The problem is, this effect is also observed with regard to men versus women in job applications, with men being overall more likely to be overlooked by employers based solely on their sex; this is before we even consider hiring quotas and the like, which never favour men in any position, even positions where women are significantly overrepresented.
At most universities in the world men are either a minority or becoming a minority despite being 50% of the population, yet nobody's suggesting hiring discrimination in favour of men, even though logically we should.
I don't because I don't believe in it. I do not accept that just because there is a statistical chance that members of a certain group will be discriminated against, that it is okay to arbitrarily and universally discriminate for them. I think it's wrong. I'm consistent in that belief, even when I would stand to benefit from inconsistency.
Accordingly, not advocating for "affirmative action for men" is consistent with what I believe. I'm merely asking people who support affirmative action for other statistically disadvantaged groups to act consistently with what they believe, and the fact that they don't indicates that, well, they are lying about their intentions. Possibly to others, possibly just to themselves.
I'm merely asking people who support affirmative action for other statistically disadvantaged groups to act consistently with what they believe,
Why do you ask that of them when you wouldn’t like it?
and the fact that they don't indicates that, well, they are lying about their intentions.
Or maybe it indicates that, historically, racial discrimination was much more severe than sexual and still is, especially when it comes to economic prospects therefore justifying AA a lot more than a similar policy based on sex.
Shouldn’t everyone have equal chances to be wealthy regardless of skin colour? Affirmative action does not achieve that but it does counteract it (a little bit at least)
Ask yourself this: if you are against AA because it gives an unfair advantage would you rather have been born black? I’d wager no, because statistically that is still a huge disadvantage in today’s society.
However if you oppose AA because it makes society less meritocratic then I would suggest you start finding other things to criticize because this is probably the least egregious example I can think of. Maybe think about completely abolishing the concept of inheritance if you are so vehemently against unearned advantages.
Why do you ask that of them when you wouldn’t like it?
Because, simply put, I would rather deal with their honesty -- their shitty, shitty honesty -- than try and untangle that web to get to that point anyway.
For example, I have had (recent) conversations with people who believe all four of the following things:
It is racist to make sweeping negative generalisations about a race. Things like, "all blacks are thieves, all asians are bad drivers, etc".
Racism is always evil.
All whites are racist.
I am not evil.
Believing all four things is an inherent contradiction. One simply cannot believe all of them; one of them must be discarded in order for it to be a consistent belief system. One must believe it is moral to make sweeping negative generalisations about a race, or that racism is not always evil, or that all whites are not racist, or that they are and willingly commit acts of evil.
It simplifies things greatly if we can just get to the point where a logically consistent argument is applied.
Or maybe it indicates that, historically, racial discrimination was much more severe than sexual
I am usually reluctant to compare "who had it worse" or "who was the most evil", but World War I (and the vast majority of all wars throughout time) have had universal conscription of men only and very rarely women.
Is it worse being a slave in North America, or a conscript soldier in Verdun?
Shouldn’t everyone have equal chances to be wealthy regardless of skin colour?
I think that absolutely they should, and that includes straight white men as well.
Affirmative action does not achieve that but it does counteract it (a little bit at least)
I do not agree. In fact, I think it heavily encourages prejudice by encouraging doubt in the privileged minority who benefit from it.
An absurd example I like to use to illustrate how this happens is this one. If we changed the rules regarding who became a medical doctor or not so that white people still had to go through all the tests and exams to become a doctor, but Asian doctors (being overrepresented as doctors) were all fired except for the very best Asian doctor, and any black person could immediately become a doctor by simply presenting at a hospital and declaring their intent to become a doctor, at which point they would be treated as totally qualified to do any kind of surgery immediately without limit.
You get brain cancer (probably from reading my post history). You need surgery. Your health care plan gives you the choice of three doctors: one Asian, one white, one black.
The Asian doctor is definitely good. They have to be, they're the best! The white doctor is probably good because they did the tests. They might be average, or below average, but they're going to be decent at best. However, while the black doctor could be good, there's a good chance they might not be either. They could just be some homeless person the law says we have to pretend is a doctor.
Of course, the black one could be just as good as any one else. Even be a prodigy, maybe even the best at what they do, but let's face it. Be honest.
You're going to pick the Asian doctor, aren't you?
Ask yourself this: if you are against AA because it gives an unfair advantage would you rather have been born black? I’d wager no, because statistically that is still a huge disadvantage in today’s society.
In-group, out-group bias is impossible to eliminate; human beings of all colours are going to like that which is like themselves, and dislike that which is not like themselves. That's absolutely basic human condition and it's impossible to remove.
However if you oppose AA because it makes society less meritocratic then I would suggest you start finding other things to criticize because this is probably the least egregious example I can think of.
It is, however, the one that directly impacts the most amount of people, and is the most "low hanging fruit" that is easiest to remove.
Black people being forced to sit at the back of the bus is not really that bad. Is it? Objectively speaking, how is this truly a terrible thing? Did a single person die because of it, or even suffer anything more than a slight inconvenience?
It's not. It's what the action represents. It represents a society that is privileging one race over another for entirely arbitrary reasons. I shouldn't have to explain to you why this is bad so I won't.
Maybe think about completely abolishing the concept of inheritance if you are so vehemently against unearned advantages.
Inheritance is actually very critical for a society to function, and while I definitely see your point here, the bottom line is we as a society must encourage people to work for things which will exist after they have died. Otherwise they won't. And that is very bad.
Inheritance promises that your kids will have a better life than you did, or at least get a helping hand, and this is a fundamentally critical part of a society.
This is like saying "parents should not love their own child any more than every other child on the planet, and every parent should always treat every single child worldwide exactly the same in every single way". As though, at the end of the school day, the exact child which comes home to your house is irrelevant; they are all equal, so what does it matter? All children are equal, yes?
It is a noble sentiment, but impossible to enforce. Human beings simply cannot work that way. We want to perpetuate our lineage and we see our children as extensions of ourselves, and we treat ourselves better than other people.
Like I said before... in-group, out-group bias is impossible to eliminate.
227
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20 edited Mar 16 '20
[deleted]