Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WealthyRadish]

I think the most useful component of affirmative action that many people forget or fail to recognize is the broader integrative effect. People often view it in more concrete terms, as being an "equalizing" force of opportunity at the individual level, and are right to criticize the injustice involved in that. But affirmative action isn't about the concrete factors of individual opportunity (such as education and qualifications), and shouldn't be viewed as an immediate or temporary solution to a disparity; it should really be the agent of change of those non-concrete factors such as prejudice, and that's the strongest reason to support it (if it in fact accomplishes that end).

One of the best ways of reducing racial and gender prejudice (really the only way) is for people harboring those prejudices to form personal relationships with members of the marginalized group as equals. So it makes sense that getting disadvantaged groups into work positions that have been historically closed off would lessen that prejudice by increasing exposure and healing that prejudice in a lasting and meaningful way (which education alone largely fails to do).

The problem arises when there is a real or perceived difference in those concrete details of opportunity. With our abysmal education system and highly disparate levels of poverty, it is easy to counter that this disparity in the workplace is not due to racial prejudice, and that the concrete details of opportunity have not yet been adequately addressed first (or are due to other factors entirely). It is then possible for affirmative action to generate resentment as it does now, while giving ammunition to those who are in fact motivated by racial prejudice to sway others who are merely apathetic but aware of the injustice inflicted by affirmative action.

But I think if any of these people were to consider the issue in depth, they would concede that the concrete opportunity equalization is not the primary benefit and that the greater integrative effect is worth the minor injustice, and if not are likely operating from a fundamental misunderstanding of the extent that racial prejudice continues to exist today.

[Powder Miner]

You say "minor injustice", and that's what it may be on the level of the country overall -- but to the individual getting rejected, I'd argue that it isn't a very minir injustice at all.

And I am in general more interested in the rights of the individual than in the argued welfare of the group.

[Rolan7]

I think the most useful component of affirmative action that many people forget or fail to recognize is the broader integrative effect. People often view it in more concrete terms, as being an "equalizing" force of opportunity at the individual level, and are right to criticize the injustice involved in that. But affirmative action isn't about the concrete factors of individual opportunity (such as education and qualifications), and shouldn't be viewed as an immediate or temporary solution to a disparity; it should really be the agent of change of those non-concrete factors such as prejudice, and that's the strongest reason to support it (if it in fact accomplishes that end).

One of the best ways of reducing racial and gender prejudice (really the only way) is for people harboring those prejudices to form personal relationships with members of the marginalized group as equals. So it makes sense that getting disadvantaged groups into work positions that have been historically closed off would lessen that prejudice by increasing exposure and healing that prejudice in a lasting and meaningful way (which education alone largely fails to do).

The problem arises when there is a real or perceived difference in those concrete details of opportunity. With our abysmal education system and highly disparate levels of poverty, it is easy to counter that this disparity in the workplace is not due to racial prejudice, and that the concrete details of opportunity have not yet been adequately addressed first (or are due to other factors entirely). It is then possible for affirmative action to generate resentment as it does now, while giving ammunition to those who are in fact motivated by racial prejudice to sway others who are merely apathetic but aware of the injustice inflicted by affirmative action.

But I think if any of these people were to consider the issue in depth, they would concede that the concrete opportunity equalization is not the primary benefit and that the greater integrative effect is worth the minor injustice, and if not are likely operating from a fundamental misunderstanding of the extent that racial prejudice continues to exist today.

Definitely the first part of this.  Equality comes from affirmative action, a necessary evil in the short term.  It's possible that we, the greatest nation, might actually integrate... someday soon!  Into a nation of diverse people whose ideals are are accepted and entertained on their own merits.  That is what I want.

So despite everything blacks did to me and my dad, I want to abandon the grudges and unite as a people.  Not one shitty uniform people, but a melting pot of wonderful cultures.

You say "minor injustice", and that's what it may be on the level of the country overall -- but to the individual getting rejected, I'd argue that it isn't a very minir injustice at all.

And I am in general more interested in the rights of the individual than in the argued welfare of the group.

Well that is where we disagree.  America should be bigger than anarchic individuality.

[Powder Miner]

It doesn't seem to me that equal treatment under the law and arms of state institutions -- not choosing to specifically screw some people over for a perceived greater good -- is anarchic.

[Rolepgeek]

So, in my opinion, here's how Affirmative Action ought to work.

Minorities with similar or slightly better qualifications than non-minorities are sometimes passed up for jobs in favor of people with lower qualifications but who aren't minorities. There's a myriad of reasons for this, usually the bias isn't explicit/intentional, the brain just loves making assumptions about things that aren't relevant if it believes they are at some level. Like the whole 'resume with black vs. white sounding names'. Odds are most employers/hiring staff don't realize they're doing that, there's just a part of them that associates those names with criminal behavior, lower professionalism, etc. that just shifts their perspective on the applicant's qualifications; they're slightly more suspicious of neutral statements, less impressed by previous accomplishments, little things on the margins that result from just lower levels of trust that aren't really big enough to realize (you've got a lot of resumes to go through, after all).

So, there's a bias against minorities present. Affirmative action is an attempt to counter that bias with a bias in the opposite direction, to bring the system closer to equilibrium. Someone looking for work who might otherwise be passed over just because they don't really want to take the time when they have so much else on their plate (everyone everywhere is always busy with something, or bored ), now has to be considered. If an employer already considers everyone equally, then it does depend on the state in particular, but usually they don't end up with any issues. Maybe they get a sub-par employee here and there compared to not needing to deal with affirmative action (this is with the assumption of a fairly large pool of potential employees). Maybe a white person gets passed up now and then. But on the whole, it is intended (or should be intended) to counter existing bias and allow people to get closer to being considered based on their actual qualifications. It causes the total incidents of being passed over based on things other than your ability to be reduced. And at a societal level, it is necessary to think in utilitarian terms, not deontological terms.

Of course, there is an argument that can be made that racism in the past has led to reduced resources for minorities when going through school and etc. that leads to them having reduced qualifications, and that they could/would have been more qualified if they had those resources, so we should give them the benefit of the doubt, and also effectively redistribute wealth so that they have those resources in the next generation. Other side/different phrasing with similar conclusion: The systems by which we gain the credentials and qualifications which determine whether we hire someone are biased against them, so their actual ability is greater than what is implied by their listed credentials and/or qualifications. Which has merit in the 'is' section, I just have my reservations about the 'ought' section. I don't think hiring people preferentially based on minority status even if they're less qualified (and this argument obviously works mostly for minorities who are just a bit less qualified than their non-minority counterparts) really helps that as much as the argument assumes it does? The second phrasing/argument is more valid to me, in part because how focused society has become on credentials is pretty dumb and also costly, but it still seems like solving the problem from the wrong end to me.

But yes, equality is about lifting everyone up to the same level, not flattening it out downwards, whenever possible.


And yes Asians are discriminated against because they a. do well enough on their own not to need or be considered deserving of protection(basically they aren't really considered people of color; for example, look at articles about silicon valley's lack of diversity and then you look and realize they're lumping asians and caucasians together for their definition of diversity), b. are often conservative, in older generations, which means they don't really form that much of voterbase for Democrats, and  c. there's barely any of them compared to other minority groups which honestly is probably the biggest factor. 4.7% of the United States population is Asian, compared to 12.2% African American, and like one in six people in the US identifies as Hispanic or Latino.

@Powder Miner, Re: rights of individual: I agree, I'm also interested in the rights of the individual. I think the rights of a greater number of individuals would be protected with intelligent Affirmative Action policies than are restricted by them, in practice. Unfortunately, well-executed policies are hard to come by, and figuring out the appropriate level of Action to take in order to get closer to the equilibrium mark is hard to find. The government must be run for the greatest good of the greatest number of it's people, whilst still attempting to maintain the principles of equality, justice, and fairness. There are so many people it has responsibility for and authority over that it is the only way it can be run and be effective.


Basically I disagree with UrbanGiraffe on the use of Affirmative Action at a fundamental level. *shrug*

[miauw62]

I was gonna post a picture of a strawman, but I think I can see what you're getting at here.

To not deny a white (or, as I was more thinking, Asian) person based on race -- this is, in your eyes, the exact same thing as denying a black person based on race? Am I understanding you correctly?

That's not what I said, though?

Also,

You say "minor injustice", and that's what it may be on the level of the country overall -- but to the individual getting rejected, I'd argue that it isn't a very minir injustice at all.

And I am in general more interested in the rights of the individual than in the argued welfare of the group.

Being systematically disadvantaged to other people based on the color of your skin isn't a minor injustice either. But apparently that doesn't matter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The entire point of AA is that whites arent being disadvantaged with respect to a no-racism situation. If you set the quota at something like half of the percentage of that demographic regionally speaking ,and, naturally, provide ways for those people to receive the required level to reach any such position.

[Powder Miner]

I was gonna post a picture of a strawman, but I think I can see what you're getting at here.

To not deny a white (or, as I was more thinking, Asian) person based on race -- this is, in your eyes, the exact same thing as denying a black person based on race? Am I understanding you correctly?

That's not what I said, though?

That's the purpose of that last question, then. What you did say -- from what did you infer it? What was your logic? I'm not quite gonna let an accusation like that go unanswered, but I'd rather have an explanation behind it and argue against it than aimply dismiss it. But if all you place into your post is a strawman there isn't much for me to actually deconstruct, and all I can do is make a guess that risks turning into a strawman of its own.

[miauw62]

I edited my post while you were writing your reply, that may be enough explanation.

[WealthyRadish]

It doesn't seem to me that equal treatment under the law and arms of state institutions -- not choosing to specifically screw some people over for a perceived greater good -- is anarchic.

The entire function of government is to force people to do things they otherwise wouldn't for the sake of the greater good. That's not to say that your concern here isn't perfectly valid, in the sense that that the harm should always be less than the good, but I think in this case the perception of harm is greatly inflated over the actual injustice involved (to clarify, this is the injustice inflicted by affirmative action that I'm referring to). On the flip side I will readily say that there are people who deny that there is any harm involved and ignore valid objections, and it's flawed reasoning like that which is why some people will always be incredulous towards the Democrats (and rightly so).

[Powder Miner]

Being systematically disadvantaged to other people based on the color of your skin isn't a minor injustice either. But apparently that doesn't matter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The entire point of AA is that whites arent being disadvantaged with respect to a no-racism situation. If you set the quota at something like half of the percentage of that demographic regionally speaking ,and, naturally, provide ways for those people to receive the required level to reach any such position.

The two things you suggest here are very much different. Providing ways for people to reach the required levels to reach the positions we're talking about quotas for is a good thing -- positive affirmative action, as I'll call it, that doesn't infringe upon anyone else.

But you're talking about whites not being disadvantaged in regards to a no-racism situation -- you're talking about poverty, etc. right? More blacks (and hispanics and native americans, though they rarely get mentioned) are poor percentage-wise than whites, but to think that this means there aren't poor disadvantaged whites would also be wrong. I lived in West Virginia for a while, which is the textbook definition of where white people live in absolutely awful conditions, and that's how my dad grew up in the Columbia River area. Now, you didn't necessarily say anything about that. But you are specifically talking about disadvantages besides pure racism, and those aren't completely cut and dry between race, even if people from one race tend to be more disadvantaged than those of another. So if you want to address disparities between people in a context of non-racism then going purely by race is just going to fuck over people who fall between that divide. Now, I don't necessarily like the idea of discriminating by income either, but if you're striving to correct disparities it would seem to be the fairer path forwards.

But then we get into if black people would be more discriminated against thanks to racism -- but, then, wouldn't a strictly race-neutral methodology be better about that, rather than picking and choosing who gets in based upon the color of skin they were born with? Countering discrimination with discrimination doesn't seem right to me.

Or you can just imply that I don't think black people matter, whatever works for you

Edit: Hmm, that wasn't quite the path of argument I'd wanted to take (ended up only arguing about a certain kind of discrimination and didn't touch my ideological issues with it), but I'm a bit busy right now.

[WealthyRadish]

Being systematically disadvantaged to other people based on the color of your skin isn't a minor injustice either. But apparently that doesn't matter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The entire point of AA is that whites arent being disadvantaged with respect to a no-racism situation. If you set the quota at something like half of the percentage of that demographic regionally speaking ,and, naturally, provide ways for those people to receive the required level to reach any such position.

The two things you suggest here are very much different. Providing ways for people to reach the required levels to reach the positions we're talking about quotas for is a good thing -- positive affirmative action, as I'll call it, that doesn't infringe upon anyone else.

But you're talking about whites not being disadvantaged in regards to a no-racism situation -- you're talking about poverty, etc. right? More blacks (and hispanics and native americans, though they rarely get mentioned) are poor percentage-wise than whites, but to think that this means there aren't poor disadvantaged whites would also be wrong. I lived in West Virginia for a while, which is the textbook definition of where white people live in absolutely awful conditions, and that's how my dad grew up in the Columbia River area. Now, you didn't necessarily say anything about that. But you are specifically talking about disadvantages besides pure racism, and those aren't completely cut and dry between race, even if people from one race tend to be more disadvantaged than those of another. So if you want to address disparities between people in a context of non-racism then going purely by race is just going to fuck over people who fall between that divide. Now, I don't necessarily like the idea of discriminating by income either, but if you're striving to correct disparities it would seem to be the fairer path forwards.

But then we get into if black people would be more discriminated against thanks to racism -- but, then, wouldn't a strictly race-neutral methodology be better about that, rather than picking and choosing who gets in based upon the color of skin they were born with? Countering discrimination with discrimination doesn't seem right to me.

I think we're in perfect agreement here. Using affirmative action as a means of equalization using racial metrics doesn't make any sense if the disparity is due to economic factors, just as using economic metrics wouldn't make sense if the disparity were due to race. Since I believe that affirmative action can counter the effects of racial prejudice, use of race as a factor makes sense. When people suggest that affirmative action should be used to solve economic disparity, that likewise doesn't make any sense to me.

[Loud Whispers]

Proponents of affirmative action keep talking about this systemic disadvantage that minorities face based on the colour of their skin. I'm asking, where is it? Show me the laws and policies that are specifically discriminating against black people.

And no, 'Well if there's no racism, why aren't more black people at Harvard?' is not an answer. If the system can't be found to be biased, you don't get to make up 'invisible' racism to explain results you don't like.

That's like a guy blaming some invisible fucking goblin who cast a curse on him for his inability to get dates.

The only bias in the system I see is the one many people here are defending, where certain minorities are advantaged and others are disadvantaged in order to get the results you believe to be the 'right' results. And this somehow isn't racism. 2+2=5 indeed.

When the Chinese ubermensch sharpened from decades of discrimination rise within the American political machine the hurricane shall be beautiful and terrifying to behold

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Update on Facebook torture case.

All four suspects were charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Hill, Cooper and Covington were also charged with residential burglary. Hill was additionally charged with possession of a stolen motor vehicle, according to the prosecutor's office.

Looks like the initial fears of the police department shrugging it off were unfounded, thank fuck. It is possible for this to result in a life sentence, though unlikely.

[TempAcc]

The modern narrative for affirmative action is usualy "POC are disadvantaged because they're amongst the poorest layers of society!", and to that, I answer, why not just focus on affirmative action based on income, instead of race? I've seen plenty of white, black, hispanic and asian people living under the poverty line.

The other reason used is that employers are all massive assholes and won't hire a black guy over a white guy, even if the black guy has the same or even better experience/credentials/education, something that isn't actualy quantifiable and relies more on ideology rather than verifiable fact. You can post ironic smilies all day, it won't change the fact you aren't doing shit about people that actualy need help.

Nobody is denying that the US has a pretty shitty story in regards to racism, but it seems that all efforts that claim to be aimed at eliminating racism only instead promote another kind of racism that is deemed acceptable and progressive. Not to mention that people have this cartoonish idea of "white people", as if US resident white people were all one magical identical group of people all with the same cultural and economic backgrounds, and that is, somehow, not racism. Generalization isn't generalization when its used against the right targets, I guess. Remember how zimmerman magically became caucasian after that whole court debacle?

Also, getting back to the meat of the subject, the torturers have all been charged with hate crimes. Looks like the Chicago Police isn't pants on head retarded.

Fakeedit: ninja'd by metalsluthunt

[Neonivek]

Well now for the court to handle it... and then to let them all off.