[matt4077]

That’s not true.

It’s just that racist intend is almost always impossible to prove. Outcome therefore becomes a needed proxy, but only after excluding other factors, by, for example, normalizing for age and income.

Two landmark studies in this regard come to mind are (a) how the success rate at an orchestra doubled among women after auditions were changed to a “blind” format not allowing the decision-makers to see the applicants’ gender, and (b) how changing applicants’ names (and nothing else) could impact their chances to be invited to interviews.

[jpmcglone]

You use the word racist to mean two different things.

The basketball team being all black isn't racism and it isn't due to racism.

If I saw a basketball team (in the NBA) of all white people, I would suspect racism, but it's important to point out that the outcome (an all white NBA team) is NOT racist in itself. Even if it is likely due to racism.

So, I think we should stop calling the outcomes 'racist' and say what we mean: "I suspect this outcome is due to racism"

I think that will make the whole conversation a lot easier to have.

I don't think its advantageous to certain political entities, however, if we have this conversation. There is one party in particular that I think relies on people to believe that their problems are outside of their control, so that maybe they'll outsource the problem solving to the government.

Maybe I have it pinned all wrong, but I will never know if we can't talk about racism and outcomes of what may or may not be racism as two separate things.

[matt4077]

I fail to see a distinction b/w “racist” and “due to racism”. In any case, I feel large parts of society, including major media outlets, already tend towards caution, c. f. the reluctance in calling the President’s “both sides” comment “racist”, instead opting for “racially charged” or “insensitive” or similar.

> There is one party in particular that I think relies on people to believe that their problems are outside of their control, so that maybe they'll outsource the problem solving to the government.

That’s a rather unfair characterization of the Democratic Party. But I find it even more interesting to know why you feel the need to superficially obfuscate who you are talking about?

I’ve also provided two examples above that clearly prove that racism and sexism do exist. If gender-blind hiring doubles the chances of female classical musicians, aren’t they right in pointing the finger at that result and complaining about white men playing life on easy?

But apart from such narrow situations, most left-wing advocacy is decidedly altruistic: college students supporting a raising of the minimum wage aren’t doing so for their own benefit. Unless, that is, they are terribly pessimistic about their personal future. Neither are voters and politicians advocating for DREAMERs, who by definition are neither. Nor are Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Bloomberg, LIN-Manuel Miranda, or any number of billionaires or otherwise successful people advocating on behalf of the less fortunate.

[jpmcglone]

I obfuscated it because I knew you would pick the right party without me elaborating.

I don't think the left-wing advocacy is altruistic. If it was altruistic, it would promote altruism. It, instead, promotes redistribution of wealth.

Do you think redistribution of wealth is altruistic? How so?