Equality of opportunity is, as Martin Luther King pointed out, an essential part of an equitable, civilized, healthy society. Tragically, MLKs objective has been distorted by well-meaning people to include equality of outcome, which is ruinous for society.
We are told that blacks are disproportionately the victims of police brutality. But consider the following. If, in the 1920s, the dominance of the Mafia meant Italians were committing 50 percent of violent crimes in Chicago even though they only constituted 13 percent of the Chicago population, logic and science would of course find that Italians are killed by cops “disproportionately,” that Italians were “disproportionately” arrested and convicted and given longer sentences than, say, the Irish. Is this a sign of discrimination against Italians?
Of course not.
It is a sign that Italians are disproportionately committing violent crimes. Precisely the same mathematics applies today to the black population. Why is that so hard to understand?
Would it have made sense in the 1920s to use the 60-year-long “remedy” that Social Justice Warriors promote for blacks? That is, to blame discrimination against Italians as the reason Italians are getting arrested and convicted more, and getting longer sentences and killed by police more?
Of course not.
Would it perhaps have made more sense in the 1920s for us to have found ways to nudge the Italian culture away from being involved with the Mafia? For us to have encouraged Italians to take more responsibility for not joining the Mafia?
Of course it would have.
Unfortunately, based on books and papers I’ve read, and as many black commentators have pointed out, this is often not the path suggested by the most vocal blacks advocates – advocates who have seen their counterproductive programs emphasized for 60 years.
It should be self-evident that a larger number of black people are far more likely to succeed in the future if they take more personal responsibility for failures instead of engaging in a knee-jerk blaming of racism.
When we blame racism and thereby engage in unfair affirmative action or diversity programs that preference skin color (or gender) over competence, we inevitably and understandably increase the amount of resentment felt by whites. I believe when individuals in the black community blame racism less and take more personal responsibility for failures, we will ratchet down the ongoing resentment we are seeing in “white supremacy” groups.
Racism, it must be noted, seems very hard to find since the Sixties, unless we stretch the definition of racism to include classism.
I question classism as a valid way to identify racism.
I understand from many black scholars that the black culture in America counterproductively engages in victimhood, separatism, and denigrating education. An important downside to victimhood, of course, is that many individuals raised within the black culture (and many liberals defending anti-social black behaviors) tend to fail to take – or assign — personal responsibility for failure. Instead, many lazily blame their upbringing or perceived “racism.”
We are told that it had nothing to do with not taking schooling seriously, or messing around with drugs or teen sex or petty crimes or promoting “gangsta” rap.
In addition to these problem-inducing characteristics, I believe the black culture does not do well in cultivating stable parenting. These traits will predictably lead to a future of adult dysfunction, poverty, and crime. Too many blacks and their liberal enablers (I write as someone who spent most of his life proudly on the political Left) too often excuse the black failures and black crimes by blaming racism – failures and crimes that are inevitable, given the cultural tendencies.
Too rarely do blacks and liberal activists call for personal responsibility and reform of the other clearly counterproductive cultural tactics I mention above. An enormous number of black children grow up in single-parent households and this goes a long way toward explaining why young black males are 6 percent of the population yet commit 50 percent of all violent crimes. It also helps describe school and career problems that many blacks continue to experience.
A major premise of mine is that there is good evidence this is a cultural problem rather than a problem of “systemic” or “institutional” racism. Consider this: recent black immigrants tend to show success rates far higher than those in black communities where families have lived in America for a considerable period of time. As I point out later in this book, one commentator (Coleman Hughes) notes, for example, an instance in New York City, where two black neighborhoods adjacent to each other showed drastically different rates of success.
I agree that our society has an enormous (and possibly growing — I have not seen the data) problem with police brutality and the associated “militarization” of police. This problem relates to the massive, ongoing over-funding of already bloated police budgets that has occurred for decades — budget increases to police that are, in my experience, eagerly supported even by liberal city council members. I question, however, whether we can fix the police problems without substantially improving the health and strength of families – particularly low-income and black families.
In sum, the problem (as many black intellectuals say over and over) is not racism. It is, as I will show later in this book, based on a deteriorating culture and a weakening of families.
In addition, the remedy for alleged discrimination against blacks (or women) is not to discriminate against white males (via affirmative action, diversity programs, etc.). Doing those things have made problems worse over the past 60 years, and has given rise to a great many people now supporting populists such as Trump for president.
Let’s follow Martin Luther King: Equal opportunity. Not equal outcome. The latter is ruinous. Equality of outcome is the end of fairness. The end of fairness (i.e., rewarding people via the “identity politics” of skin color or gender, rather than merit) inevitably leads to the end of civility, bitter resentment, the rise of right-wing reactionary politics, and violence.
It is an ends justify the means game that has been played by a number of cruel, genocidal, societies engaged in a secular religion such as communism. A game in which cruelty and unfairness are justified to achieve an envisioned “paradise” where no one is oppressed or discriminated against or unhappy.
Pursuing equality of outcome must be ended. It is an idea that wrongly believes that unequal representation of women or blacks is a sure sign of discrimination, and must be rectified by including more women and blacks regardless of competency. Not ending well-meaning but counterproductive equality of outcome programs is certain to result in more voters voting for authoritarians and populists such as Donald Trump in the future.
Equality of outcome perpetuates the idea that blacks are inferior.
Equality of outcome perpetuates the problem of young black males engaged in a disproportionately large number of violent crimes.
I for one do not want to perpetuate those things via equal outcome programs. Or perpetuate the problem by wrongly assuming that the problem is “systemic racism.”
I write this chapter at a time when a number of American cities are being looted and businesses burned to the ground over an alleged racist murder in Minneapolis Minnesota. I also write at a time when a shamefully large number of American blacks continue to find themselves in a 60-year period of woes.
In my experience and readings, I’ve learned that the black community in America counterproductively engages in victimhood, separatism, and a tendency to denigrate education. Many individuals raised within the black culture tend to avoid taking personal responsibility for failure. It is important to point out that many on the political Left defend such dysfunctional behavior seen in some blacks. Instead, many lazily blame perceived “racism.” We are told that a tendency toward bad behavior has nothing to do with the black family culture being characterized by denigrating schooling, or failure to properly discipline, or being a single-parent household.
And yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that present-day racism and unfair police brutality against blacks is a myth, millions of Americans are now convinced by the fury of firebombers and looters destroying American cities that extreme racism and unfair police brutality against blacks must exist. Why else would so many people be so furious?
It is absurd that civil rights activists claim black people need to work far harder and be substantially better than white people to succeed. In my experience in Florida and Colorado, as well as my readings, I have seen a great many far less competent blacks (and females) hired, promoted, or elected. Efforts to implement and enforce “Identity Politics” and “Diversity” in organizations seem quite widespread to me. This disconnect between the angry proclamations of civil rights activists and the real world is likely to explain the strong, widespread white male resentment we see on the part of so many Trump supporters.
Often, the claim is made that our society engages in widespread racism against blacks. But I keep asking myself and others, “where is the racism?”
One instance that a civil rights activist friend of mine cited as an example of racism was a case where the local university shifted custodial workers to an inconvenient night shift. This action was seen as “racist.” But inconveniently for my friend, these custodians included white staff. Another problem with this claim was that there can easily be non-racist reasons for making this change. Indeed, low-paid jobs often have to expect such action — it is the nature of low-pay jobs for employees to be jerked around.
Another example of pointing to actions that are claimed to be indirect forms of “racism” was a friend who mentioned that favoring property tax funding instead of sales tax funding is a way to discriminate against blacks. But in my experience, nearly all elected officials, when looking for revenue for government programs and projects, look to find the tax or fee that is most likely to be politically feasible. That naturally tends to be taxes that weigh more heavily on the less politically powerful poor populations.
One of my friends cited protests by the KKK as an example of the United States being a racist nation, But such protests do not prove that America is racist. All it tells us is that there are people – by all accounts a vanishingly small and shrinking number — in America who hold KKK or racist views.
Another case of “racism” given to me in response to my question was the claim that black people are “stuck” in poor neighborhoods. But it is not clear to me why a person who lives in a poorer neighborhood is unable to move out of that neighborhood. I asked him why people would be “stuck” living in a neighborhood. Does no one ever see their personal or household income go up so that they can move to a more expensive neighborhood? When I lived in Florida, I regularly heard about a number of blacks who lamented the fact that many former black neighbors became more wealthy and had moved to more expensive neighborhoods instead of staying in the poorer neighborhood.
Civil rights activists are often too quick to assign nefarious motives to actions that can only quite indirectly – if at all — be attributed to racism. These indirect alleged forms of racism sound like classic examples of activists being too quick to find racism. They are too predisposed to discovering racism under every rock and behind every tree at least in part because they are involved in a moral crusade to root out racism.
Yet another friend pointed to a media claim that the number of blacks on bicycles stopped by cops is higher than the number of whites on bicycles stopped by cops. But one must wonder if this media report considered the possibility that only a relatively tiny number of more wealthy whites are riding bicycles compared to blacks? If so, that would obviously skew the numbers. Second, even if the ridership numbers are similar, are blacks bicycling more often at night compared to whites? Third, do these numbers control for the fact that blacks tend to be disproportionately committing more violent crimes than whites? Fourth, according to Dale Carson, author of the extremely illuminating book Arrest-Proof Yourself, black males disproportionately engage in behavior that is far more likely to draw the attention of the police (not just because of their skin color, but because of attention-drawing behavior) than whites.
His book indicates that black males tend to be much more likely to do or say things that cops don’t like (again, I agree with those who say that black males in particular need to take more personal responsibility instead of taking the easy route by blaming racism). Carson, by the way, is a former FBI field agent, a SWAT sniper, an instructor at the FBI academy, and a Miami police officer who set Florida records for felony arrests. He is currently a criminal defense attorney.
Another charge leveled at skeptics of widespread racism is the claim that skeptics are guilty of confirmation bias – where they allegedly only pay attention to information about racism that confirms their beliefs about the lack of racism.
But I think almost all of us — certainly including civil rights activists — are guilty of (or suffer from) cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. This is particularly the case when the cultural narrative in America for the past 60 years has been 24/7 and 365-day full-on messaging that racism is evil and exists everywhere and will never be overcome. That is one of the most pervasive cultural messages I know of in America, which has therefore strongly conditioned our thinking and what is in our media and culture.
Anything at variance with that narrative is shocking to hear and extremely rare to find in books or media. In such a world, it is highly likely that information counter to the racism-is-everywhere narrative will be seen as bonkers and therefore immediately disregarded.
I’ve been told that another instance of racism is that black neighborhoods have been cleared to build highways. I’m well aware of what Robert Moses and others did in New York City and other cities along these lines. But again, in my view, that sort of neighborhood removal is much more connected with the fact that the destroyed neighborhoods were low-income and therefore less politically able to stop it. Yes, there was a degree of racism in those actions, but that sort of thing pretty much ended in the Sixties.
Activists claim that these actions “trapped” blacks in such a way that even after a number of decades, they are unable to improve their lot. But I don’t see why something that happened 50 or 60 years ago to destroy a neighborhood means that the black people who lived there must continue to have trouble several decades later in becoming more wealthy and moving to a better place (or improving that destroyed neighborhood). Blacks have admitted to me that their family and other black people they know have done that. Why do we need to make (racism) excuses for black people who have not done that?
In sum, most all problems being experienced by American blacks appear to be based on income (a class issue) and a dysfunctional culture, not racism.
Earlier in my life, I had zero tolerance for, and much anger about, the police brutality I learned about. However, after doing more reading, I am now of the opinion that we can do very little to reduce police brutality and the militarization of police as long as our society – due largely to a decline in the strength of cultural institutions such as families, education, and religion — is flooded with community violence and a decline in civility and acceptable behavior.
Given this, if I’m a cop — particularly when patrolling a low-income part of a city — and nearly every citizen may be armed, angry, violent, drug-amped, and ready to shoot me, muscular engagment and militarization are my friends. It pains me deeply that high levels of violence, and militarization of our police (and our related national over-spending on armaments and wars of aggression) means that it seems inevitable that our police will be aggressive and militarized.
Social Justice Fundamentalists
A commonly-used term today for extremist, violent civil rights activists is “Social Justice Warrior (SJW).” Such militants are aggressive advocates for the rights of minorities. Religious fundamentalists believe in the superiority of their fanatical religious teachings, and in a strict division between righteous people and evildoers. Similarly, SJWs are so emotionally charged with rage, so unwilling to acknowledge facts that differ from their own dogmatic beliefs, so convinced of their righteousness that they divide all people into either sainthood or wickedness, and so rigidly doctrinaire in such views that I think it is fair to call them secular religious crusaders. In this book, therefore, I have chosen to call them Social Justice Fundamentalists (SJFs).
Many of the statements from Social Justice Fundamentalists (SJFs) are unapologetically – indeed, often proudly – inflammatory virtue signaling and preaching The Good Word of Salvation.
Social Justice Fundamentalists claim over and over that a clear sign of racism is that blacks are brutalized or killed by cops more often than whites. But I have seen no research that shows that blacks are disproportionately abused by cops more than whites when crime rates are taken into account. Blacks engage in disproportionately more violent crime than whites, which inevitably leads to more abuse suffered by blacks at the hands of cops. If it was true that whites disproportionately committed more violent crime (and being uncooperative with cops) than blacks, yet blacks were still being more often abused by cops than whites, it would then be more appropriate to assume racism on the part of cops.
Many SJFs are letting their emotions blind them to evidence at variance with their views of Racism Scripture. For example, SJF folks completely discount clear evidence that shows black males disproportionately commit more violent crimes than white males. When some acknowledge such data, they typically blame it — without evidence — on “racism.”
SJFs are victims of an extreme case of confirmation bias. Many are clearly confirmed cult followers. True Believers in The True Faith.
We can be confident (as I’ve noticed myself by attacks on me from former political allies) that many are furious with people not only on the political Right but on the political Left who do not tow the racism party line as SJFs define it.
Chillingly, this is precisely what happened during the shameful, barbaric “purging” that occurred in the early days of the Soviet Union.
In fact, if these SJFs lived in the early days of the Soviet Union, they would surely be standing arm in arm with Lenin and Stalin to purge (i.e., murder) millions of “counterrevolutionary bourgeoisie” on the political Left who were a “danger” to the revolution. A threat to the oppressed proletariat.
Both Stalinists and SJFs can make the same claim: “The revolution has not arrived after decades of our efforts! We shall seek out and liquidate the obvious cause of this lack of progress! We must purge those who are not true believers holding back the victory of the oppressed!”
In my view and that of many others, SJFs are today’s version of the militant Marxist-Leninist barbarians of the past century. That makes such people dangerous. In part, they are dangerous because like the Marxist militants, SJFs are utterly convinced that they are on the side of right-thinking goodness. They are certain they are the heroic champions of the oppressed.
That means, as we have seen over and over in history, the glorious ends justify the barbaric means. “Torture and murder are justifiable to achieve justice for the oppressed! Evil people must be purged to bring justice to the downtrodden victims of racism! All oppression must be eliminated and only then will we forever live in a paradise of perfect equality and justice!”
This raging anger and quasi-religious, quasi-doctrinaire purging of “counter-revolutionaries” or “heretics” was predictable in the former Soviet Union and is now predictably emerging for SJFs. In both cases, the spark is the crusading passion to heroically achieve nirvana. With that mission, the danger of barbaric means increases significantly. After all, evil is too easily justified when it is “necessary” to attain the paradisiacal end. Nor is it particularly difficult – when paradise is sought – to justify the punishment of “oppressors.”
For today’s SJFs, a failure to eliminate perceived racism or police brutality after about 60 years of vigorous efforts can only be explained in the mind of the SJF by concluding that there is insufficient “purity” in, or commitment to, the beliefs and tactics found in society – which leads to ends-justify-the-means intolerance, censorship, strict obedience to the part dogma, harsh punishment, the discovery of invisible examples of racism, and rage. It is inconceivable to the True Believer that their ideology is flawed. I will outline those flaws later in this book.
Since it is so difficult to find clear examples of racism in American society now that slavery and racist laws have been eliminated, SJFs – who are certain due to unequal outcomes that racism remains rampant — are forced to point to vague, mysterious, indirect forms of perceived racism. Vague terms which mean very little, such as “institutional” or “systemic” racism, are bandied about as “proof” – without the need to cite examples or evidence of the existence of such mysterious (yet allegedly overwhelming and widespread) racism.
This method of pointing to invisible sources of racism harkens back to centuries ago when the unseen “miasma” was the mysterious scapegoat for massive societal death rates (“miasma” is the obsolete medical theory that held diseases—such as cholera, chlamydia, or the Black Death—were caused by a noxious form of “bad air”, also known as night air).
As was the case during the Dark Ages and Crusades, whites (the new heretics “guilty” of original sin) must engage in self-flagellation and accept righteous punishment. One colleague of mine (an engineer) talks about how he needs to admit his “white privilege” and how he feels guilty for holding such views – even though he surely knows of no racist actions he has ever taken in his life. I’d be interested to hear what he believes are examples of his “privilege.” It seems likely to me that he feels guilty not so much because of his own thoughts or actions or benefits but because his society or his parents taught him to feel guilty about “being white.”
In fact, I am certain that if someone were asked if they have ever seen racism in their own lives, nearly everyone would deny that they had. I have certainly not seen it in my own life. In addition, most every white male or female would deny that they or any white person they knew had ever been unfairly favored because of their skin color.
Conversely, if asked if they had ever seen reverse discrimination (i.e., minorities enjoying favoritism not because of competence but because of race or gender), most everyone would acknowledge that they had.
I worked in the southern United States for 20 years in an office job. Not only did I never see any racism in my job or non-job life, but I have never heard any friends inform me of any racism. By contrast, I and many of my friends have seen reverse discrimination quite a bit. I have asked several people if they have seen any racism in their life. I’m referring to the personal life of the person I am asking, not something they heard or saw from friends or the media. Have they ever heard of someone not being hired or promoted in their life or job because they were black? Have they ever heard of someone in their life who did not vote for someone because they were black?
Silence.
I have on several occasions heard people say they were voting for someone because they were black or female, or were hiring or promoting someone because they were black or female. I have seen quite a few blacks and females in jobs or elected office who were clearly not qualified. And I know of quite a few friends who have reported seeing this sort of reverse discrimination. I have asked many to feel free to send me links to any research papers that have found racism over the last few decades. I have cautioned, though, that this does not include salary or job gaps, as there are a large number of non-discriminatory reasons why there are such gaps. Reasons such as the differences many of us have regarding values, interests, and skills.
Many of us resent so often seeing reverse discrimination in our professional and academic lives. To repeat, I have yet to see an unqualified white male get votes or be hired for a job, or get promoted, or be selected for a committee because he was a white male. I have seen many instances, on the other hand, where blacks have been hired or promoted or gotten votes — even though they lacked competence. Why? Because their skin color was all that mattered.
Should we be surprised when this leads to resentment and backlash?
Like in my circumstances, I’m sure millions can say they have not seen racism but have seen reverse discrimination. So when we see today’s SJFs claim that seeking racial justice for blacks is the issue of the day, it is entirely predictable that this will be seen as complete nonsense by many. It is a recipe for understandable resentment.
One SJF told me – as they tell many other skeptics on racism – that I am not seeing racism because I am “sticking my head in the sand.”
This is an odd claim.
I read about 60 to 80 non-fiction books a year on a great many sociological, criminal justice, and science topics each year. Last I checked, that hardly constitutes “sticking my head in the sand.” How many books a year does the average civil rights activist read each year? How many get nearly all of their knowledge from the notoriously corrupt and biased mainstream media that makes millions by promoting fear and outrage?
In the past, I recall being highly critical and unconvinced by Leftists (including blacks) who had moved to the political Right. But today, given the irrational rage I see regarding racism (and countless other issues), I have grown increasingly sympathetic to the message of these former Leftists who are now on the political Right. This is the case even though I proudly and vocally remain very politically Left of center on many social, educational, environmental, military, police, and law enforcement issues.
I’m certain I am not alone in having my thinking evolve in this way.
To repeat my comment earlier, why is it, after about 60 years of full-throated societal and civil rights group efforts to reduce discrimination, SJFs are still raging about publicized members of “white supremacy” groups, not to mention expressing their horror that nearly 50 percent of the US population voting for an alleged racist such as Donald Trump? Why do disproportionate (and high) levels of black poverty and violence by blacks persist in our society? Is it cynically thought that racism is a permanent condition that will always be with us?
I know this is politically incorrect to say, but as I noted above, many of us have seen a fair amount of reverse discrimination over the decades. Perhaps that disconnect between the massive “racism” that SJFs see and the lack of racism seen by so many others might help explain the ongoing activism by “white supremacist” groups. Perhaps it might help explain the number of folks who were former Democrats and are now Republicans. I don’t buy the highly cynical, patronizing, lazy, and highly unproductive canard that about 50 percent of the US population is moronic, racist, and misogynist.
Do these persistent “black troubles” not suggest to SJFs s that there are problems with their white liberal (and black) anti-discrimination efforts? Or problems in how blacks raise families?
One must wonder if perhaps a revised strategy is a good idea.
Or shall we just have white males continue to engage in self-flagellation for another 60 years so that after 120 years we will have reached The Promised Land?
It is understandable that after several decades of failure by these blame-whites-for-systemic-racism efforts, SJFs are scrambl-ing to find mysterious, invisible scapegoats to explain these ongoing problems. By finding invisible, indirect causes, the SJF can explain why their methods have failed for 60 years.
In the days of the American colonies over 200 years ago, a great many citizens in the community reported seeing women flying each night on a broomstick. Are the SJFs going to continue to insist that there are witches and witchcraft? When will SJFs demand that skeptics of “systemic” racism be burned at the stake?
A Definition. Wikipedia defines a bleeding heart this way: Someone regarded as excessively sympathetic, liberal in a political sense, or both. It is typically considered a derogatory remark.
My definition is more elaborate. For me, a bleeding heart is someone who is so excessively compassionate towards a minority such as a black, a woman, or a poor person that they are blinded to the fact that their efforts of compassion are, in many cases, ultimately harmful to the person being helped, the person doing the helping, the overall community, or a combination of these. The compassion of the bleeding heart is so passionate that they insist that their efforts are helpful despite the evidence, and that those who do not join them in their efforts are evil or callous.
It doesn’t matter that the compassion of the bleeding heart is unfair to those not being “helped.”
The Bleeding Heart Attitude Can Lead to Martyrdom. A common outcome of the “excessively sympathetic” bleeding heart is that the person often overlooks or sacrifices their own needs to the point where they suffer from exhaustion, poor health, financial woes, failed relationships, loneliness, a decline in their appearance, depression, and anger. The happiness of the bleeding heart is secondary to helping others. Relationships with a significant other or family members can also suffer — for example, by overly neglecting their significant other or family members. The bleeding heart, in some ways, engages in what amounts to martyrdom. Their own lives suffer because too much of what they need is sacrificed to helping others. They become bitter people who are consumed by seeing the world as being constantly unfair or selfish. The unintended consequence is that the bleeding heart, by leading a less happy or successful life, is less able to help others who are in need.
Victims and Outcomes. The bleeding heart tends to believe in permanent victimhood. That is, the “victimized” person or people they seek to help will forever be victims — be they Jews, blacks, or others who have a minority status due to something the victimized person cannot change (an immutable feature such as birth).
The bleeding heart also tends to believe that an unequal outcome is irrefutable evidence that they have been “victimized” by discrimination, racism or other forms of oppression. Examples of unequal outcomes include black or women or low-income people who are, among other possible outcomes, disproportionately unemployed, are not admitted to colleges in proportion to their numbers, have lower income, or have lower-status jobs.
For the bleeding heart, these unequal outcomes are nearly always fully explained due to discrimination or oppression, and are seldom due to irresponsibility, poor choices, lower-quality genes, or lack of hard work. Typically, the bleeding heart is never able to, in any way, blame those they seek to “help” for their position in life. Doing so is considered “blaming the victim.”
All of us, according to this view, are generally born with the same skills, qualities, and abilities.
The bleeding heart usually has the habit of looking upon “victimized” individuals or groups as “noble savages.” Wikipedia defines a “noble savage” as the idea that in a state of nature, humans are essentially good. Examples of the noble savage, for the bleeding heart, are to see lower-income people or blacks or women as, by definition, people that are born ethical, intelligent, fair, kind, compassionate, righteous, and supportive of human rights. Such oppressed people are almost never selfish or blameworthy.
In general, it is only white, Anglo-Saxon men who are fundamentally evil.
Double Standards. Specific examples of bleeding heart behavior, given the above, include instances where food or money is given to a panhandler. Or when the bleeding heart supports policies in which extra assistance is extended to blacks or women in college admissions – assistance that is not extended to “oppressor” white males. Or artificially tipping the scales in the direction of the “victim” or minority group in hiring or promotion in the job world. Or bleeding heart efforts intended to correct what is considered to be a “racist” or “sexist” imbalance of the college admittance, hiring or promotion of white males. Or speech codes which prohibit white males from using “derogatory” language toward minorities (who are assumed, by bleeding hearts, to be too “sensitive” to avoid being harmed by “racist” or “sexist” words).
It almost never occurs to the bleeding heart that in many cases, an imbalance is due to faults of the minority individual. Almost always, the imbalance can only be due to discrimination, because the bleeding heart almost always assumes that we are all born equal in abilities, and had it not been for oppression, there would not be any instance where societal benefits are disproportionately enjoyed by white, Anglo-Saxon males.
Victimhood is Forever. Our society, according to the bleeding heart, will always be required to give more assistance to such individuals as blacks or women than white, Anglo-Saxon males because discrimination is hard-wired into white, Anglo-Saxon males. Again, the victimization is assumed to be permanent.
What about using objective criteria to determine salary, hiring, or admission? Wouldn’t that be fair?
No.
The bleeding heart has a handy retort to such a proposal – one that can be used forever: It is not possible to objectively measure competence or skills as a way to select or promote candidates, because such measures will inevitably be biased by and toward white, Anglo-Saxon males.
Double Standards Promote Discrimination. Ironically, the reverse discrimination that many bleeding hearts passionately justify (or turn a blind eye to) ends up contributing to and perpetuating the very discriminatory or racist attitudes that many bleeding hearts oppose so vehemently. This occurs because when a minority is promoted or hired or admitted or given another form of special treatment over white Anglo Saxon males even though they do not merit such special treatment (i.e., there are white Anglo Saxon males who are more deserving due to superior skills or achievement), those who have racist or discriminatory beliefs will witness added confirmation of their beliefs. Others who were not discriminatory in the past may now feel that those who have discriminated against minorities previously may have been right in doing so.
Still others will understandably feel extreme resentment for the unfairness of tipping scales toward alleged “victims.”
The unfairly rewarded minority individual, for example, is likely to show their incompetence when they are promoted in a job, and this confirms to those who are at least borderline racist or discriminatory that such a minority is indeed inferior due to their gender or skin color or ethnicity. See, for example, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, & Why Universities Won’t Admit It (2012), by Sander and Taylor.
For many bleeding hearts, two wrongs make a right. That is, the wrong of discrimination can be made right by using the wrong of unfairness against white Anglo-Saxon males. And in the same vein, for many bleeding hearts, the ends justify the means. In this case, even if we unfairly treat white Anglo-Saxon males, such a wrong is justified because doing so has produced equal outcomes for the victimized minority group. Besides, many bleeding hearts insist on the “justice” of “reparations” that must be suffered by white Anglo-Saxon males to punish them and exact compensation for historic discrimination they engaged in.
Fairness is Unfair. In essence, for the bleeding heart, fairness must be sacrificed to ensure equal outcomes or equal societal rewards. It is not enough to provide equal opportunity. If there are unequal outcomes, it is by definition due to discrimination.
Besides, it is only “fair” to be unfair towards white males as compensation (or “reparations”) for past (and endless future) discrimination by white males.
Inevitably, this state of affairs leads to the utterly unfair acceptance of double standards. In many instances, it is perfectly acceptable, for example, for society or “victim” groups to discriminate when it comes to hiring, admissions, use of “derogatory” language, or sexual harassment.
As long as it is directed against white, Anglo-Saxon males.
Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.
Standing Against Mob Rule 