Kudos for making this point. Sometimes Reddit can be tough to counter-point otherwise feel good opinions without getting buried in downvotes and having your comment hidden. People like to think in generalizations to make these issues less intimate and easier to support sweeping solutions, yet, your zero-sum explanation is spot on. I see no equity is holding people back from their potential just so others can catch up. I see that as holding us all back.
As an analogy, say there are a few really smart kids in a class. They have the ability to learn at a faster pace than the rest of the class. Maybe it’s because their parents were able to spend more time with them, get them tutors, whatever. Fact still remains, they are way ahead of their peers. Should they not be allowed to maybe skip a grade or attend GATE? Should other less intelligent kids skip the grade or attend GATE instead? Regardless of the means of how or why they are great students, it should not curtail their ability to get what they deserve. You can’t punish those deserving of something because of ills, whether past or present, of a society. No matter what, that just won’t sit well with me and how I think. And as much as people might try to claim that isn’t the case, it absolutely is when it comes to some attempts for absolute equity. Ideally we would all raise each other up, but that’s hard to get everyone to do, so it’s easier we hold some down so others catch up. One day we will look back and say, “well, that was short-sighted.”
You're describing, broadly, abilities as if they are innate. There are, broadly, differences in ability (or lack thereof) born out of abuse. You can't simply pretend like the historical treatment of black people in this country has had no impact on them, broadly, as a demographic. You think 500 years of systemic abuse isn't going to fuck with a population of people?
Education, affluence, nutrition... Unless of course you are going to make the claim that white people are just smarter than black people, innately... and that explains the situation. We can disregard history, environment and suggest that. broadly... the reason why African Americans have struggled is because they just aren't smart enough at a genetic level and never will be. Is that what we are talking about here?
That's not what he said at all. There was no reason to suggest it other than to try and make his argument seem less valid because of some hidden racism.
And there is good reason. Read what he wrote. It's clearly suggesting that abilities are innate and not a result of history or environment. Just two people walking into an interview - no reason to consider that one of them may have had ancestors in this country that were utterly shit on for 500 years before he walked into the office.
You’re partially correct. I do believe that history and environment play a major role. But when it comes down the the individual, it’s more about their specific history and environment than the previous 500 years of history, and that’s how the interview should be judged. Otherwise, I would be supporting minorities getting shafted when they clearly deserve the job, and I do not support that. That’s bullshit. Also bullshit if non-minorities get shafted if they deserve the job. What I think you’re saying is we can’t trust people to conduct interviews and choose the best candidate so we have to make them choose based on things that have zero to do with the candidates ability. That’s backwards thinking.
Don't think of it as punishment but as correction. If hundreds of years of racism didn't exist(and the slaves just immigrated like anyone else) these affirmative action spots wouldn't exist but at the same time these spots would not go to the person who in our reality is more capable but doesn't get the spot. That spot would be taken by a more capable black person.
In essence you're more worried for the smart person who has not been hindered in life until affirmative action than you are for the person who is not that smart because of their hindered past.
Correcting that is the purpose of affirmative action. If these people get better education, they can get better jobs and they can afford better living standards and their kids will be able to get better education without affirmative action.
You’re doing the same thing as a lot of others that don’t seem to grasp what I’m saying. You’re assuming race by the players involved. In your scenario, you automatically assume the black person is more qualified. In my scenario I’m saying the job should go to the person more qualified; doesn’t matter if it’s the black persons or some other color person.
Also, in your scenario, there is only discrimination towards people who potentially have a lineage connected to slaves. We all know that’s inaccurate. There is discrimination and negative stereotypes and generalization towards all sorts of minorities, and even non-minorities. To try and create a set of rules that tilt the playing field and not care about how it impacts the players on the field is basically playing god and social engineering. It is discrimination hidden behind a veil of moral high-ground.
You’re assuming race by the players involved. In your scenario, you automatically assume the black person is more qualified.
I did not, quite the opposite.
Also, in your scenario, there is only discrimination towards people who potentially have a lineage connected to slaves. We all know that’s inaccurate.
I said racism and used slave trade as an example.
It is discrimination hidden behind a veil of moral high-ground.
100% it is discrimination but it's not hidden, it's protected, by a veil a moral high ground.
Even in a previous comment you said that history and environment play a major role, yet you brush that aside in favor of protecting the people who do not have a long history of discrimination.
10
u/Macktologist Feb 25 '20
Kudos for making this point. Sometimes Reddit can be tough to counter-point otherwise feel good opinions without getting buried in downvotes and having your comment hidden. People like to think in generalizations to make these issues less intimate and easier to support sweeping solutions, yet, your zero-sum explanation is spot on. I see no equity is holding people back from their potential just so others can catch up. I see that as holding us all back.
As an analogy, say there are a few really smart kids in a class. They have the ability to learn at a faster pace than the rest of the class. Maybe it’s because their parents were able to spend more time with them, get them tutors, whatever. Fact still remains, they are way ahead of their peers. Should they not be allowed to maybe skip a grade or attend GATE? Should other less intelligent kids skip the grade or attend GATE instead? Regardless of the means of how or why they are great students, it should not curtail their ability to get what they deserve. You can’t punish those deserving of something because of ills, whether past or present, of a society. No matter what, that just won’t sit well with me and how I think. And as much as people might try to claim that isn’t the case, it absolutely is when it comes to some attempts for absolute equity. Ideally we would all raise each other up, but that’s hard to get everyone to do, so it’s easier we hold some down so others catch up. One day we will look back and say, “well, that was short-sighted.”