Since I have used the term “Reverse Racism” a few times, I might as well explain what I consider it to be.
From my point of view, reverse racism is the idea that individual Whites can be sacrificed as collateral damage to prevent the publicity mess of being accused of being a racist. The key is that the individuals sacrificed are actually upholding a universal standard of conduct or performing to a certain standard, but are either accused of adhering to a more particularist discriminatory conduct or of having an unfair advantage that needs to be taken away when the advantage is actually perfectly fair (the White person is just doing a better job). In adhering to the conduct, a minority may end up with a result that is less than desired. The politically incorrect term for this is “sore loser.”
The reason affirmative action often gets the label “reverse racism” is because the by merit person who put on the best performance doesn’t actually get the job. Having said that, under our more financially based capitalism and servicing, the days when cold calculated performance actually determine the outcome of a job application are rapidly deteriorating. Our economic system is turning into a system where it’s more who gives you favors than it is how you perform. However, in the old days when performance actually mattered in the more manufacturing based economy, the charge of reverse racism is that the person with the better performance is denied what he/she rightfully earned. It’s kind of like changing who finished first in an olympic event.
Another example of reverse racism would be to forgive the criminal backgrounds of Mexicans and Indians while deep diving into White hires. Or taking similar actions with other type of background information, alluded to in my last post. Finally, taking on the job action to destroy the careers of people who may have done something off of the job (and more likely did not) is similar conduct. By bringing it into the office, you’re the one who is actually being racist or sexist (but in “reverse”).
When you have a last name that stands out, people dig in and dive deeper on you. They believe themselves not to be motivated by any discrimination. They don’t discriminate as much as it is the information available that discriminates. Analgously, if you were an employer and you witnessed two employees in a sexual act, you wouldn’t be able to unlearn that even though you weren’t trying to be biased.
By digging in and getting curious, they’ve already created a double standard even though they are telling themselves that they don’t intend to discriminate. Curiosity kills the cat. In the information age this is getting worse, just like Ted Kaczynski (unique last name) warned. This digging on people – but it goes deeper when your name stands out.
Edit: Actually, around 2008-2015 was when this was at its worst. People used to celebrate violations of privacy not as personality flaws but as “due diligence.” Europe has always had a much more sound attitude towards than America. The politicians in both parties are starting to change their attitudes towards big tech. People are just wising up to the fact that you can’t judge “the analog” by the digital. You can’t judge the real world by the internet. Looking at the cover instead of the book isn’t due diligence and doesn’t make you a clever super sleuth, it just makes you shallow, selfish and someone who attempts to get in the way of other people.
What happened was that the great recession of 2007-2009 gave employers the upper hand right when we were coming out of college. Boomers put the walls up, kept us out of the good jobs and sent the entry level away to other countries.
Since then it’s been nothing but instability and being blamed over and over for something that isn’t our fault, while HR people monitor our responses to restrict our free speech and our wages are depressed on the route to termination when it’s convenient to the employer. But the housing prices keep going up.
What’s happening here is that we’re just saying “enough of this bullshit. Nothing is in it for us.” We’re tired of spending our lives chasing illusionary careers that just upend our lives and then later disregard them. We’d rather just live poor and be stable, not having to deal with the bullshit and still having the old generation who screwed this up but kept it good for themselves give the lectures.
That’s why there is a great resignation. We’ve had it. No, blaming it on “white privilege” won’t help you rehabilitate the system with a slightly altered racial alignment, and no you won’t in this late era convince us that what is on top eventually trickles down the bottom. The system is broken and we have known it and will know it and have no incentive to pretend it’s working. We knew it back then but we had hoped it would be repaired.
The reason we’re having a “great resignation” is that people are figuring out that trickle down economics don’t work. You’re loyal to employers who only want to lower your wages and fire you as soon as it’s convenient. Might as well quit instead of get fired, drive cars that are registered to dead people and not buy houses.
This book basically backs up what I’m saying. The PMC “hoards virtue” and believes it to be deserving of favored economic status due to merit – but the truth is that under our financially driven capitalism, it isn’t really merit that gets people ahead but connections. It’s actually a factory worker who gets ahead by merit.
They go to the extreme of reverse racism just to prove they aren’t racist. All this talk about white privilege is just the PMC hoarding virtue.
Knowing how I see chess pieces move, this is what probably happened.
Manheim Township probably had a policy about what people could wear at the pool. Narkiewicz followed the policy. The mother complained that Narkiewicz was being racist, but in actuality, Narkiewicz was consistent with the policy. Then social media blew up whining about woke this, woke that. White privilege, systemic racism. Then Manheim Township fired her to absolve themselves from being labeled racist, to her financial damage both immediate and long term finding the next job.
Of course I could be wrong. She could have panicked and not handled the situation right. But I would bet that I’m right. That’s how employers scapegoat White employees while society keeps hammering on about systemic racism.
They probably had a log of every mistake she had made in the past waiting to use as a coverup should something like this happen. But the real truth is they threw her under the bus.
That’s why I dislike people who talk systemic racism as if it pervades everywhere, because there’s also systemic reverse racism. Bottom line here, the same people who support the policy she enforced fired her when the publicity went bad.
Employers have been known to fire employees due to an overestimated impact of social media. They think a social media storm will translate to lost customers, but the thing is it’s a small number of people who are hyper active online. Plus, if they wanted to satisfy the mob, they should have taken responsibility for the policy they created of calling the police. Which no one likes a rat, but the policy is the policy.
According to our economic mission statements, a business that profits more still wants to pay less. The goal statement is to maximize profits of shareholders. It’s not to increase profits but maximize profits. Maximize means lowering wages.
The problem is our system failed and our elites are debating the best way to cover it up. Do you blame it on racism or do you suggest eventually everything will trickle down from the top to the bottom?
The reason we’re having a “great resignation” is that people are figuring out that trickle down economics don’t work. You’re loyal to employers who only want to lower your wages and fire you as soon as it’s convenient. Might as well quit instead of get fired, drive cars that are registered to dead people and not buy houses.
The problem is that America has created an economy where there’s nothing in it for anyone except the people who own the businesses. The people who set the economic policies never asked the question “what is in this for the average person? what do they get out of it?”
They’re trying to cover it up like it’s a white supremacist power structure to distract people from the fact that our system doesn’t work and won’t work even if it racially realigns. Democrats basically think they can blackwash the problem away while Republicans openly defend things as they are.
The job market improved in the 1980s only because policy doesn’t have an immediate effect. It takes a while to erode the middle class.
Believing that policy works immediately is what leads some people to wrongly conclude that trickle down economics worked.
Our current economy allows for far more favoritism than the manufacturing economy of the past. Basically there are situations where everyone knows one guy sucks and another guy is competent but it can’t be proven even though everyone knows it. They still go with the favored guy.
It’s created a plausible deniability that allows mediocre people to use nepotism to gain power and to cast the people who are actually doing a good job in a bad light. This could lead to major problems down the road.
America is using its transition from Industrial capitalism to servicing and finance capitalism as a way to shut down speech. Basically you don’t get put in jail, instead you lose your job. You can’t really argue back “but my performance was better, I packed more packages than the other guy” because these jobs have no clear metrics to them. It’s the perfect situation to shut down free speech while giving the illusion of it. The monopolies get together and pull this stuff through their HR departments. “Monopolization is a Law of Capitalism.” The main way to grow in capitalism is into a competitor’s market, so they’re only so many spots for big businesses unless you use a differentiation / blue ocean strategy. That’s why monopolies are created and right now they’re a tool to shut down speech.
The honest truth is that the scientific discoveries we have made since the bible was written make it impossible to view the bible as the literal word for word creation of god. It is at best something that was inspired by god, but then written through the eyes of humans. The age of the earth, the spherical shape of the earth, the fact that the earth moves around the sun, the inability to have perfect translation between different languages. The obviously tribal motivations of Judaism (our god can beat up your god). I feel it’s not possible for any intellectually honest person to hold the position that the bible is the literal word of god. The other thing is that studying genetic material shows there is something called “junk dna.” Much of DNA doesn’t really do anything that’s important. A creator would have no motive to create junk dna any more than a computer programmer would leave unreadable machine code in a computer program. That points to the theory of evolution – of trial and error.
If the bible was written by god, it would have been ahead of the science that existed at the time, not parallel with it.
When people wrote religious texts, they would argue that they were witness to the fact that god was behind certain scientific facts. But we now know that science was incorrect. So we now know the writers of these texts were creating a bridge to something that doesn’t exist. Which means the only god they were talking to was the voices in their own heads. (Unless you believe god told them to write the wrong stuff on purpose).
At first that the substance of various extreme ideologies is the cause for the backlash against them, but in actuality, the real cause is the low social status of the people who push the ideologies. It takes a lot of thought to realize that such hierarchies actually exist but when you realize the people on the top don’t want people on the bottom organizing in ways that actually could change things (black lives matter won’t actually change anything black lives already legally matter since 1965).
This is why Trump can say “Grab them by the pussy” but in an office job you’d get fired. it’s why rich rappers can rap about things similar to how trump talks, but then the same people who support anti-fascist activism also support the rappers.
Groups like the adl and splc have an intermediate social position where they are able to cause trouble for someone like Alex Jones but not someone like Donald Trump who has a higher social position than them. But most billionares fall right in line in agreement.
