I have four changes in my mind.
For me the policy should also:
-middle income (because with this policy the white majority of the population will have an harder time finding or keeping a job due to companies prioritizing POC)
-patriots (because the state may now be seen as working against the native citizens)
-crime (because now certain POC may lessen or abandon their criminal ways entirely)
+poor (because said POC tend to be not very wealthy)
Aren’t the ethnic minorities also middle income?
Maybe racial tensions could lower income of ethic minorities, and this could have 4 - 8 turns of inertia.
I am not sure why this policy would increase the amount of poor people if you were hiring more of them in the first place. Could you elaborate further?
Yeah exactly, that’s what i meant.
It would increase (+) the opinion of the poor class.
ohh sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up!
You don’t create an effect on poor voters because you assume ethnic minorities are necessarily poorer than average- that means non-ethnic minority poor voters also have their opinions increased.
The game’s mechanics want you to target only the specific voter group you think would be affected, not all the groups you think that voter group might intersect with.
Yes but since, excluding Asians, ethnic minorities are disproportionately poorer and are 40% of the American population, i think the threshold to generalize has been reached.
Thats one country out of ten that the game models though
Its REALLY important that the effects in the game work equally over all nations, otherwise it gets unplayable and deeply confusing. For the example given, where its assumed people in ethnic minorities are poorer, that may be true in the US< but is there similar evidence in Spain? in South Korea? This is where it gets complex.
Ideally the US would be modeled in such a way that (due to historic issues of racism), the income of ethnic minorities was lower than others, which would naturally then push a lot of those people into the ‘poor’ group. But thats a different way to handle it. The effects of this policy must only reflect the direct effects, Anything that arises because ‘people in group A tend to be in group B’ needs to be addressed separately, by per-country adjustments to make that connection.
FWIW the USA has a special override in the game for the history of slavery/racism which makes racial tension in the US higher. Perhaps there should be a corresponding knock to the income of ethnic minorities in the UK? (and perhaps in other countries too?)
Then you create a special effect to make ethnic voters more likely to be in the poor voter group. You don’t do what was suggested.
Hard coding that brown people are poor is like setting in stone the circumstances of recession or pollution. It’s one of the things the game goes to elaborate pains to allow you to change for the better. if the policies inarguably established minorities as poor, criminal, and offensive to patriots, we don’t really have a game, do we?
Not hardcoding it, making it correlated with racial tensions.
If racial tensions are high, then its more likely, that ethic minorities will be discriminated, and won’t be able to get as good job as everyone else.
That would depend on the general level of equality, and some other issues though.
If racial discrimination laws are strong (meaning you cannot discriminate when hiring/promoting) then even if racial tension is high, ethnic minorities could still be relatively well-off financially.
In theory ethnic minorities could be wealthier than the native ethnic group, and still suffer from discrimination. I would argue that during my youth in the UK, the pakistani community were definitely suffering from racial discrimination, but may actually have been slightly better off than average, and certainly had more entrepreneurs.
Or to put it another way, I don’t think racial tension can be said to always cause low income in ethnic minorities.
…In fact, to take an extreme example, pre-war Germany had a relatively affluent jewish minority that were clearly vastly discriminated against. It might not be uncommon for groups to suffer from discrimination precisely because they seem to be doing better than the native ethnicity.
Seconding this - whites in South Africa are still economically dominant, as are Chinese and Indians in Malaysia. There are plenty of other less well-known examples from the present and recent past too, so it’s definitely not true to say that an ethnic minority is always economically disadvantaged.
I think Cliffskis point was that we cannot assume that minorities are worse off and hardcode in values that will make them poorer in-game, because that would naturally break a lot of edge cases. It is generally unadvisable to hardcode values in games (and software in general) for this reason.
A better solution would likely be to find the reasons why minorities generally tend to (or not) be poorer than the average, and code those in as specific events that can fire under certain circumstances, avoiding the hardcoding issue.
Saying that in all White (plurality? or majority?) nations, all “Black and Brown” minorities are poorer and prone to crime “as a rule of thumb” seems like a bit of an overgeneralization as well.
Of course it is a generalization but that does not make it less true, the exceptions only confirm the rule.
At one point you have to generalize, the game make lots of generalizations. For example not all conservatives are pro excessive military spending… but the majority do, and the game assumes that.
You can make the same example for liberals, not all liberals are pro abortion but the majority do… and the game generalize.
Generalizations are fine, as long as they are correct.
And mine is correct, just look at crime stats and welfare spending.
The welfare basically revolves around Black and Brown cocooning (affirmative action, food stamps, helicopter money, special grants) especially in the United States, but in Europe as well
You are correct in that generalizations are allowable when they are correct. We cannot consider every single case that may appear in-game, as that would be far too complicated to implement. Generalizing the views of the political spectrum is a good case of this. But I do not think that we can simply say “Black and Brown people commit more crimes,” which is on a whole other level than just talking about political affiliations.
I am not sure about your further point. Are you saying that Welfare policies in American and Europe cause minorities to commit crimes? Because that is counterintuitive.
My original argument was not to claim that you were wrong in saying minorities (in America at least) usually tend to be less well off. I was suggesting that we implement policies that will achieve this result in game but which also model the underlying factors that cause this wealth and crime disparity: Red Lining and historical segregation in America, for example.
Wait. Biological Differences?
So I was thinking about what was being said for a while - it’s quite the tricky topic.
Your first post is a blog post, but has a credible source from the US with the bureau of justice (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf)… but we would need to get to the bottom of why that is the case. I’m no expert on the US but ghettos, private prisons / corrupt police, government policy and prejudices in society making it harder to get decent work, lodgings and so on.
Anyways that stuff is just a rabbit hole of debate.
The main thing I wanted to respond to was you linking to summit news… with an article literally by Paul Joseph Watson, which is a yikes. Before I get into that the sources listed there are laughable… one is Reuters talking about a government study that blames a 10% increase in crime on 90% refugees. The other one is Remix news that talks about non-German citizens in one region of Germany, it doesn’t talk at all about race.
Uh anyways - not sure if a troll account or very ignorant given your post including phrenology in your reasoning lol… but uh…
Summit News: Summit News - Media Bias/Fact Check
And there’s a few reasons to question PJW, but one was when he was saying all sorts of nonsense about Soy whilst trying to shill his products haha, here’s a fun video talking about Soy SOY BOYS: A MEASURED RESPONSE - YouTube
I don’t know where you got those ideas from . . . but they’re patently wrong, not to mention racist. Biological differences do exist between different races, but the idea that “Skull Shape,” or “bone density” differ between races is completely false. Biological differences are confined to non-intelligence and non-athletic traits of the human body. What you have described is phrenology: Phrenology - Wikipedia, which is a pseudo science. It was proven false a long time ago.