I would agree, that's not racism. However, I would say that a blanket statement about all members of a race such as this, 'black people have no alternative to understanding how the world really works.', is.
We all know that blanket statements are just a convenient way to speak for what a group does or tends to do "in general".
The fact there are outliers doesn't mean a blanket statement is "racist" as long as it's accurate for the most. It's doubly not racist if it's positive (and "understanding how the world really works" is a positive thing).
'We all know that blanket statements are just a convenient way to speak for what a group does or tends to do "in general".'
Given that blanket statements such as that, which are meant to imply "in general", are indistinguishable from actually bigoted blanket statements which are meant to be taken literally, it probably is a good discipline to always include "generally" or "typically" as a qualifier, each and every time. It has fallen out of fashion, but let's try to bring it back.
> However, I would say that a blanket statement about all members of a race such as this, 'black people have no alternative to understanding how the world really works.'
Context matters: in a discussion of percentages of a population holding particular views, where it is offered to explain why a certain percentage of blacks holding a view is improbable, that's not a blanket statement, its a statement about the relative frequency of experiences relevant to the belief in question.
Racism generally does ignore class. One of my best friends is a very successful man who happens to be black - and large, and very dark-skinned. He's a doctor and hospital administrator with strong financial expertise, definitely a one-percenter. How safe do you think he is if he gets pulled over by the cops? If he's walking down the street toward a white person, do you think they get that twinge of fear, or do they think "Actually, he probably makes about ten times what I do, so why would I be afraid he'd mug me?"
>It is when it ignores class and takes people of different ethnic and economic groups and treats them as homogeneous based on skin color alone.
You mean just like a racist society does (which makes the statement even more accurate)?
Because even a "rich/european/etc" black person is still a n... when it comes to a racist society, and while his experiences might be better, they'd still be shaped by racism.
It's an incredibly racist way for the world to work, but in practice it does. Fixing that requires noticing it, acknowledging it, and finding the reasons for it.
There's absolutely nothing racist about that statement.
It's actually a very accurate description of how a group that historically is facing systematic injustices and racism get to have fewer illusions than the comfortable majority.
If anything, it's ANTI-racist.
Not being racist is not the same as believing that racial minorities have absolutely the same experiences and outlooks as the majority.
A group of who had the cops enforce Jim Crow and segregation on them, or arrest, harass and shot them far more often than another group, has a different outlook on this "justice" thing.
So, I hope I'm using this term correctly, but it seems like you're building a straw man here. I certainly never made the claim that everyone has the same experience and outlook regardless of race. However, as I mentioned in another one of my replies, making a blanket statement that 'black people have no alternative to understanding how the world really works.', reeks of racism to me. In this day and age, people are born into many diverse situations, regardless of shared racial makeup.
>In this day and age, people are born into many diverse situations, regardless of shared racial makeup.
The problem is that racists don't look into "diverse situations", just racial makeup.
E.g. is there any more diverse situation compared to a poor black guy from the ghetto, than being the President? And yet, even the President is often described, from private discussions down to protest banners in racism terms -- heck, even as a n....
Yeah. Keeping in mind that this is the list of basic plots. Most stories will involve some combination of these, perhaps without a strong overarching basic plot to use as its primary category.
"God" being the situation he find himself in (both the miracle of it, and the struggle), pursuit being his overall progress, and of course the "main" love plot.
Depends how literally you take "god" for if those fit or not.
That looks like it. The world around him is "immortal", and he was a "mortal" trapped in the "immortal" world. In the movie that is metaphorically represented by the day repeating, seemingly forever. The more the "mortal" tries to fight things, the further he is away from freedom. It was only by cooperating with the world he was finally free.
But it proves my point perfectly - anti .NET "racism" at its finest :) If - say - some Perl dev with academia background was ignorant of VCS, he'd just be a bad developer and that's it...
Did you consider you're putting the horse before the cart? I mean to say....did you consider she has these connections because she comes from money? Sometimes they come hand in hand.
'One of her ancestors was a founder of the Fleischmann's Yeast company', and her great-great-grandfather was 'dean of University of Cincinnati College of Medicine,[11] where a hospital is named after him.'
Wealth is usually gone by the second or third generation. Her parents seemed to be employees who had to put in their 9-5, not any kind of tycoons. They did afford a prep school and Stanford though, I guess that's more than most.
Shrug. Its totally possible the old wealth is gone, its totally possible its not. I should state, I don't think any less of this persons and their accomplishments. Just a bit of a nitpick on details.
What precisely in the Wikipedia article you linked to made you suspect that her parents aren't rich? I saw, 'One of her ancestors was a founder of the Fleischmann's Yeast company', and immediately thought old money.
Really? I feel like lots of people know how to get a programming job with a CS degree, and you in fact hit the nail on the head in your response, learn the technologies that employers are going to want you to have. Experiences to learn these things aren't very difficult to find, imho.
Because that's largely what boot camps focus on. They are there to teach you what's popular right now, which is web dev. They aren't going to teach you kernel development, or backend application development, or graphics skills, because that's not what 'omgstartups' are hiring for.
Exactly. Not to mention "not hip" things like security, performance sensitive code, distributed systems, HCI, solid understanding of computing theory, and so on.
Web devs tend to be easily replaceable, so why not hire a bunch of juniors (at a cheap cost) to get the job done? This is what it seems these types of "academies" are targeting anyway. Like "timr" said in this thread: "... a commodity product for a commodity world."
Fair enough, but I don't see how any of this has to do with the topic at hand, which was boot camps are for suckers. I wouldn't consider the junior developers who are working out well in the parents reply suckers - sounds like they're employed and working out well.
They bought a product (bootcamp) in the pursuit of a career in software engineering. Odds are they aren't equipped for more than a series of jobs doing webdev scut work.
"Suckers" might be a bit strong, but their expectations may suffer a certain misalignment with reality.
I know web devs who have taught themselves CS fundamentals and the stuff you mentioned, but they started with boot camp doing Rails. And why not? They were able to teach themselves this stuff while working for a good salary and getting experience for their resume.
