Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[kbonn]

Making a decision based on projected profits is racist?

Also, Qwints, if you are going to respond to me, perhaps you could answer all the questions I ask you in a post or on a subject?

Signing white artists instead of black artists because of their race is, indeed, racist. Maybe some people who did those racist things felt bad about it, or only did so because they felt powerless to do otherwise. So what? If everyone has a good reason for doing racist things, does that end the conversation?

I will not, and if that bothers you, we don't have to continue the conversation. Feel free to bring up points I haven't responded to again.

If you chose to ignore it, why would I bring it up again, seems a waste of my time, your time, and anyone reading's time.

So given your definition of racist, does a university trying to have a diverse student body racist in its admissions? Or is it only racist when the one who loses out in the situation doesn't have enough privilege?

 

[chillzero]

Signing white artists instead of black artists because of their race is, indeed, racist. Maybe some people who did those racist things felt bad about it, or only did so because they felt powerless to do otherwise.

You just said that you don't know why they made the decision (that you have decided was racist). How do you know it was to do with race, and not to do with profit - the point you were actually being asked?

 

[WillyWonka]

Signing white artists instead of black artists because of their race is, indeed, racist. Maybe some people who did those racist things felt bad about it, or only did so because they felt powerless to do otherwise. So what? If everyone has a good reason for doing racist things, does that end the conversation?.

Hogwash! It has all to do with demographics and sometimes talent. Katy Perry has a demographic, so has Celine Dion. I can't see Celine singing "California Gurls" or doing gangsta rap. Most artists need to know exactly what are their demographics to be successful. A few can bridge between groups but not many (Michael Jackson probably the most famous one). Very few americans ever listen or know about J-pop and none of the singers are either caucasians or blacks.

 

[luchog]

Quasi-realism^WP

Intellectually-sterile Post-Modernist gibberish.

We should probably move to another thread to discuss this further.

Why, since it is clearly relevant to this thread? Emotionalism appears to be the entire basis for the APlusser's/SJW's moral/ethical code; and amounts to little more than "my feelings are more important/valid than yours".

 

[brodski]

Making a decision based on projected profits is racist?

It can be. The most obvious example is the a businesses which operates in a highly racist society choosing to only serve white people, as serving everyone regardless of race would be likely to drive away their racist customers. Even understanding this there id no way that I wouldn't call segregated businesses non-racist.

 

[recursive prophet]

Emotionalism appears to be the entire basis for the APlusser's/SJW's moral/ethical code; and amounts to little more than "my feelings are more important/valid than yours".

This ^^. Please explain and give examples that refute the above qwints. It sure is how it looks to me and I suspect most others here.

 

[kbonn]

Signing white artists instead of black artists because of their race is, indeed, racist. Maybe some people who did those racist things felt bad about it, or only did so because they felt powerless to do otherwise.

You just said that you don't know why they made the decision (that you have decided was racist). How do you know it was to do with race, and not to do with profit - the point you were actually being asked?

Also, this. The RESULT is a white artist being signed/hired over a black one. Does that mean that regardless of reason, the person doing the signing/hiring made a racist one?

Let me ask it more directly. As a record label, you have $X amount of resources to sign artists. Using $X, (this includes both the payout to artists, and paying for the recording, production, advertising and branding for the artists and albums), you have to maximize your return while lowering your risk. You know that Elvis appeals to a much larger demographic, and has a much higher ceiling in terms of returns, and a much, much lower risk of failing to at least brake even than Artists A, B, and C. This is done though analyzing many factors(talent, look, sound, race, songwriting), and you can only sign one of them right now.

Should you hire Elvis, A, B, or C?

Let me remind you, you were hired because of your ability to make the best decision for the company. Making the decision that returns the most money is basically your only job description.

A is a attractive black man, B is an overweight man who is also considered rather unattractive, C is a Puerto Rican woman.

So who is it? Are you Racist against Black people, Puerto Ricans, or are you a Misogynist or Ableist?

Or are you going to make the choice that results in the highest profit, which takes the fact that 1950s culture was more racist and sexist than it is now? Which choice makes your the best person? Which choice means you are the worst person? Which choice means you are doing your job?

 

[Kid Eager]

It appears to go further than that.

The emotion-led bias gives weight to experience, but denigrates knowledge. Many of the posters seem to consciously or unconsciously confuse or conflate experience and knowledge, so end up in a Dunning-Kruger situation - unable to recognise that they lack the knowledge that others are presenting.

ETA - oops, music post ninja'd mine out of sequence. I'm sure you'll figure out this post as being part of the main thread, not the black music derail.

 

[kbonn]

Making a decision based on projected profits is racist?

It can be. The most obvious example is the a businesses which operates in a highly racist society choosing to only serve white people, as serving everyone regardless of race would be likely to drive away their racist customers. Even understanding this there id no way that I wouldn't call segregated businesses non-racist.

Of course it can be, but is it automatically? Also, recording artists that were black were less likely to be offered record deals, or had to accept less profitable ones due to the lower chance of success. That isn't that same as physically being barred entry to an establishment, or being forced to ride different buses.

Do you feel that not allowing men to ride the same trains as women in Japan in sexist? If so, is sexism always bad?

 

[luchog]

This ^^. Please explain and give examples that refute the above qwints. It sure is how it looks to me and I suspect most others here.

I won't expect that to happen. The Quasi-Realism thing that qwints linked to earlier is yet another example of the anti-intellectual Post-Modernist nonsense that relies entirely on elevating subjective experience and viewpoint, denying even the possibility of rational, objective observation and evaluation. SJWs are heavily invested in the Post-Modernist viewpoint precisely because of the emphasis on subjectivity and "feeling" vs. "rational examination".

 

[Piscivore]

I won't expect that to happen. The Quasi-Realism thing that qwints linked to earlier is yet another example of the anti-intellectual Post-Modernist nonsense that relies entirely on elevating subjective experience and viewpoint, denying even the possibility of rational, objective observation and evaluation. SJWs are heavily invested in the Post-Modernist viewpoint precisely because of the emphasis on subjectivity and "feeling" vs. "rational examination".

At the risk of opening the Sam Harris can of worms again, I see morality and ethics as entirely subjective (in terms of what is valued, at least), and my emotions and feelings are more important than anyone else's (to me, obviously). The difference is, I think, that I recognize that likewise other people's feelings are of primary importance to them; A-plussers don't seem to.

ETA: Also, I see the utility in respecting others' feelings, if only for my own benefit. I get the impression A+ doesn't see that, either.

 

[adamwho]

The Aplus crowd on reddit is currently going crazy over a Dawkins tweet


Dawkins, across several tweets was arguing that the morality of abortion (and meat eating) depended on the fetus (or animals) ability and degree to which they feel pain.

Aplusers: OMG Dawkins is anti-abortion!!!!!!!

(funny that non are accusing him of being a vegetarian... when he isn't)

 

[brodski]

Of course it can be, but is it automatically?

yes, pretty much so.

Also, recording artists that were black were less likely to be offered record deals, or had to accept less profitable ones due to the lower chance of success. That isn't that same as physically being barred entry to an establishment, or being forced to ride different buses.

It's pretty close to being less likely to hire a black employee, and in those rare cases you do paying them less than your white employees. You will have to make a very strong case for me to consider that non-racism- even though I understand why these things made business sense.

Do you feel that not allowing men to ride the same trains as women in Japan in sexist? If so, is sexism always bad?

yes I think it's sexist (I understand where the sociological definition of -isms is coming from, but I don't think it holds water when applied at an individual level) - you can read my thoughts on segregation in the UCL/ segregation n London thread (spoiler: I think it is generally bad).
Why is this relevant?

 

[Myriad]

Okay, though experiment about the record company.

Suppose the company is organized into two departments. Department A evaluates the potential market for each project (artist and album) pitched to them by artists' agents. They take all factors into account including the artist's race, insofar as it affects the market estimates. They then produce a breakdown for each project: most likely range of cost, and most likely range of revenue, presented as 90% confidence intervals, over a whole range of marketing scenarios. Let's say they're pretty good at this, and historically, 90% of their estimates have in fact turned out to fall within the projected 90% confidence interval, regardless of the music style.

This information is then passed along to Department B, but only the financial projections. The names, backgrounds, music styles, appearances, and races of the artists, and even what the music sounds like, are withheld from the dossier. Department B makes the decisions on which projects to fund and which marketing scenarios to choose, taking into account the various offered risks and returns, and the company's current financial position.

Let's then say that the result is similar to the actual historical period in question; that is, black artists are less likely to have their projects funded because overall, though there are specific exceptions, the (accurate) market analysis of Department A predicted higher risk or lower revenues for black artists' projects, so the money decisions made in Department B less often went that way.

Which department contains the racists: A, B, both, neither?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Krikkiter]

I enjoy discussion. I don't seek to avoid real world action, and I can't speak for others.

You mean you enjoy discussing things on the internet.

It's obvious that you're being disingenuous and deliberately evasive so let me put it another way:


What do YOU do in the real world that makes a real world difference in ANY social justice cause?


Further:


What are you aware of that A+ members have done in the real world that could potentially or has made a difference in any social justice cause?

You know, you replied in a way that has many similarities with the way politicians reply to questions they'd rather avoid. Funny that.

ETA: Also very interesting that you decided to cut the bulk of my post out including this question:

In which case, what are you doing on an internet forum? Why is it that you and your ilk seem to avoid real world action in this regard?

So, the music biz is just yet another case of "minorities are disadvantaged." Tell me what you do irl to assuage the perceived injustice. Oh wait, there are other people who are more motivated and organised. Let's leave it to them but just put a link up on the forum.

Seriously, I've been asking this since this thread began.

Still asking and still getting no response. But wait for it... "I did respond, you just weren't happy with it."

 

[jhunter1163]

Putting on my Mod Hat for a moment to remind one and all that the topic of this thread is the A+/Free Thought blogs, and not each other. Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[brodski]

Okay, though experiment about the record company.

Suppose the company is organized into two departments. Department A evaluates the potential market for each project (artist and album) pitched to them by artists' agents. They take all factors into account including the artist's race, insofar as it affects the market estimates. They then produce a breakdown for each project: most likely range of cost, and most likely range of revenue, presented as 90% confidence intervals, over a whole range of marketing scenarios. Let's say they're pretty good at this, and historically, 90% of their estimates have in fact turned out to fall within the projected 90% confidence interval, regardless of the music style.

This information is then passed along to Department B, but only the financial projections. The names, backgrounds, music styles, appearances, and races of the artists, and even what the music sounds like, are withheld from the dossier. Department B makes the decisions on which projects to fund and which marketing scenarios to choose, taking into account the various offered risks and returns, and the company's current financial position.

Let's then say that the result is similar to the actual historical period in question; that is, black artists are less likely to have their projects funded because overall, though there are specific exceptions, the (accurate) market analysis of Department A predicted higher risk or lower revenues for black artists' projects, so the money decisions made in Department B less often went that way.

Which department contains the racists: A, B, both, neither?

Respectfully,
Myriad

For a decision to be racist does not require anyone with individual racist motives.

Lots of discriminatory business decisions are about maximising profit or minimising risk- that doesn't make them any less discriminatory. Refusing to hire staff from ethnic minorities as it will scare away your customers is racist- but it could easily be done by a person who abhors racism yet needs to maximise profit to keep their business afloat- refusing to hire a young married woman as that may incur added costs if she decides to leave to start a family is sexist, but may also be a rational business decision takes by an person who is not sexist. It is because these decisions can be rational business decisions that we have laws against them, changing social attitudes is not enough to stamp them out.

 

[recursive prophet]

Flewellyn wrote: As a former Shaker, I would caution against taking everything McEwan says here without a healthy dose of saline. "Safe space for me, but not for thee" is, in fact, how she runs the place these days: it's safe for her and her mod friends to say what they like, but any questioning of what they say is called "bad faith" and results in banning.

 

[Stout]

: Flewellyn wrote: As a former Shaker, I would caution against taking everything McEwan says here without a healthy dose of saline. "Safe space for me, but not for thee" is, in fact, how she runs the place these days: it's safe for her and her mod friends to say what they like, but any questioning of what they say is called "bad faith" and results in banning.

Awwwwwwww

It's almost like he didn't know what he was getting himself into with the whole safe space thing. Poor guy, I wonder whether he's even in the elite group.

So, is it time to register an account at A+ and start shrieking about how it's not a safe space for minorities because the vast majority of the posters are white ?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Flewellyn wrote: As a former Shaker, I would caution against taking everything McEwan says here without a healthy dose of saline. "Safe space for me, but not for thee" is, in fact, how she runs the place these days: it's safe for her and her mod friends to say what they like, but any questioning of what they say is called "bad faith" and results in banning.

This is just ******* mind-boggling. Surely it's a Poe attempt.