Contexts

This is nothing more than a way to manipulate scientific publication to empower white elites at the expense of both less privileged whites and minorities alike.

First, there is absolutely no hope of anything like this being applied in a fair and even handed way.

> Academic content that undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups; assumes that a human group is superior or inferior over another simply because of a social characteristic

Will the “dignity” of white people preclude publishing academic research suggesting there should be race segregated spaces in colleges? Will these rules be applied to protect the dignity of white Appalachians? Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

Second, insofar as elite whites have very different views of minorities than minorities themselves do, these rules will be used to suppress research that both comports with what minorities themselves believe and what the data could show is in their best interest. For example, Raj Chetty’s recent research showing that the two most important community factors for upward mobility for Black kids is (1) low racism among white people in the area; and (2) high levels of fathers present in the home (even if the child’s own father is not present): https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-black-boys-family-structure-still-matters

White liberal academics love the former finding but hate the latter finding, and these rules absolutely will distort the research that comes out as a result. (If you weren’t an Indian guy…

axle:

I'm with you. Don't let HN's pro-kyriarchy[1] mob mentality get to you. Most of them somehow missed the fact that 1 in 5 women are still raped in college[2]. They also fail to realize that rape is HEAVILY underreported on most college campuses. They don't realize that women (and girls) are often blamed for causing their own rapes, blamed for "participating" in the crimes committed against them[3], or that rape of women is still part of male lore[4][5]. Find me the "balance" in that. Tell me when exactly we've hit it.

They fail to realize that we're not "done" solving the real issue of ingrained prejudices just because women are getting educated and have jobs. They don't realize that self-hating racism and sexism is just as ingrained in the underprivileged minorities. They don't realize it, of course, because white men have never been underprivileged minorities. They don't realize that it's a lifetime struggle not just with a world, to accept you for who you are, but with yourself[6][7].

They don't realize that unrealistic body image expectations are eroding women's sense of self worth[8]. They don't realize how it warps the mind, changes priorities, and restricts what choices women make, despite any actual or supposed abundance of choice. They don't realize that in many dark-skinned nations there is now a separate "white" beauty standard that competes with the beauty standard that makes sense for them, culturally[9][10].

If you think that being liberal and educated…

Because class struggle is making a comeback?

Managers set salaries. Guild professions (e.g. lawyers, doctors, accountants) set their prices and uphold the guild with cryptic languages and lengthy vetting processes.

The case where engineers (of either companies, processes, products or technology), instead, are in the position to set compensation (or more specifically, are able to profit by the fruits of their labor), are generally only available to very high ranking manager/engineer hybrids, consultants, and founders. This is probably the closest thing in the modern world, in the literal sense, to the Marxist Socialist ideal of the workers taking control of the means of production.

Other than that: ask yourself the question -- why do the bankers have all of the money?

PS: Some resources.

6% of all US income is now earned by the top 0.01% of the income bracket. This is as high as it's been since at least 1913.

The lowest earning member of thix bracket in 2005 was earning $5.9 million a year.

http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/18/the-percent-of-income-earned-by-the-top-110th-of-a-percent-1913-to-2007/

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/category/share-of-income/

This isn't the difference between Bob down the street who went to college and Jim who didn't -- or the kid in your class who became a Harvard trained lawyer working in a big firm on wall-street versus the smartest kid in your math class who's now at Lawrence Berkeley labs. This isn't the difference between…

It was literally the secession flag for multiple states during the civil war -- to the point where the most famous battle hymn explicitly frames victory for the Union as crushing the serpent.

That may be an inconvenient truth for those who want to avoid its tainted history but it's definitely not nonsense.

Don't take my word for it -- feel free to peruse the selection at your local confederate flag dealer:

https://ruffinrebel.com/product-category/gadsden/

https://rebelnationok.com/page/2/?s=gadsden&post_type=product&title=1&excerpt=1&content=1&categories=0&attributes=0&tags=1&sku=0&orderby=date-DESC&ixwps=1

Or show up to your local Klan rally:

https://contexts.org/files/2017/09/Charlottesville_-Unite_the_Right-_Rally_35780274914-680x340-c-center@2x.jpg

If you want to fly a patriotic flag in the US, I'd suggest the American one.

According to Parks herself it was a spontaneous act:

"I did not think about [being the test case for the NAACP] at all. In fact if I had let myself think too deeply about what might happen to me, I might have gotten off the bus. But I chose to remain."[1]

There's a lot of propaganda chaff around Rosa Parks. It seems that it was neither carefully planned, nor a completely spontaneous act of rebellion. She and a great many other people had been seething about the buses for years, and on that day she had simply had enough. I suspect the "carefully planned NAACP sting operation" narrative arose as a backlash to the equally inaccurate "totally random uninvolved old lady stands up for herself" narrative.

[1] https://contexts.org/articles/telling-stories-about-rosa-parks/

> You might be interested in what one of the foremost sociologists studying white supremacy online has to say about this: https://contexts.org/articles/the-algorithmic-rise-of-the-al...

Depends on how relevant you consider a social "scientist" having build a career on creating a bogeyman on mixing up nationalism, extreme right and white supremacy. A former columnist at "Huffington Post", she is now writing a book on "Undoing White Womanhood". Calls herself a "change agent" on her own webiste.

Sounds rather like "anti-White" activist to me, like an intellectual Robin DiAngelo.