Haidt’s Analysis of Contemporary Democratic Dynamics

[WVBRY]

Amazing article. This is exactly what is happening in the Western world right now.

https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/201...atic-dynamics/

The article's five main points:

1. Successful capitalism creates prosperity.
2. Prosperity attracts mass migration.
3. Prosperity shifts the urban elites of the West to favoring hyper-tolerance.
4. Immigrants plus the hyper-tolerance of the elites triggers authoritarians.
5. When authoritarians succeed in attracting status quo conservatives to their cause, they end up with a democratic majority.

Basically, we have successful capitalism which means capitalism that has worked (not necessarily any kind of capitalism - the capitalism of Russia in the 90s didn't work out too well for example), which attracts economic migrants from poorer parts of the world. But while these migrants are usually fairly conservative in terms of their social mores and values, this is brushed under the rug by urban elites of the West who equate socially conservative values with being a bad person. From the article:

Many Western writers and thinkers like to say that third-world migrants come here seeking liberty and progressive values, but very often this is an assumption that is just made completely out of the blue, citing zero evidence in favor of this claim.
In fact, according to polls, most notably from the Pew Research Center, most third-world migrants are not liberal-minded at all, but hold staunchly conservative values. So why do people assume that third-world migrants come here with a fully-formed ‘Sex and the City’ mindset? Well, to some Westerners, especially on the left-wing, if you’re not into progressivism and liberal values, you’re not a good person. So if you don’t assume that migrants subscribe to liberal values, then that’s tantamount to implying that they’re bad people. In other words, these people let ideological considerations trump empirical evidence.

Further, when people become more affluent, such as Western elites have become, they become less fearful and mistrustful of their environment, including of migrants. Haidt distinghuishes between authoritarians and status quo conservatives. The former want strong leaders, ethnic coherence, and preservation of tradtional values and customs, whereas status quo conservatives only want the last thing. But when traditional political parties fail to address the questions raised by mass migration and the instability that results from it, conservatives start looking to far right authoritarian parties to solve their problems.

Here is the conclusion:

So if we have understood Haidt correctly, he is saying that Western democracies are being shook up by uncontrolled migration. Since the traditional parties and candidates have not been able or willing to address this point in a way that the voters find satisfactory, authoritarian right-wing parties have sprung up. These parties arose as a protest against the left-wing, urban, affluent liberal elite of Western countries who, viewing Muslims as victims, are more inclined to blame conservatives of their own ethnicity for the problems associated with mass migration than blaming the Muslims themselves. And without the support of less affluent voters, the urban elites are not numerous enough to ensure a democratic majority. The new authoritarian impulses in Western democracies will keep growing as long as the problem isn’t dealt with. In Europe, these parties have only gotten larger with each election. In America, Trump is an early representative of this phenomenon, and even if he loses, the anti-immigration sentiment that has lent him all his traction is much bigger than him, and what he has started will not end with him.

I suggest reading the whole thing.

Thoughts?

[Bertrand]

J Haidt is awesome


I think the conclusion in the article is dubious though because it doesn't hold authoritarianism morally responsible for itself and simply says unchecked immigration is to blame. first of all immigration is not unchecked, its simply, according to the model, sufficient to create this effect, given all the other factors. immigration when not at this pace also has problems, namely in advanced democracies population starts to fall below replacement. so you might say unchecked immigration is the solution not the problem and rather authoritarianism is something to be reigned in, if possible. it very well could be the case that economic decline concomitant to population below replacement would give rise to just as much if not more authoritarian politics, in which case the solution has to be something other than checking immigration if one wants to reduce authoritarianism. also if you're an authoritarian the conclusion is to love immigrants, which maybe is the answer in a paradoxical way. sort of how if you hate abortion the answer is to love birth control, despite how the two things are usually opposed to one another on ideological grounds

[WVBRY]

J Haidt is awesome


I think the conclusion in the article is dubious though because it doesn't hold authoritarianism morally responsible for itself and simply says unchecked immigration is to blame. first of all immigration is not unchecked, its simply, according to the model, sufficient to create this effect, given all the other factors. immigration when not at this pace also has problems, namely in advanced democracies population starts to fall below replacement. so you might say unchecked immigration is the solution not the problem and rather authoritarianism is something to be reigned in, if possible. it very well could be the case that economic decline concomitant to population below replacement would give rise to just as much if not more authoritarian politics, in which case the solution has to be something other than checking immigration if one wants to reduce authoritarianism. also if you're an authoritarian the conclusion is to love immigrants, which maybe is the answer in a paradoxical way. sort of how if you hate abortion the answer is to love birth control, despite how the two things are usually opposed to one another on ideological grounds

Actually, the conclusion isn't saying unchecked immigration is to blame, rather the inaction of traditional political parties in response to the problems created by immigration is to blame (though I do wish the article would go deeper into what problems they are referring to exactly). You are right that the article seems to imply that immigration is unchecked, which is something I often hear the alt-right complain about "open borders", of course there is no such thing as open borders in any country in the world anymore, you need a passport and need to get through customs regardless of where you even for travel, vetting procedures exist, etc. So I agree that immigration is not unchecked but simply sufficient to create this effect.

As far as population replacement goes, it depends on the country. Some countries take in little immigrants and don't have the problem of population decline, and others (like Germany) seem to have low birth rates which can be solved by bringing in young migrants, however, I am not convinced this is the only solution and that this is the genuine motive for taking in migrants in a country like Germany.

And I don't understand your last statement. Why is the solution to immigration to love migrants if you're authoritarian, I don't get your comparison with birth control either, lol.

I do agree with the article that traditonal political parties will just have to address the question of immigration by doing something other than saying "let all the migrants in". And they are already making concessions to the far right, look how Angela Merkel for example is now cautious to bring in more migrants, I think this is because she knows it will excite the populists. If traditional political parties want to survive, they will have to address the concerns of people who vote populist, I think that is what the article is saying. This doesn't mean that traditional political parties should adopt the ideas of far right authoritarians, just find solutions to the questions they raise. But as long as people keep saying "you are a racist scumbag" to someone wants more controls on immigration, we'll get nowhere, this only serves to alienate people into voting far right.

[Singu]

Well I think it's not that simple, since Singapore is an authoritarian country, and yet it loves migrants, or at least controlled migrants.

So I think the real solution is knowing how to deal with the migrants (and also with the host population that hates them). It kind of assumes that the migrants are too stupid to understand Western values, but it only means that we don't yet know how to "transfer" that kind of knowledge to non-Western immigrants and countries.

[Bertrand]

Western democracies are being shook up by uncontrolled migration. Since the traditional parties and candidates have not been able or willing to address this point in a way that the voters find satisfactory, authoritarian right-wing parties have sprung up. These parties arose as a protest against the left-wing, urban, affluent liberal elite of Western countries who, viewing Muslims as victims,

so as far as I can tell they're concluding that authoritarians gain traction because people don't like the trending sympathy toward immigrants (should we go full delta [sympathy] or back to beta). you could just as easily say authoritarianism as a consequence of racist attitudes is the problem. the solution to racist attitudes is for authoritarians to realize that immigrants are their saviors, either economically or politically since they ensure by their very existence authoritarians will always have a stake in power. in other words out groups help define in groups and authoritarians need an out group to hate in order to exist as a political factor, otherwise they go away. if they start to love immigrants they go away, but peacefully, and presumably happily, they get their economy and they get to stop hatin'--everyone wins (this is the delta approach). in truth a different group of nascent authoritarians will probably be born (starting with alpha), just at a later date and the cycle will likely repeat itself. what this really seems to track is quadral progression

gamma = capitalism, gives way to
delta = tolerance and traditionalism, and raises
alphas= which develop rules and laws, something more than ethical norms of tolerance, which
beta = rides discontent to see those laws developed into an authority and imposed on the community in order to quell the discontent..

this creates the group harmony for individual egotism to assert itself again and capitalism to re emerge as primary. it seems like what is going on in part is that you can regress from gamma straight into beta (sentence 1 in first paragraph) and skip delta and alpha entirely. it seems the US has been poised to tip into delta since around 9/11 but if things get sufficiently out of control, it could go the other way. you will know this if we have a major war (on the scale of ww2 not iraq). trump's alliance with russia is foreboding, but at the same time the next major election may have blowback+

[WVBRY]

Well I think it's not that simple, since Singapore is an authoritarian country, and yet it loves migrants, or at least controlled migrants.

So I think the real solution is knowing how to deal with the migrants (and also with the host population that hates them). It kind of assumes that the migrants are too stupid to understand Western values, but it only means that we don't yet know how to "transfer" that kind of knowledge to non-Western immigrants and countries.

I don't think migrants are too stupid to understand Western values, but in many cases unwilling to adapt to them.

But maybe you're right, we don't know how to communicate those values to non-Western immigrants, though you mention other countries, frankly that's besides the point though as other countries are free to have the values they want, it is only when they come to the West that they should adapt to the host culture.

Like with anything, it isn't really constructive to generalize, as in some cases migrants probably don't want to adopt Western values, and in some other cases they probably would if they were reached out to better.

In any case, I agree that limiting immigration isn't the only possible solution to the problems we're seeing, we need to look at the problem in depth and find solutions. But as long as tradional politicians assume there is no problem, and that the only problem is the rise of populism, without wanting to look at the causes of said populism, they will lose to those populist parties they so fear.

[WVBRY]

you could just as easily say authoritarianism as a consequence of racist attitudes is the problem.

No, this doesn't address the problem. This is why I wish the article had spoken more of what they consider specific problems caused my immigration and had given examples.

As it were, saying racist attitudes is the problem is not going to make the problem go away.

Why are we seeing racism now, and not before? Isn't it because not only of migration but also of the problems caused by it? They people you call racists aeren't so much concernced with race fundamentally as they are often concerned with immigrants taking their jobs. This isn't racism, it is just survival.

the solution to racist attitudes is for authoritarians to realize that immigrants are their saviors, either economically or politically since they ensure by their very existence authoritarians will always have a stake in power. in other words out groups help define in groups and authoritarians need an out group to hate in order to exist as a political factor, otherwise they go away.

Probably authoritarian politicians already realize this, I'm talking more the people who vote for those politicians. They don't necessarily want an out group to hate, nor do they profit from the power of their elected populist leaders.

if they start to love immigrants they go away, but peacefully, and presumably happily, they get their economy and they get to stop hatin'--everyone wins (this is the delta approach). in truth a different group of authoritarians will probably be born, just at a later date and the cycle will likely repeat itself. what this really seems to track is quadral progression

gamma = capitalism, gives way to
delta = tolerance and traditionalism, and raises
alphas= which develop rules and laws, something more than ethical norms of tolerance, which
beta = rides discontent to see those laws developed into an authority and imposed on the community in order to quell the discontent..

this creates the group harmony for individual egotism to assert itself again and capitalism to re emerge as primary. it seems like what is going on in part is that you can regress from gamma straight into beta (sentence 1 in first paragraph) and skip delta and alpha entirely. it seems the US has been poised to tip into delta since around 9/11 but if things get sufficiently out of control, it could go the other way. you will know this if we have a major war (on the scale of ww2 not iraq)

I do not follow here, sorry.

[Bertrand]

No, this doesn't address the problem.

oh ok

[Singu]

I don't think migrants are too stupid to understand Western values, but in many cases unwilling to adapt to them.

It's like well, why are they unwilling? That's a case for an interesting study. They would need to see that it's a good thing for them and for everyone to adopt "Western" values.

But maybe you're right, we don't know how to communicate those values to non-Western immigrants, though you mention other countries, frankly that's besides the point though as other countries are free to have the values they want, it is only when they come to the West that they should adapt to the host culture.

In any case, I agree that limiting immigration isn't the only possible solution to the problems we're seeing, we need to look at the problem in depth and find solutions. But as long as tradional politicians assume there is no problem, and that the only problem is the rise of populism, without wanting to look at the causes of said populism, they will lose to those populist parties they so fear.

Well the Western countries forget the fact that they too had to go through barbarism before there was democracy, and they too had to go through nationalism and protectionism before there was more free and open capitalism.

I do think that what will keep the world peaceful (and hence your own country peaceful), is if each of the countries were more democratic and free. It's no use if your country is surrounded by hostile countries. There are also threats of "terrorism", etc.

Do all the countries have to go through this to have a vibrant and free society? Maybe yes, maybe no. But it would be fantastically efficient, if they could skip all those baggage of nationalism, authoritarianism, etc, and head straight to a free and democratic society. The only thing that is stopping that, is not knowing how to.

[WVBRY]

oh ok

What's your point? Is this how you plan to have a discussion, by retorting with idiotic one liners, or will you address what I'm saying?

[xerx]

3. Prosperity shifts the urban elites of the West to favoring hyper-tolerance.

elites like immigrants because they think that we (Western people) are more lazy. and to a large extent they're right.

[Adam Strange]

elites like immigrants because they think that we (Western people) are more lazy. and to a large extent they're right.

I thought elites like immigrants because they suppress wages, and hence inflation.

[xerx]

I thought elites like immigrants because they suppress wages, and hence inflation.

that's very very true & I probably should have been less flippant. but I also can't deny that immigrants tend to be very hard working people. the fact that they're willing to work hard for low wages is a testament to that in and of itself.

[Spermatozoa]

that's very very true & I probably should have been less flippant. but I also can't deny that immigrants tend to be very hard working people. the fact that they're willing to work hard for low wages is a testament to that in and of itself.

Nobody wants to work for low wages. But some people have to. Consider that as a U.S. citizen if you don't like your job, you can (at least in theory) just walk away from it and find a new one. This gives you some leverage to bargain with your employer for a decent wage, assuming you've got some skills and the balls to play a hard game.

Most immigrants don't have this luxury, though, and big business knows it. Remember that the fundamental aim of every company is to make a profit. Unskilled, foreign labour will continue to be promoted until it becomes unprofitable.

Immigration itself isn't a problem. The issues are that (1.) immigration is not based enough on skills (2.) the current source countries are upsetting demographic balance

[xerx]

Nobody wants to work for low wages. But some people have to. Consider that as a U.S. citizen if you don't like your job, you can (at least in theory) just walk away from it and find a new one. This gives you some leverage to bargain with your employer for a decent wage, assuming you've got some skills and the balls to play a hard game.

Most immigrants don't have this luxury, though, and big business knows it. Remember that the fundamental aim of every company is to make a profit. Unskilled, foreign labour will continue to be promoted until it becomes unprofitable.

I already know all of this. But immigrants from poorer countries are also genuinely harder working by way of effort & exertion. It's not just about some utility calculation where you only work hard because you're forced to. Draconian though it is, a work ethic is something that gets instilled into you from an early age if you're poor and have to make a living.

[ooo]

this is all wrong on so many levels plus it's since elementary school that I didn't hear "third world country" and that in itself seems a big hint of the level of this.

only thing to save is the final analysis

[falsehope]

You cannot stop or reverse globalisation. People can vote whoever they want but migrants will be coming. In todays world you cannot close the door to civilized country for people from all over the world. It's non-doable.

Also statement that you cannot get to another country without customs is not true. In europe you can travel without customs. So if you get to poland, you can reach most of europe and there are no borders at all, they are completely uninstalled.

Also I don't think it's happening like the article says. Western europe has been welcome for migrants for very long time and there was no shift whatsoever. It's the rate at which migrants come to western europe. Mainly the recent crisis in the middle east and new poor EU countries (Romania and Bulgaria) are causing this, and the increasing crime from these countries is clearly visible, so people want to reduce the rate at which these people are coming.

But the migrants are needed, without them the western europe economy would collapse. Migration will be still happening because businesses require this and they will need this to thrive.

[ooo]

Yeah, you cannot stop people from going wherever the hell they want to go, especially if it's even your fault if they're living in shitty conditions in their native countries. Why not enhance their countries' welfare instead of arming them, exploit their resources, making wars and then kicking them out when they seek help for they can't live in their own place anymore? Oh yeah, money must just go in one direction... right.

Point n.4 of that list is controversial, authoritarianism is not caused by immigrants but by the ignorance and anger spread by crisis and dissatisfaction. It's a rather important point because the last time this happened ****** took power, and now... Trump, Brexit, Italy. It's not immigrant's fault, ohmegosh, it's this damn world that just revolves around money, money, money.

[marooned]

I would think the goal wouldn't be to stop it but to make it work better. But if liberals have their heads in the sands and conservatives can only rally against the inevitable, it'll just be "us against them" with no solutions.

Liberals to people with issues: there are no issues. You're the problem

Conservatives to people with issues: there's a crisis, we will solve it by closing the border

Like, the middle ground is being missed and it's where the solutions are.

[leckysupport]

Simplistic and will be meaningless when the current geopolitical situation changes in the slightest.

[marooned]

Why are we seeing racism now, and not before? Isn't it because not only of migration but also of the problems caused by it? They people you call racists aeren't so much concernced with race fundamentally as they are often concerned with immigrants taking their jobs. This isn't racism, it is just survival.

I personally don't buy the "they'll steel our jobs!" thing as what it's really about. I'm not saying this isn't a real fear that is within a lot of people. But it's just kind of amusing when I imagine a white blue collar worker, out of work after the factory shut down, in a majority white town, channeling this fear of "they'll take our jobs!" and that being the real root of it. I mean, it doesn't really make sense.

*rambles on looking for the "true fear"*

For people not doing very well as is, there is more tendency to try to cling to the only thing they have. Survival is relevant in trying to cling to the lower rungs of the ladder for fear of falling off and being cast into the dump reserved for society's least valued people. It is in a way acknowledging what is wrong, but out of feeling too disempowered to do anything about it, just clinging to the pathetic social status one does have. It's more about this social status than jobs--if it was about jobs, electing The Donald for instance doesn't make much sense to me. The Donald seems to want to bring back an old way of life that cannot sustain/perpetuate itself into the future (something that every time you create it, it will only dissipate and disappear).

Since it is more about social status than jobs, that's why racism is central to the explanation, as racism in academic definition is about a system that keeps people down based on race, such as how the US govt used the "war on drugs" to destroy black communities.

Racism is not primarily defined as having an alarming bigotry towards people of other races (though of course there are still those people)--it's defined as implicit biases as well as explicit biases held by the dominant "race" in a society that is arranged to advantage that race over everyone else. Therefore people trying to maintain that status is automatically defined as racist and so are fears of "brown people stealing our jobs!"

Anyway, I think the real fear is becoming the next "people of the abyss" and perhaps knowing (for some) that the system itself is designed to devalue and put down a certain percentage of the population, and for the sake of the system itself, it doesn't matter who. It will favor its majority, once enough power is gained by that majority.

What would reassure and calm this is to assure that there will be no more people of the abyss in the future (but that's not conservative thinking) and it's not something that civilizations with large populations have seemingly ever devised. All of them seem to have had social hierarchies and those on the bottom suffer.

AFAICT as soon as humans start building civilizations, they stick to the primate-pyramid style. Yes sometimes it's a flatter pyramid with more room at the top, but it's still the same basic structure.

[WVBRY]

I personally don't buy the "they'll steel our jobs!" thing as what it's really about. I'm not saying this isn't a real fear that is within a lot of people. But it's just kind of amusing when I imagine a white blue collar worker, out of work after the factory shut down, in a majority white town, channeling this fear of "they'll take our jobs!" and that being the real root of it. I mean, it doesn't really make sense.

*rambles on looking for the "true fear"*

For people not doing very well as is, there is more tendency to try to cling to the only thing they have. Survival is relevant in trying to cling to the lower rungs of the ladder for fear of falling off and being cast into the dump reserved for society's least valued people. It is in a way acknowledging what is wrong, but out of feeling too disempowered to do anything about it, just clinging to the pathetic social status one does have. It's more about this social status than jobs--if it was about jobs, electing The Donald for instance doesn't make much sense to me. The Donald seems to want to bring back an old way of life that cannot sustain/perpetuate itself into the future (something that every time you create it, it will only dissipate and disappear).

Since it is more about social status than jobs, that's why racism is central to the explanation, as racism in academic definition is about a system that keeps people down based on race, such as how the US govt used the "war on drugs" to destroy black communities.

Racism is not primarily defined as having an alarming bigotry towards people of other races (though of course there are still those people)--it's defined as implicit biases as well as explicit biases held by the dominant "race" in a society that is arranged to advantage that race over everyone else. Therefore people trying to maintain that status is automatically defined as racist and so are fears of "brown people stealing our jobs!"

Anyway, I think the real fear is becoming the next "people of the abyss" and perhaps knowing (for some) that the system itself is designed to devalue and put down a certain percentage of the population, and for the sake of the system itself, it doesn't matter who. It will favor its majority, once enough power is gained by that majority.

What would reassure and calm this is to assure that there will be no more people of the abyss in the future (but that's not conservative thinking) and it's not something that civilizations with large populations have seemingly ever devised. All of them seem to have had social hierarchies and those on the bottom suffer.

AFAICT as soon as humans start building civilizations, they stick to the primate-pyramid style. Yes sometimes it's a flatter pyramid with more room at the top, but it's still the same basic structure.

I actually don't agree with this "academic" definition of racism. Seems like its the basis for the current SJW/PC atmosphere of "white men can't ever be victims of discrimination because they currently have more resources as a "group" (which equates to a statistcial mean of all individuals composing the supposed group) , therefore all individual white men are open to be discriminated against", which is basically only looking at people as groups and not as individuals. I'm not saying you're advocating this, but it is an ineviatble consequnce of this definition of racism you employ. It doesn't make sense, especially when used by people who tend to deny that race even exists or that categories of "races" are arbitrary and wrong (which I could agree with), and that gender even exists and is a social construct, why would we then blame white men? If race and gender don't exist, white men don't exist as such, only individuality exists, which is kinda what I'm saying. The theory is kind of self-negating. Again, I'm not saying this is your position.

Therefore, I disagree it's about status beyond the perception of it being us (the in group) vs them (out groups). Rather it is about jobs to a degree, whether "the Donald" is able to bring them back is another question, but the fact is people think he can bring jobs back.

So I do think it's about jobs, not about maintaining power, real or imagined, for many rural folk that power would have to be imagined as they don't have much of it.

I do agree with your last statement.

[marooned]

I actually don't agree with this "academic" definition of racism. Seems like its the basis for the current SJW/PC atmosphere of "white men can't ever be victims of discrimination because they currently have more resources as a "group" (which equates to a statistcial mean of all individuals composing the supposed group) , therefore all individual white men are open to be discriminated against", which is basically only looking at people as groups and not as individuals.

Well, in a way, it is. It's saying that white people cannot be victims of racism in a system that favors white people. They can be victims of racial discrimination however (or is prejudice the correct term?) like everyone else. Anyway that "racism" is going by these different definitions kind of causes a lot of arguments online, because it's acting as though this newer definition that's been catching wind was the colloquial one all along. haha

I'm not saying you're advocating this, but it is an ineviatble consequnce of this definition of racism you employ. It doesn't make sense, especially when used by people who tend to deny that race even exists or that categories of "races" are arbitrary and wrong (which I could agree with), and that gender even exists and is a social construct, why would we then blame white men? If race and gender don't exist, white men don't exist as such, only individuality exists, which is kinda what I'm saying. The theory is kind of self-negating. Again, I'm not saying this is your position.

It's the social construct of race that perpetuates racism, is the idea. Biologically, it has no basis (there is no "race"). It's a way of people judging one another based on their morphological characteristics and also for entire social systems to organize the social hierarchy by these characteristics as well (by and large). So even though there is no "race" one can sure feel like there is (for instance, when one is treated in certain ways because of their "race") and believe that there is (for instance, when someone forms some ideology about race and thinks their "race" is superior). And it's made very real in the overall system, which favors certain groups over others based on race, and those who are disadvantaged by this system experience it on a personal level and in every aspect of their lives. Not to mention, these "racial" differences are cultural differences.

So I do think it's about jobs, not about maintaining power, real or imagined, for many rural folk that power would have to be imagined as they don't have much of it.

Yes, but they could always have even LESS of it. And the US has a long history of what it does to those at the very bottom (civilizations in general are never kind to those on the bottom and they always define that group as fundamentally deserving of their treatment in some way). I think that jobs/power are connected, so perhaps you have a point about jobs, but to say it has nothing to do with power is strange to me.

Anyway, regarding my position, I can't form one on this topic. I would rather default back to seeing people as individuals, but the hang-up is that this doesn't cover implicit bias. Lots of whites have tried to see people as individuals while being blind to how they don't treat or perceive all the individuals equally.

[WVBRY]

@inumbra

I get what you're saying, but I just don't think identity politics is the answer (again, I'm not saying you're suggesting it is, just that it tends to be a consequence of the idea that whites have "implicit bias"). I do believe there is systematic racism against minority groups in the US, but playing the blame game like many are doing on the far Left is only going to make matters worse, since issues of identity are issues which have no solution (we learned this in conflict management class).

I would rather default back to seeing people as individuals, but the hang-up is that this doesn't cover implicit bias. Lots of whites have tried to see people as individuals while being blind to how they don't treat or perceive all the individuals equally.

I think it's good examine one's prejudices and biases, even ones we aeren't aware of but we shouldn't constantly be on guard against them either. It seems like an obsession with some people (not you specifically). I think any group which perceives itself as dominant (through culture, physical charatceristics or whatever) is going to discriminate but I don't think that you being white necessarily means you have implicit bias. What makes you think you do? I think treating people as individuals is better because focus on race is not going to make focus on race go away.

[niffer]

Trying to divert focus on race doesn’t make it go away either.

My experience as a biracial person growing up in Vancouver Canada... where in recent years the immigrant minority are now the majority here...

I can say both what @inumbra and @Avebury brought up are real concerns. How to address them best, idk either.

[marooned]

@inumbra

I get what you're saying, but I just don't think identity politics is the answer (again, I'm not saying you're suggesting it is, just that it tends to be a consequence of the idea that whites have "implicit bias"). I do believe there is systematic racism against minority groups in the US, but playing the blame game like many are doing on the far Left is only going to make matters worse, since issues of identity are issues which have no solution (we learned this in conflict management class).

There is something troubling to me about what is going on, on the far left, and identity politics is kind of part of it. My issue is I can swallow half of this stuff, maybe even most of it, but still I feel like something is wrong. I worry that if the way that the more radical seeming far left people end up in power that it will be the end of liberty basically, for everyone. I have paranoias and confusions I'm trying to dismantle. But I agree with the movement for more equality and I like diversity (but I mean I like diversity of thought, speech, perspective, as well--and without that, if we must all think and say the same things--I can't consider things truly diverse). I'm also troubled by how hateful and divided everything is.

I do see white privilege in general and wrt myself, so I also know that my perspective here may be missing things that other people see more clearly from their own vantage point. But still I believe we can maintain our liberties AND make things more equal. But not through putting each other down or spreading hate of opposing viewpoints, etc. How is that going to work? This back and forth is going on it seems where the left gets more extreme, then the right gets more extreme, then the left gets even more extreme, etc. I feel like this is what happens when hate > humanism is a focus. Society should be aiming towards humanism. I guess the problem is though that much of it was, but in a way it was only humanism from a "white" perspective. But see, now I'm thinking in this way where there can be no overlap, as though there is no middle ground; no common, shared humanity. And without that, how can anything good be achieved?

I think it's good examine one's prejudices and biases, even ones we aeren't aware of but we shouldn't constantly be on guard against them either. It seems like an obsession with some people (not you specifically). I think any group which perceives itself as dominant (through culture, physical charatceristics or whatever) is going to discriminate but I don't think that you being white necessarily means you have implicit bias. What makes you think you do? I think treating people as individuals is better because focus on race is not going to make focus on race go away.

The idea is that our society as a whole is so biased towards whites that everything our brains absorb and create associations from, reflects that bias. I don't know if you've watched those videos (you can find on Youtube probably) where little kids are presented with a series of dolls or drawings of stick figures that are completely identical but only differ by their pigmentation, and they are asked to pick the prettiest, smartest, most good one (they usually pick the lightest one) and the ugliest, stupidest, and bad one (they usually pick the darkest one)--where is that coming from? It's what they pick up around them--in what they watch, in how people are treated around them, in how their parents are treated, etc. That is an example of implicit bias. Or there's those studies on how doctors prescribe less pain medication to black people because they are just assumed (implicit bias) to be tougher and less sensitive to pain. It's not that doctors do this consciously or intentionally, in most cases. Or there's police shootings (IIRC police shoot everyone when they perhaps shouldn't, but they disproportionately shoot a higher percentage of black people when they shouldn't). Anyway, if you look around there are a lot of examples.

The general idea is that humans (and other animals) form associations about what is safe/good and dangerous/bad in our environment. This includes other people/tribes. But the messages throughout society are that certain kinds of people are more safe/good and more important than other other kinds of people.

[WVBRY]

@inumbra

I think what you're saying is all sensible here.

I'm not gonna debate it.