Nothing about local politics, nothing the problem that this entire issue is stauchly amerio-centric and holds no water in the east and NO data on the perspectives from Native Americans, Asians or Middle Easterners. This is essentially "white people bad" but in academic form.
Excellent point.
Also note that the only race ever mentioned specifically in a slide as deserving special help is African Americans.
No such thing can work
Racial inequality experts? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
You don't fix racism with more racism, you fix it with fairness. With the unfairness of things like Affirmative Action you perpetuate racism, you don't fix it. You're justifying racism.
The problem is not so much that affirmative action is racist, which it clearly is, the real problem is that government just can't fix racism, period, and when they try, they just make the actual racism worse, because now not only do some people not like other people for silly reasons, but now they also resent the special privileges that government gives some and not others for reasons that no one can control or choose (race).
If your solution only feeds the problem and you get more power government funding and power to fight the problem the worst it becomes, it kind of makes sense why these ideologues would only work to encourage the problem. It suits their ends.
It's great that you want a fair system, as I think it's safe to say that everyone does. I think a great question to ask yourself might be how it is that you are personally defining fair, and when you believe that fairness is being measured.
If we imagine the college admission system as one which exists in a vacuum, free of any outside inputs or outputs, then it is very easy to see how affirmative action could be deemed unfair, as from that perspective one race is getting an advantage.
However, what if we were to take into account outside influences? If we imagine a world in which certain sports are prized very highly by universities, but those sports happen to be sports that white communities have far less access to, would we still call that admission system fair? In this hypothetical system, we would expect that, on average, white students will look like less valuable potential students to universities even though it was no fault of their own and they never had any choice in the matter. That seems unfair, but how do we remedy it? On one hand, we could spend billions on installing sports centers in white communities all across the country, but that would require a massive tax increase and expanding the size of the government, so that seems unlikely. But what if instead we simply took this fact into account? What if at the admission level we accept that white kids had less access to this sport, so we judge white applications less harshly for not having participated? Would we still consider that unfair, or would it instead be a way to take into account unfairness that exists somewhere else?
Instead of imagining the system as an unfair boost to one person, what if we instead imagined it as a system which only judges people based on circumstances they had control over. After all, if white kids can't control whether they get to play that sport, why should white kids get rejected for having not played it?
It's worth asking whether the most fair system is one which completely ignores the outside world, or whether fairness is actually better achieved when we take into account the unique properties of each person's life and try to negate factors that they never had control over in the first place.
I love this lecture series. Everyone in America should watch it. But this particular lecture was the least researched, least valuable, least challenging intellectually, and IMO almost condescending in tone. Nothing new. I was bored, frankly. (PS The lecturers snide aside at time 1:00:00 says a lot.... Hey, you don't like the data YOU are presenting? Just make a denigrating comment about the respondents! Just say their replies must be lies. That's scientific.)
Recommend an interesting scientific book: "Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil" by Paul Bloom
This is NOT a scientific book, take it and its constructs/framework with a grain of salt; but still interesting: "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt
@@pixndoog Thanks! Are you interested in AI? A good book: "Weapons of Math Destruction" (grin.) Written by a data scientist about the Big Data that feeds AI.
BORING 💤
The only class I could not watch in it’s entirety. Obvious and well known by the majority. What a waste. You should have just referenced the guy in your footnotes. I am looking forward to YOUR next class.