←back to thread

376 points undefined1 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.329s | source
Show context
ralusek ◴[] No.22975553[source]
Asians, particularly Asian men, have the most active obstacles that manifest on _basis of their race_ than any other minority group in the US. If you are an individual given a situation, all things else considered equal (attractiveness, intelligence, parenting, culture, neighborhood, familial wealth, etc), being Asian will give you a harder time than any other racial/ethnic characteristic in terms of pursuing a good life. That doesn't mean that Asians as a collective will net worse results than black people as a collective, because collectively, parenting, culture, neighborhoods, familial wealth, etc, are not at all comparable between those groups. But if you are the same exact individual with the same exact circumstances, and you could choose to be black or Asian, you would be better off choosing to be black.

You want to get into a good school? Diversity programs and affirmative action, above board, use the basis of your race to actively advantage you in your admittance if you are black, and do the exact opposite if you are Asian. Quotas for racial makeups almost always necessarily and uniquely disadvantage Asians. Because of being so overrepresented in achievements relative to their makeup of the population, any quota that goes off of anything other than their meritorious accomplishments necessarily puts an arbitrary scarcity on available opportunities for them.

You want to get a good job? Sure, you might find certain employers in particular regions that may be discriminatory on the basis of race to black individuals. But large, highly desirable companies nearly unilaterally have diversity hiring practices that likewise greatly advantage black individuals relative to those who would otherwise hold comparable characteristics to individuals from other populations. YouTube famously had reports from their hiring department that a hold was issued on the hiring of white and Asian individuals for the remainder of some time period in order to ensure that diversity quotas were satisfied. Being Asian in a "sea of hyper-qualified Asian applicants" _is_ a distinct disadvantage, and the degree of competence needed to stand out from a group that is already associated with high achievement is uniquely unfair.

What about dating? I have worked in this space. Every dating app shows the same thing: Asian men and black women are the least desirable groups for getting responses or being sought after, by quite a bit. I have worked in this space, and what is admittedly anecdotal, I have heard "I'm just not attracted to Asian guys," on many occasions. There doesn't seem to be any taboo in this particular area, it doesn't seem to imply closed-mindedness. I have _never_, _ever_, heard somebody say "I'm just not attracted to black guys," in my personal or professional life. I believe that this would be met with a great deal of social pushback. There seems to be a willingness for people to say things about Asians that is just not felt in other ethnic groups, and it possibly stems from this idea that it's safe to be "punching up."

Lastly I just think there is a general cultural obsession with racial injustices which completely casts Asians aside due to their collective competencies. Think of all of the hullabaloo regarding the fact that there isn't enough black representation in the Academy Awards, regardless of (last I checked) the makeup of Oscars in the last few decades has been about 10% awarded to black individuals, which is about what their 13% of the population in the US would lead you to expect. Asian actors? Something on the order of 4. Nobody cares.

I'm not Asian. I hate racial politics, but I just find it particularly absurd that Asians are ostensibly cast aside in this game when they strike me as having the most to complain about. Most other cases of supposed injustice stem from people comparing the outcomes of two racial populations, and subsequently stipulating that the differences must be due to racism. For the examples I've stated, I'm talking about things that actually net different outcomes for individuals on the basis of their race.

replies(8): >>22975659 #>>22975673 #>>22975704 #>>22975705 #>>22975767 #>>22975783 #>>22975910 #>>22976700 #
bruceb ◴[] No.22975705[source]
The dating part is a complex situation that is a minefield which can almost never be discussed without spiraling out of control.

But comparing black and Asian in the US is laughable. On life expectancy, earnings, education etc is completely one-sided.

replies(1): >>22976080 #
ralusek ◴[] No.22976080[source]
Life expectancy, earnings, education of the populations at large? That isn't evidence of racism, these populations don't engage in remotely comparable behaviors, have remotely comparable histories, or cultures. I'm talking about situations that are specifically and actively differentiated _due to_ race alone.

If Asians are approved for bank loans at higher rates than black people, that doesn't mean that it's harder to get a loan as a black person than it is as an Asian person. What I am talking about is that if you were a black person with a given credit score, with a given salary, capital, etc, and you were less likely to get a loan than an Asian with exactly the same criteria, only then would this be you being discriminated against on the basis of your race.

When talking about discrimination against Asians, the examples I'm giving are ones in which the Asian individual can meet or surpass all of the objective criteria necessary for an outcome, but their race is the active factor that harms them. Last I read, if Ivy Leagues were unaware of any racial identifiers, and simply had the objective criteria of SAT scores, GPA, extra-curricular achievements, Asians would make up 40% of their universities. When we say that black Americans have a shorter life expectancy, earnings, or education do you understand how that isn't remotely comparable? You haven't controlled for anything. If you say that there is an epidemic of black students not being admitted to schools despite having identical qualifications as other applicants, only then are you bringing up a comparable example to what I'm discussing.

replies(2): >>22976400 #>>22976422 #
1. mirimir ◴[] No.22976422[source]
> Last I read, if Ivy Leagues were unaware of any racial identifiers, and simply had the objective criteria of SAT scores, GPA, extra-curricular achievements, Asians would make up 40% of their universities.

Of course. Because academic achievement is highly valued in Asian cultures. I suspect that the situation for Jews is similar, for the same reason.

So sure, universities could just ignore "race" entirely. But then historically disadvantaged groups would be underrepresented. And that would perpetuate the disadvantaged status for those groups.

So how would that be just?

Arguably it's fairest to weight acceptance criteria to admit students in proportion to their groups' population share. And yes, I agree that it sucks if you're Asian, Jewish, or whatever other groups are affected.

And I also get that it's gameable. Someone who's part Asian or Jewish, and part (even a little) Black, would identify as Black. Applicants might even use DNA test data.