You must log in or register to comment.
Yeah your grandparents being victims of the same shit doesn’t justify your actions, if anything it makes them worse since you should know better.
As a russian I feel this a lot :/
Oof. It’s not been a good few, uh, decades to be a Russian. At least, it seems that way looking from the outside.
Yeah for an anarchist the only periods that might have been genuinely hopeful were between the revolution and full on civil war in 1917 (like 6 months) and between the failed Soviet coup and the successful Yeltsin one in 1993 (like 2 years)
Centuries, really
Experience shown me that it takes one generation to forget everything.
i wonder why libs never apply this logic for Indigenous people on Turtle Island 🤔
Or, like, Palestinians.
Because Israel was always a colonialist project. The last one of a dead age. The people who like Israel think Thanksgiving was how settlers treated the Indigenous Americans.
removed by mod
That’s bending over backwards to erase the people who have lived there since humans migrated out of Africa. Just because an Arab empire came in does not mean the people haven’t lived there.
i hate when people use the language created by decent people to justify violence like that
oof oof oof yikes
They aren’t arguing in good faith
Are the libs even making this argument? I thought genocide was too spicy for them now
Having grown up in evangelical Christianity, I don’t quite understand the attack on liberals here?
Zionism is a major part for the conservative manifesto to create the New Jerusalem to bring forth the return of Jesus. Evangelicals view Jews as reluctant Christians yet to accept their king.
Liberals support Israel because of Cold War propaganda labeling. That evolved into the good guys versus terrorism propaganda we have now, which blinded us to things like stealing land, the blockade, interfering in elections, and indefinite detainment without charges or trial. It was all hand waived because “terrorists”. But in reality it was the only way left for them to try to defend their sovereignty.
It has been a political wedge issue used as a weapon by conservatives. Liberal buy-in to zionism is its primary support system.
lefties love to hate on liberals for whatever reason. Even though the definition of liberal is not very specific and encompassing.
I still haven’t quite figured out why. Idk if people just don’t broadly understand the definition of liberalism in a political context, or if it’s just “hurr durr not lefty bad” shenanigans.
on another note, if anybody in the comments has any expansive explanation to this, please, indulge my curiosity.
In the U.S., it’s from anger at the Democratic party. Mostly anger at, “when they go low, we go high,” “reach across the aisle,” “we need a strong Republican party,” tolerance paradox, and that kind of stuff. Liberal economics isn’t really compatible with leftism either.
i can understand that, but that’s not really liberalism, as far as it should be defined anyway. Granted the dem party has a significant overlap with liberalism so there is that.
as far as economics i’m not really sure, i guess i just don’t know much about lefty economics outside of the fact that people seem to hate everything, which is definitely one of the choices of all time. Although liberal economics has a pretty broad definition, considering it goes through like 200 years of history up until today.
Liberals are right-winger in most of the world. Only backward countries like britain still have conservative. We had the intelligence of shooting them a long time ago,
really? I guess it might be different in the US, but liberalism here in the US is primarily governmental, you can be liberal governmentally, and socially progressive for example. Liberalism here in the US pretty much amounts to the founding ideas of the US government, so it makes sense it would still be around in some capacity today.
I guess it might be different in the US, but liberalism here in the US is primarily governmental, you can be liberal governmentally, and socially progressive for example.
Provided you’re willing to make excuses when your party isn’t socially progressive.
it depends on what you classify as socially progressive, but generally most liberals are going to be onboard with socially progressive ideas. Especially if well thought out and put together. They just don’t publicly champion them because nobody really cares and it’s not as popular, pushing support is more popular than just yelling about supporting it at the end of the day.
It’s really hard to make an argument for removing the rights of people under liberalism. Unless it’s something like fascism, where you’re inherently removing rights, and therefore violating the principles of liberalism.
Liberals are capitalists and would be on board with socially progressive ideas as long as it doesn’t hinder their capacity to make business.
The French revolution saw the rise of the rich bourgeoisie as opposed to nobility. “Human rights” include the ability to exploit others.
That is why they care so much about gay rights and postering as anti-racist. It doesn’t cost them anything as opposed to decrease military spending, quit supporting american imperialism, reparation to first nation or universal health-care.
The role of the liberals is to give crumbles to the working class so they keep voting for the boss. Enlightened rulers.
Liberals are capitalists and would be on board with socially progressive ideas as long as it doesn’t hinder their capacity to make business.
debatable, i highly doubt you would ever find a liberal that wants to rollback workers rights so that we can better exploit workers. Liberals tend to be capitalist because capitalism espouses ideas of liberalism. Monopolies and oligarchies are not liberal by nature, so there is some innate level of restriction on this problem.
It’s the new wrench to move the ratchet
I think it’s American rugged individualism, conservatives have an easy time agreeing on binary decisions (women’s rights bad, science bad, immigrants bad, etc) whereas anything progressive requires complications solutions and problem definitions. In that there are many right answers, and liberals seem willing to be more angry with someone 95% in agreement with them rather than the people trying to drag the country backwards.
and liberals seem willing to be more angry with someone 95% in agreement with them rather than the people trying to drag the country backwards.
this confuses me a little bit, but i think i understand where you’re coming from. Liberalism by nature values variation in ideas and discussion surrounding them, so it would make sense you would end up debating across lines more frequently. Although i’m not really sure what the first part is about. I think even if true, you would still find a large majority of liberal people willing to work with more progressive people given a common shared goal. In fact i tend to find at least here on lemmy, that lefties tend to be more fractural than any other group of people (just look at all the election discussion and people yelling at each other about things, man vs bear etc)
i guess you could say the dissenting opinions are liberal, but i wouldn’t really agree with that on face value. I think a correct way of characterizing it would be that liberals are more willing to disagree with someone, and argue about things, but are also more willing to tolerate variance of viewpoints as well.
i will agree with the tidbit about progressive solutions being more complex and problematic, i think that’s a broader issue present among social progressivism right now. We can accomplish the same goals with simpler solutions, and i think that would be an arguably better path forward. For the most part at least.
I’m gonna invent my own political ideology (“I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side” and all that) and call it responsibilitarianism. OK, the word kinda defeats it alone. Point being that a political structure is as good as the fullness and equality of responsibility for its citizens.
i would argue that american liberalism has been pretty successful historically, though it’s had rough times over the years, we are a new nation, so that is to be expected. And a lot of those were fairly global at one point.
So i’m not really sure i follow the inability of it to function in society. Although i don’t think liberalism functions properly in society primarily because people are improperly using it, and then getting surprised when it doesnt work.
fullness and equality of responsibility for its citizens.
also this is a fairly strict way of defining a political ideology, the most broad way to define it would be “a governmental form of societal cohesion to promote function as a unit towards a common goal” There are broader ways to define it, but you start getting outside of politics at that point, and into society at large.
we are a new nation
Not really.
My point was that liberalism functions pretty similarly to monarchy or and kind of tyranny when those conditions about responsibility are not met.
Not a new idea too, digging through treasure troves of antique literature one can find it said many times. Not just equality, but fullness of responsibility. You can lay down the responsibility for your existence and actions.
Not really.
i’m not sure how you’re defining this. But if we’re going by a governmental definition, the modern chinese government would be quite a bit newer, but the chinese people, and previous governments have existed LONG before. The US as a nation, and as a government is considerably newer than basically every existing nation, even more so when considering scale.
My point was that liberalism functions pretty similarly to monarchy or and kind of tyranny when those conditions about responsibility are not met.
i think i’m following, but i don’t see how this is explicitly unique to something like liberalism. I think this is an objective challenge for basically all forms of government, including tyrannical ones.
Yes, that’s exactly my point. Every valuable political ideology works at keeping some important dimension in the minds of the masses. There’s none as far as I can see in that part about responsibility. That is, it was existent in fringe things I’ve read about religion and deontology in my childhood\teens, in the context of science and philosophy and ethics, but not generally popular.
interesting, that’s definitely a concern as far as politics go, and a primary reason i tend be political nihilist, i guess i’ve just never thought about it in that particular manner before lol.
Also they could have done some land reparations without stealing Palestinian land, if anyone gave a shit. Pretty sure one of the countries that lost the war had a place called Judenberg already, for example.
Yep, I always thought a better idea for a state of Ashkenazi Jews would be to create it from pieces of Bavaria, Austria, maybe even a bit of Sudetes. Make it sort of a crossroads state, to minimize abuse by, ahem, any separate neighbor. Because immediately after WWII it would be weird to expect from Germans any kind of neighborly attitude.
And the opportunity would be long lost, if not for the fact that Germans so fscking love their Holocaust apologies virtue signaling. They have themselves maintained what is required to make the matter relevant.
I suggest resettling Israel to Passau. Yep, they may not have Haifa beaches, but they will have some Danube to look at.
And it will be really funny, Germans are too obnoxious, observing the process will be very funny.
It’s funny how Europeans didn’t feel the needed to give any of their land to the Jews, even though they’re responsible for the Holocaust.
What?!? This was a perfect opportunity to
get rid of Jews and Brown people at the same timesettle the promised land! Did you really expect theracistsupstanding European leaders not to take it?Maybe because Britain had already mandated a Zionist quasi-state (that would eventually become modern day Israel) and Zionist Jews were already migrating there even before the Holocaust? Or are we simply ignoring that part of history?
No, we’re not ignoring Britain’s culpability at all. I guess you don’t get that Palestine wasn’t Britain’s land to give, or all the homes and farms Zionist seized.
So whose land was it to give then?
It’s a mystery.
I’m sure it is to you.
Edit: since Mr. Disingenuous isn’t going to get back on track I’ll leave my argument here. The reason I’m asking who is supposed to give the land is because if the governing body isn’t giving the land it means the people living the land should do it. But how are people supposed to give the land? Yes, people can physically give their land to Zionists but people can’t legitimize a Jewish Nation. It would just be, let’s say a Jewish town within Austria, but it would still be Austria and not a Jewish nation. Only the governing body can create a Jewish nation.
Also it’s not the European people who caused the holocaust and they were victims of the war as well. Their homes were destroyed, they needed to rebuild their lives, and then they also need to give their land to Zionists because of something they had no control over?
And while I do think Britain completely dropped the ball and is very much to blame for creating this conflict between Palestine and Israel, it’s very much history at this point and it’s pointless to argue over history. Pointing the finger at what Britain or Europe did or didn’t do a century ago does nothing because at this point it is what it is. If we want this conflict to end we should look at what can be done now.
Your colony is going to end up like the 3rd Reich.
I don’t even know what that means.
Also it’s not the European people who caused the holocaust
The Nazis weren’t European?
Were the majority of Europeans Nazis? Yes, a very specific subsection Europeans caused the holocaust, but that does not represent all Europeans. If you choose to generalize an specific region of the earth based on what one country did then I guess you’re a rapist because I’m pretty sure there are rapists in your country and I’m choosing to generalize your entire country (including you) based on those rapists. Except I won’t actually do that because that would be fucking stupid.
To get back on track, the other person used Europeans in a general sense which means I took it in the general sense. If they meant Nazis they should’ve said Nazis.
deleted by creator
They had been migrating or atleast trying to since the Ottoman empire controlled the region, Ottoman authorities were able to keep them out to a degree but it was most likely a failing attempt on the long term regardless.
Actually, allot of countries let some lands for jews, but they don’t want it. They want specifically they holly land.
Source? And is it notably different than from, for example, the land the US government “left” for native Americans? Deliberately too small and unproductive to support the population’s needs?
Well, in from Argentina and I can say a good and wealthy part of the capital was left for jews in the time, and other parts of o country, and I know some others countries did the same, but that wasn’t well accepted by the time. Still we have some tiny communities in that zones from that time.
Varied by country, the Jewish Oblast was kinda shit, but the land in Alaska had potential for example. The Alaska thing wasnt official just an idea a lot of folks were lightly okay with.
A Jewish reservation. In Alaska.
Bro…
Know any other groups of people who might need reservations in Alaska? Know any of them who actually have their rights respected?
There was also ones proposed in Uganda, southern Argentina, Madagascar, and Tasmania. Though I will note that last one is a bit scarce and I only know of it due to an obscure book from the 1890s.
The Madagascar plan was the Nazis and explicitly designed to starve them all to death. I assume the Tasmanian idea is similar in goal. “Hey, this area will technically fit them all, we don’t need to check how much of the land is arable ;)”
I don’t think you could create a sovereign space for a couple million refugees in either Uganda Argentina but feel free to correct me.
I think the Tasmania thing was a throw shit at the wall thing. But you could definitely keep a strong population in southern Argentina, that part of Patagonia is pretty fertile.
That brush you’re using there is the wrong size
Not really, Leopard isn’t remembered like Hitler because Hitler’s victims were European.
Every
Balkan(edit:) European country: 🥸isn’t that literally the definition of zionism? Why is this even a meme?
Zionism at its most reductive and ideal is the idea that Jewish people should have a state/homeland that will never persecute them for being Jewish.
In theory, that is what Joe Fucking Biden meant when he told a crowd of Jewish people that he was a Zionist.
The problem starts when you start asking questions like: “How do you do that?” and the actual Zionists, surprisingly, aren’t that interested in the creation of a secular state, or what’s going to happen to the non-Jewish people already living there.
So, that’s the meme. The conflict between the ideal and the reality, this weird thought space between concept and reality that really only takes a person thinking one step ahead to notice but liberals, like Joe Biden, didn’t and don’t.
If you’re being generous to liberals, and not a realist who knows they’re active and knowledgeable participants.
Zionism is a settler colonialism project that was able to really start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a ‘modern’ way to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ of Europe. Western Nations supported this instead of instituting legal protections and refuge for Jewish people fleeing persecution.
Adi Callai, an Israeli, does a great analysis of how Antisemitism has been weaponized by Zionism during its history.
Since at least the 1860’s, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it’s backing of the movement in order to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.
That’s when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.
Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
Quote
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.
The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.
An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
-
10 myths of Israel by Ilan Pappe, summerized and full book
-
Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.
Ethnic Cleansing
Historian Works on the History
-
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
-
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
-
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
-
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
-
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
-
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
-
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
The problem starts when you start asking questions like: “How do you do that?” and the actual Zionists, surprisingly, aren’t that interested in the creation of a secular state, or what’s going to happen to the non-Jewish people already living there.
i can see how this is conceptually a problem, but i struggle to understand why people care about it, as far as my understanding goes, you couldn’t find a country without a history of some form of colonialism.
you can go as far backward or as forward as you want, but i think there is always going to be some form of colonialism and conflict in humanity, it’s just engraved into the evolutionary history of humanity, as it is in most other forms of life, the primary difference is that we figured out how to make guns so we can shoot at each other instead of fighting more traditionally.
As far as government goes, i don’t really know how much of that would be a problem, especially considering that this is the middle east and a lot of middle eastern countries have religion explicitly integrated into the government (at least in under my knowledge). If we’re talking about giving rights to people, things get more complicated. And i’m not super familiar with this myself, but it is to my knowledge that non jewish people living in israel have the same rights as jewish people (or broadly similar rights) excluding occupied territories of course.
This is also excluding the extremely high tensions between arab/palestinian people and israeli/jewish people in the region as well, which only makes things more messy and complicated.
i suppose on the surface i’m sort of iffy on the idea of israel, but given the broader context of the middle east, i’m not really sure zionism is any worse than the existing structures in the middle east.
Honoring cultural traditions - the super versatile Swiss Army Talking Point that works equally well for the good guys or the bad guys!
Must be nice to not have centuries of pogroms because of your ethnicity.
What’s that like to judge from that position ?
removed by mod
my dad was shot when i was a kid so now it’s necessary for me to shoot everyone I please. that’s how laws work, right?
deleted by creator
Cool motive, still murder.
no it wouldn’t
Leftists only love failed independence movements. Jews worked and fought for centuries before succeeding in building an independent homeland. As soon as they succeeded, it became the “wrong” thing.
I’m not afraid to say:
Free Palestine
Free Tibet
Free First Nations
Free Kurdistan
How about when they started genociding it became the wrong thing?
Say that. Say “genocide” instead of “succeed” if you love facts so much.
If they hadn’t immediately started a project of displacing the people who had been there the last 2,000 years then you might have a point. But no they went straight to Terrorism, and we cheered.
Israel was never a movement for freedom, from the start it was a far right enthnonationalist colonial project.
Not exactly. Zionism was a labor-communist movement with an emphasis on fairly purchasing land from absent landlords, communal ownership, multiculturalism, agriculture, and independence for the native peoples of the region.
I know it goes against the popular narrative these days, but the nice thing about history is that it never changes. I’m happy to share primary sources or mainstream, independent scholarship on any of these points if you have followup questions on any of these points.
For now, here is a poster from 1900 to illustrate the point:
I feel like we’re talking about two very different things with the same name.
While that form of zionism may have existed at one point, it is completely irrelevant today, as the zionism seen in Israel is very much far right and enthnonationalist.
Yeah Zionism had a lot of different opinions on how and where to do it before the Holocaust gave the movement the political capital it needed to actually happen. Funny how often these “iT gOeS aGaiNsT the NaRraTivE” types actually just don’t know or deliberately ignore the complete context.
As I said, I am happy to provide any information you would like. The idea that Israel only exists because of the Holocaust is a historical misnomer. It’s true that some historians believe it accelerated the development, while others speculate that the huge decrease in world Jewish population inhibited the growth of the State.
The truth is that the forces of decolonization post-WW2 led to the creation of many newly independent states, including India and Pakistan, etc. The end of the British protectorate in Palestine-Eretz Israel (as it was called at the time) led to the international recognition of a state of Israel and a state of Palestine, with borders based on a roughly equal division of the Cisjordan region, based on the incorporation of the largest populations of the two groups.
Jewish leaders accepted the international resolution, while Arab leaders rejected it, and attacked the newly established state of Israel.
These events had as much if not more to do with the end of European colonialism than the Holocaust. It was much the same way that the British Raj was divided into roughly ethnic states of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
“Labor-Zionism” is reactionary and ethnonationalist, they perpetuated the Nakba were willing to work with the far right as long as they were Jewish (putting ethnic politics above workers unity). IMO they should be seen like how we see national Socialism and national Bolshevism.
sry friend, the free tibet part’ll get you banned here
everyone knows, that tibet isn’t a country, but actually belongs to glourios china, which is, even tho it has one of the highest billionair density in the world, a true socialist utopia… also uigurs are a western lie
Going against nation states and imperialism will never get you banned from this instance.
sry, mistook it for a ml community
is them getting banned for that here in the room with us?
🤡
I was banned for that just recently on ml
then you just meant Lemmy in general? Bc this isn’t .ml or .worldand they aren’t all of Lemmy
sry, I didn’t check the instance, thought this was a ml community
seems like a mutual misunderstanding then. sry for the harshness
I mean English has three different words describing specifically persecuting Jewish populations with death.
This is not 100 years Hitler blah blah … this is talking about 15 centuries of Christian oppression.
Linguistically I’m still saying Jewish people need a safe space. And we, as nuclear Americans, call that safe space a fucking nation.
And it had to be in Palestine? And it had to be an unregulated mess of Terrorism? It couldn’t have been in Germany where occupation forces were on hand to do an orderly transition, and from the country that actually committed the sin?
Everything about the forming of Israel screams, an excuse for one last colonial project. Because none of what you said makes what they did acceptable. The Palestinians didn’t hurt them. They just wanted to keep their land.
removed by mod
No. That’s a religion. Their religion claims a link to the land. They have been gone 2,000 years and now they want to come back in, genocide the people whose families stayed in the region, and colonize it.
There’s no part of de-colonialization that accepts a government of settlers over the people who lived there before.
Jewish people are ethnically and culturally linked to one another and to the land of Israel. There has never been a time in the last 3000 years when there was not a significant native Jewish presence in and around Jerusalem.
I’m sorry that your history teachers have failed you in this regard, but I urge you to learn more about this history.
Yeah. Cool. That still doesn’t give the ones who left 2,000 years ago the right to kill everyone in order to setup a settler state.
And they were fine without Israel, living in peace along side their relatives that now identify as Arab or Palestinian or just not Jewish. Then white settlers came in and settled the land.
you see, every country would be fighting israel rn, if it’s land was taken by it, so does it really matter?
After world war 2 we absolutely adjusted the borders of countries and there was no issue. We could have easily given them a chunk of Northwestern German coastline. By 1955, when occupation forces left, it would be a done deal.
but the way they split it was at least culturally coherent, they only took the ethnically different parts from germany for example, the only exception I can think of is southern tirol, where ethnic austrians where put into italy
also no one had to resettle, because they ended up in countries where people would share their culture and speak their language mostly, now if you took a big chunk of land where people lived, they wouldn’t really want to give it up
Huh. You don’t say. They wouldn’t want to give up their land. It’s almost like dropping a bunch of settlers somewhere isn’t going to result in flowers and unity…
I’m not really sure they’d have been down with being Germany’s weaker neighbors, even if that was probably the only “fair” place to carve a nation from.
Nobody forced them to move to Israel after World War 2. Nobody would force them in a more ethical project either. “Carving” a nation out of people who didn’t fuck around and had already been there 4,000 years certainly wasn’t the answer.
Modern day Palestinians are not the coastal Philistines of the middle bronze age. They’re the descendants of the Arab colonizers of the 7th and 12th centuries.
Which, for clarity’s sake, does not deny them of a right to their land.
Those people are absolutely still there. The Arabs took anyone willing to convert to Islam.
Before WWII the Jewish people had adopted the US as Zion. They already had a country, we didn’t need to refuse their refugees and fuck that shit up.
Yeah, the reality is the US was too anti-Semitic to do it as well. And it still doesn’t solve the problem the Zionists justify their crimes on, as seen with the very real modern possibility that America’s protections for religious freedom might fail.
That’s not even getting into the fact that America was segregated at the time and it would have been easy enough to whip up resentment against millions of refugees and create a second racial underclass…
Oh, well then, I guess that justifies the ethnic violence and cleansing they’re committing today. If I’d known they’d suffered for centuries I wouldn’t have been upset that they’re now the ones creating the suffering.
Reminds me of the idea of positive discrimination. Personally, if I knew someone hired me above an equally qualified candidate just because I belong to a minority group I would feel insecure about my abilities.
What if they hired you only because you are part of a majority group? Or does this only matter if it’s someone in a minority being hired?
Either of course. It just seems the former goes without saying and a large number of people support the latter.
I assure you far more people are hired because they’re not part of a minority group than because they are.
I don’t know statistics on either, but anecdotally I know far more people critical of ‘normal’ discrimination than ‘positive’ discrimination
But I think the point is, equally qualified people both have equal claim to the job. Adding in centuries of lost opportunities for being part of a minority group means that righting the balance makes sense.
Think about it economically. Reparations are paid because of the massive imbalance in opportunity. Where do you stand on that?
You’re not helping the individuals who were discriminated on in the past, you’re favouring an individual who has no specific connection to other members or the discriminated group besides their shared characteristic, and did not choose to be a part of that group.
…exactly. They did not choose to be a part of a minority group, but that fact means they have almost certainly been discriminated against in the past—their ancestors most definitely have, meaning less generational wealth and a diminished starter point due to centuries of racial oppression. If you’re born middle class, or upper class, there is a greater likelihood for opportunity and upward mobility. That drastically decreases the poorer you are, and minority groups are disproportionately represented in the lower classes…again, due to a long history of racial discrimination.
Trying to right that trend has to start with the current generation, and that generation is made up of individuals, whether you think they deserve to be the first in line to receive the benefits of balancing the scales or not.
It has to start somewhere.
Say you never heard about generational poverty without saying it 🙄
Well how about, before you form an opinion, you go do some reading.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053482221000115
That seems to show that many people are discriminated against in job applications, but not the general level of support for that behaviour amongst the general population.
It continues despite general opposition. That’s exactly the problem. Systemic and unconscious biases are really hard to combat, even if there wasn’t a vocal reactionary minority. “just don’t discriminate” has at this point been proven beyond doubt inadequate to equalize opportunities.
Positive discrimination is a pillar of the neolibs’ post-Hillary wokeness scam worldview. There’s a Kendi quote like “You cannot undo discrimination without discrimination.” They’ve decided to just apply that logic to the wealthiest set of white people on the planet instead of the children of slaves and sharecroppers because these people are sociopathic scum who know where their bread is buttered.
It is not common practice to do anything “just because” belonging to a minority group. This is just a lie that conservatives tell each other when they’re giving each other a good circle jerk.
This is basically the driver behind Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s asshole pathology.
Clarence Thomas moment
So if you were equally qualified what should the manager think about when deciding between you two?
Flip a coin because I don’t hire unlucky people
They should choose the more qualified, if there’s literally no difference I suppose to be totally fair it should be random.
What qualifies being qualified for a job? Should I hire the person who knows a little bit less but is really pleasant to be around and like learning new things or the person who clearly knows more but is a huge pain to be around, thinks he’s better than everyone else, and doesn’t think he has anything more to learn?
Whatever your criteria are, as long as they aren’t based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, etc
I take it you’ve never been a hiring manager or worked in HR. Hires are almost never made on an objective basis, the bias of interviewers/assessors inevitably affect outcomes. In the absence of positive discrimination, on average, this means unfair outcomes for minorities (because some people are bigots and most people have unconscious bias against out-groups).
So what you’re telling me is that being “qualified” isn’t the only criteria… But I thought you said the only thing that mattered was hiring the most qualified person…
Qualified is intentionally a vague metric as it can include anything that makes you suitable for the job. What it does not include are protected characteristics.
I’ll let you in on a secret. In these situations where you have two similarly qualified candidates, if one is actually more qualified in some small way, the employer doesn’t have any way of telling which one that is during the hiring process. It’s not that precise.
From what I’ve seen when those things were actually practiced, it’s somewhat different and broken into two parts:
- One one side, seriously incompetent people from the group which is a recipient of “positive” discrimination get jobs they should never have gotten and the quality of their work is going to be noticed by everybody else as long as they’re around and will reflect on others of the same group because the very act of segregating some people based on highly visible characteristics for the purposes of receiving special treatment strengthens the view of them as a group in other people’s minds, which in turn strengthens views such as “they’re all the same”.
- On the other side, the very competent people from the group which is a recipient of “positive” discrimination are seen by default by colleagues and even managers as inept, have to fight even harder for their competence to be recognized and often their ideas are just casually dismissed because everybody sees them as “somebody who only got the job because of the quotas”.
From what I’ve observed first hand neither feels insecure: the former play the influences game even harder than the rest because they know with absolute certainty that they’re only were they are thanks to social and political games, whilst the second just get angry and frustrated because they’re not treated as equals - because they are not equals since they’re part of a group which got privileges others did not - and thus not respected for their competence.
By creating a separate class of people, who don’t go have to pass as high a barrier as the rest, so called “positive” discrimination might land them the job but it also makes sure they’ll always be looked at as less competent, further reinforced in the minds of everybody else by those of that groups who are indeed “too incompetent for the job and wouldn’t have gotten it if it weren’t for quotas”
There are more than enough competent minorities to hire a couple for diversity. And hiring 10 diversity hires, out of a hundred, isn’t going to meaningfully impact opportunities for competent non minorities. This is some conservative bullshit trying to sneak in the idea that minorities are dumber than white people.
Sure mate, it can’t be that your “‘Equality’ But Different For Some Than For Others” is neoliberal cosplay of “left” rather than something genuinely left-wing AND that by preserving the differentiated treatment of people based on characteristics they were born with you’re just maintaining the very same mindset as the Fascists (that people’s gender/etnicity/sexual-orientation determines how they should be treated), no, no, no, it must be that it’s the other person (whose history of posts is there for all to see - so feel free to prove it) is a “conservative”.
By the way, when I described my conclusions of my own experience, I never said that the group who was getting “positive” discrimination was a minority. Funny how you jumped to conclusions.
Funny how you parroted conservative propaganda and continue to do so while acting concerned.
For anyone not familiar, minorities have had generations of poverty and trauma baked into them. You cannot transition directly to a complete meritocracy and magically repair that. They will remain oppressed and poverty stricken because it’s a systemic cycle. Affirmative action breaks that cycle.
Funny how the new age racists trying to pass themselves as leftwing can’t stop themselves from grouping people based on the genetics they were born with, just like the far-right.
No, “they” are not “all the same” and shouldn’t be treated as if they were.
The way you solve baked poverty from past discrimination is by solving the problems of Poverty, baked or otherwise, which is how a true leftwinger would go after it: you go after the greatest pain and removed it, guided only in the choice of which to go after first by its intensity (as that’s how you maximize the good you do) you don’t go around deeming every individual with the “right” genetics worthy of support no matter how little pain that specific individual is under and every individual with the “wrong” genetics not worthy of support no matter how much pain that specific individual is under.
For example, make sure the best schools are in the poorest neighborhoods and all of the sudden all the poor kids there have the best chances, and that includes the ones whose poverty is the product of past racial discrimination - breaking the cycle of poverty for all those kids will do a lot more good than a few quotas for only people with the right genetics in places that only help the middle-class.
(By the way, this is actually one of the strongest arguments for there not to be Private Education: so that money can’t buy greater life chances for the scions of those who are already better of and the State can channel more educational resources to were it’s needed the most)
The only reason to not go after wealth discrimination in general in Capitalism and instead doing very limited measures for only those with the right genetics, is to protect the Wealthy and Capitalism, which is the very opposite of being a Leftie, which is why you Neoliberals love this “lets not go after wealth discrimination which is the main method to transform other kinds of discrimination into lifelong pain and instead let’s do symbolic middle-class helping measures based on the genetics people are born with” shit.
You see, you’re the one doing the mindless parroting of neoliberal “solutions” fashionable in middle class circles and I’m the one who has been thinking about and guided by, for decades, the core leftwing principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number” rather than adopting unquestioningly some prepackaged ideological tidbits that are popular in my social circle.
So we have to keep brutally oppressing people until we magically stop brutally oppressing people and have a utopia?
No. That’s not how that works, that’s not how anything works.
You fight the Discrimination by going after every situation of discrimination, punishing the individual offenders and compensating the individual victims.
What you don’t do is to carry on Discriminating on the very same visible human characteristics but change the beneficiary groups and call it “positive”.
By defending differentiated treatment based on people’s genetics (the very same genetic traits that Racists use, no less) you’re supporting the very foundation of Racism and every far-right ideology in existence including Nazism.
You’re parroting shit you haven’t really pondered over and doing so with maximum emotionality and minimal rationaly, in practice defending methods which de facto prolong the very thing you claim to want to stop.
Also, why exactly are you avoiding the point I made about the greatest Discrimination being Wealth Discrimination and fighting that will do a lot more to correct the baked in problems of other kinds of discrimination - what you in perfect political-parrot way mention using the 100% parroted expression “brutal oppression” - than your Descrimination-preserving method?
I’m in a leftwing political party were I live and you sound exactly like the stupid kids who swallowed the neoliberal bullshit and think they’re being lefties whilst promoting the far-right way of seeing people, up to and including the raging slogan spewing when confronted with rational analysis of the very neoliberal-think-tank-invented “equality” methods they’ve learned without questioning.
