Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Equal Politics

bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 6:05:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
When Trudeau was elected as Prime Minister of Canada, he staffed his Cabinet with 15 men and 15 women. His response for why he had an equal amount of each gender was "It's 2015".

I personally disagree with this, and I find it to be painfully narcissistic to choose individuals based on gender, race, or disability. In today's age, qualifications seem to matter less than physical traits, and that frankly is terrible.

No one should pick an employee, a politician, a leader, or a student, based upon what they have under their underwear, or what color their skin is. I do not want mediocre women in office, if someone more qualified who also happens to be a male could do the job. I don't want mediocre minorities in Universities, when someone with a higher chance of success and more intellectual capacity could be accepted. Race and gender should never be taken into account when filing for some level of employment or education.

As a scenario - Let's state that there are 100 job openings in a Computer Science field, and 200 people applied, with 100 being men and the rest being women. If it happens to be that the worst of that 100 men is better than the best of the 100 women, then all the men should be accepted. It doesn't matter if those women are "under-represented", because they do it to themselves. If they were to be more competitive, and not weak damsels in distress with no qualifications whatsoever, then they could get the job. Instead, the males, who happen to be more qualified and competent, are employed.

However, in today's society, out of those 100 jobs, half would be men and half would be women, even if the 50 men that got denied are better than all the 50 women that got accepted. Terrible society we live in.

I want to hear your thoughts on this. Please comment.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 6:17:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 6:05:12 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
When Trudeau was elected as Prime Minister of Canada, he staffed his Cabinet with 15 men and 15 women. His response for why he had an equal amount of each gender was "It's 2015".

I personally disagree with this, and I find it to be painfully narcissistic to choose individuals based on gender, race, or disability. In today's age, qualifications seem to matter less than physical traits, and that frankly is terrible.

No one should pick an employee, a politician, a leader, or a student, based upon what they have under their underwear, or what color their skin is. I do not want mediocre women in office, if someone more qualified who also happens to be a male could do the job. I don't want mediocre minorities in Universities, when someone with a higher chance of success and more intellectual capacity could be accepted. Race and gender should never be taken into account when filing for some level of employment or education.

As a scenario - Let's state that there are 100 job openings in a Computer Science field, and 200 people applied, with 100 being men and the rest being women. If it happens to be that the worst of that 100 men is better than the best of the 100 women, then all the men should be accepted. It doesn't matter if those women are "under-represented", because they do it to themselves. If they were to be more competitive, and not weak damsels in distress with no qualifications whatsoever, then they could get the job. Instead, the males, who happen to be more qualified and competent, are employed.

However, in today's society, out of those 100 jobs, half would be men and half would be women, even if the 50 men that got denied are better than all the 50 women that got accepted. Terrible society we live in.

I want to hear your thoughts on this. Please comment.

Appointments don't need actual qualifications, only popular support.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 6:22:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 6:17:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/25/2015 6:05:12 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
When Trudeau was elected as Prime Minister of Canada, he staffed his Cabinet with 15 men and 15 women. His response for why he had an equal amount of each gender was "It's 2015".

I personally disagree with this, and I find it to be painfully narcissistic to choose individuals based on gender, race, or disability. In today's age, qualifications seem to matter less than physical traits, and that frankly is terrible.

No one should pick an employee, a politician, a leader, or a student, based upon what they have under their underwear, or what color their skin is. I do not want mediocre women in office, if someone more qualified who also happens to be a male could do the job. I don't want mediocre minorities in Universities, when someone with a higher chance of success and more intellectual capacity could be accepted. Race and gender should never be taken into account when filing for some level of employment or education.

As a scenario - Let's state that there are 100 job openings in a Computer Science field, and 200 people applied, with 100 being men and the rest being women. If it happens to be that the worst of that 100 men is better than the best of the 100 women, then all the men should be accepted. It doesn't matter if those women are "under-represented", because they do it to themselves. If they were to be more competitive, and not weak damsels in distress with no qualifications whatsoever, then they could get the job. Instead, the males, who happen to be more qualified and competent, are employed.

However, in today's society, out of those 100 jobs, half would be men and half would be women, even if the 50 men that got denied are better than all the 50 women that got accepted. Terrible society we live in.

I want to hear your thoughts on this. Please comment.

Appointments don't need actual qualifications, only popular support.

Appointments deliver support to the appointee as well. So in Trudeau's case, all of the social justice warriors will be ecstatic because he staffed his cabinet with 15 men and 15 women.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 8:06:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.

And in a rational world, all merits at birth would be ignored, and the true intellectual capacity of one individual would me evaluated. The whole idea of repairing the wrongs of racism is stupid. You cannot detriment and guilt one man to help another, unless that man had a direct role in another's subjugation.

If even one black man, who was born under the worst circumstances, happens to become successful, then that means everyone above him or at the same level can do that. If something is achievable, there no longer is any excuse.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 8:27:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 8:06:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.

And in a rational world, all merits at birth would be ignored, and the true intellectual capacity of one individual would me evaluated. The whole idea of repairing the wrongs of racism is stupid. You cannot detriment and guilt one man to help another, unless that man had a direct role in another's subjugation.

If even one black man, who was born under the worst circumstances, happens to become successful, then that means everyone above him or at the same level can do that. If something is achievable, there no longer is any excuse.

But appointments are a perfect world, where every one is arbitrarily equal.
How could you possibly argue any other standard?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 8:47:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 8:06:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.

And in a rational world, all merits at birth would be ignored, and the true intellectual capacity of one individual would me evaluated. The whole idea of repairing the wrongs of racism is stupid. You cannot detriment and guilt one man to help another, unless that man had a direct role in another's subjugation.

It's not even just about racism (though any human with a basic sense of empathy and decency will feel for the less fortunate). It's about the massive inequalities that still exist today.

If even one black man, who was born under the worst circumstances, happens to become successful, then that means everyone above him or at the same level can do that. If something is achievable, there no longer is any excuse.

No, it doesn't. It means he was lucky. Success is never purely a result of an individual's hard work. Chance/opportunity play a large role as well. What works for one person may not work for another.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 8:53:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 8:47:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

No, it doesn't. It means he was lucky. Success is never purely a result of an individual's hard work. Chance/opportunity play a large role as well. What works for one person may not work for another.

That describes appointments, not a competitive world.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 8:56:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 8:53:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:47:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

No, it doesn't. It means he was lucky. Success is never purely a result of an individual's hard work. Chance/opportunity play a large role as well. What works for one person may not work for another.

That describes appointments, not a competitive world.

Nice catch. I appoint you to be my chief advisor.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 8:59:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.

So what? How does that justify giving fcking *cabinet positions* position that are extremely important to the well being of society to someone who is not the very best?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 9:16:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 8:59:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.

So what? How does that justify giving fcking *cabinet positions* position that are extremely important to the well being of society to someone who is not the very best?

These people that are given positions shouldn't be emotional individuals, who just got picked because of the color of their skin or the anatomy of their body.

They should be picked purely based on skill, experience, and merit. This is a competitive world, not every will have equal opportunity but everyone will have the equal right to succeed, and taking that away by giving leverage based on race is purely arbitrary.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 9:16:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 8:59:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.

So what? How does that justify giving fcking *cabinet positions* position that are extremely important to the well being of society to someone who is not the very best?

+1
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 9:57:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 8:56:07 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:53:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:47:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

No, it doesn't. It means he was lucky. Success is never purely a result of an individual's hard work. Chance/opportunity play a large role as well. What works for one person may not work for another.

That describes appointments, not a competitive world.

Nice catch. I appoint you to be my chief advisor.

Let me check my privilege and get back to you on that.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 11:08:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
In terms of political morality, nobody deserves their greater natural capacity or their better starting place in society. Neither the white student with high test scores nor the black student from a disadvantaged background morally deserves admission to a university. Taking into account race or gender is no different from giving preference to scientists over historians, or giving preference to veterans over non-veterans. At the end of the day, you can dispute the wisdom of particular institutional preferences that favor competitors. But you don't have a right to be judged absent consideration of circumstances, including race or gender, that an institution has determined is relevant to pursuing its institutional goals.

You seem to be disputing the wisdom of ever taking into account race of gender. But the reality is that race and gender matter. They matter because people of different races and genders have different experiences, experiences that are tied uniquely to their particular race or gender. If I start a college with an institutional goal that includes transracial learning or inculcating a sense of multiracial solidarity, race is a relevant feature to assessing the comparative value of a candidate's likely contribution to a given student body. Or if the government decides that its mission includes representing all Americans, not just white men, and if it decides to use its cabinet to send a message that it represents all Americans, as Bill Clinton did, then the government has every right to consider race/gender as relevant features in assessing the comparative value of different candidates to their institutional mission (and make no mistake, the goal of legitimizing a multiracial democracy is absolutely a permissible goal of government).

At most, individuals have a right to be judged according to the publicized criteria that advance the goals of a given institution. Those goals themselves, however, are determined by the institution itself. And individuals don't have a right to set these goals independently and thus determine for themselves what should count as "merit" for purposes of selecting the persons most likely to further an institution's goals. Selection for competitive positions is justified only insofar as it contributes to the social purpose that an institution serves. It is not a reward for your merit, independently defined.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 11:18:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 8:56:07 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:53:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:47:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

No, it doesn't. It means he was lucky. Success is never purely a result of an individual's hard work. Chance/opportunity play a large role as well. What works for one person may not work for another.

That describes appointments, not a competitive world.

Nice catch. I appoint you to be my chief advisor.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 11:34:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 8:47:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:06:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.

And in a rational world, all merits at birth would be ignored, and the true intellectual capacity of one individual would me evaluated. The whole idea of repairing the wrongs of racism is stupid. You cannot detriment and guilt one man to help another, unless that man had a direct role in another's subjugation.

It's not even just about racism (though any human with a basic sense of empathy and decency will feel for the less fortunate). It's about the massive inequalities that still exist today.

If that were true, then people would be seeking for affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic class first, not race, gender, and sexual identity, because socioeconomic class is the single most important predictor of upwards mobility in our society. Instead, it is ignored while people focus on race, sex, and sexual identitiy, and the result is that those people who occupy higher socioeconomic class in all of those groups are grossly over-represented, while the disenfranchised lower classes in all of those groups, especially historically oppressed ones, are shut out of the sun. This system has divided the lower classes against themselves and elevated the already privileged further into the stratosphere, while the comfortably bourgeois can pat themselves on the shoulder over having 'raised awareness' and 'elevated the dialogue.' The fact that the son of a railroad executive worth $200 million can call himself oppressed and not be questioned by so-called progressives, while a destitute straight white male who is caught in a cycle of poverty is ridiculed if he does so, is nothing short of grotesque. Either actually put privilege theory into practice, or drop it entirely.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 11:58:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 11:34:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:47:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:06:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.

And in a rational world, all merits at birth would be ignored, and the true intellectual capacity of one individual would me evaluated. The whole idea of repairing the wrongs of racism is stupid. You cannot detriment and guilt one man to help another, unless that man had a direct role in another's subjugation.

It's not even just about racism (though any human with a basic sense of empathy and decency will feel for the less fortunate). It's about the massive inequalities that still exist today.

If that were true, then people would be seeking for affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic class first, not race, gender, and sexual identity, because socioeconomic class is the single most important predictor of upwards mobility in our society. Instead, it is ignored while people focus on race, sex, and sexual identitiy, and the result is that those people who occupy higher socioeconomic class in all of those groups are grossly over-represented, while the disenfranchised lower classes in all of those groups, especially historically oppressed ones, are shut out of the sun. This system has divided the lower classes against themselves and elevated the already privileged further into the stratosphere, while the comfortably bourgeois can pat themselves on the shoulder over having 'raised awareness' and 'elevated the dialogue.' The fact that the son of a railroad executive worth $200 million can call himself oppressed and not be questioned by so-called progressives, while a destitute straight white male who is caught in a cycle of poverty is ridiculed if he does so, is nothing short of grotesque. Either actually put privilege theory into practice, or drop it entirely.

- They get into the senate, advocate for gender equality, & then bring their wives right next to them.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 12:03:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 11:34:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:47:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:06:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.

And in a rational world, all merits at birth would be ignored, and the true intellectual capacity of one individual would me evaluated. The whole idea of repairing the wrongs of racism is stupid. You cannot detriment and guilt one man to help another, unless that man had a direct role in another's subjugation.

It's not even just about racism (though any human with a basic sense of empathy and decency will feel for the less fortunate). It's about the massive inequalities that still exist today.

If that were true, then people would be seeking for affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic class first, not race, gender, and sexual identity, because socioeconomic class is the single most important predictor of upwards mobility in our society. Instead, it is ignored while people focus on race, sex, and sexual identitiy, and the result is that those people who occupy higher socioeconomic class in all of those groups are grossly over-represented, while the disenfranchised lower classes in all of those groups, especially historically oppressed ones, are shut out of the sun. This system has divided the lower classes against themselves and elevated the already privileged further into the stratosphere, while the comfortably bourgeois can pat themselves on the shoulder over having 'raised awareness' and 'elevated the dialogue.' The fact that the son of a railroad executive worth $200 million can call himself oppressed and not be questioned by so-called progressives, while a destitute straight white male who is caught in a cycle of poverty is ridiculed if he does so, is nothing short of grotesque. Either actually put privilege theory into practice, or drop it entirely.

AA should be based on socioeconomic status. Your point?
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 1:08:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 11:34:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If that were true, then people would be seeking for affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic class first, not race, gender, and sexual identity, because socioeconomic class is the single most important predictor of upwards mobility in our society. Instead, it is ignored while people focus on race, sex, and sexual identitiy, and the result is that those people who occupy higher socioeconomic class in all of those groups are grossly over-represented, while the disenfranchised lower classes in all of those groups, especially historically oppressed ones, are shut out of the sun. This system has divided the lower classes against themselves and elevated the already privileged further into the stratosphere, while the comfortably bourgeois can pat themselves on the shoulder over having 'raised awareness' and 'elevated the dialogue.' The fact that the son of a railroad executive worth $200 million can call himself oppressed and not be questioned by so-called progressives, while a destitute straight white male who is caught in a cycle of poverty is ridiculed if he does so, is nothing short of grotesque. Either actually put privilege theory into practice, or drop it entirely.

These are somewhat valid points. You're right that AA rarely helps the poorest among us, specifically those who have lost a grip on employment altogether. But AA isn't just a vehicle for elites. Tens of thousands of minority firefighters, police officers, corrections personnel, lower-level office workers owe their positions to AA. And the appropriate response to its drawbacks is minimization. We can avoid a lot of these problems by experimenting with different types of AA programs, working on improving them rather than getting rid of them. I see no problem supplement AA with efforts that extend it to poorer communities and to the disadvantaged generally regardless of race. There's no reason to exclude class from the equation.

That said, there are several reasons to reject a "class but not race" AA position. Specifically, solely class-based AA will likely fail to adequately address racial injustices that aren't related to class. There are observable differences in the circumstances of whites and blacks of the same income level, largely the result of things like housing issues, neighborhood issues, valuable social networks, and so on. Only race-based AA can address those issues. The ideal is to have programs that take into account both race and class, not one or the other.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 1:08:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 11:34:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Either actually put privilege theory into practice, or drop it entirely.

Also, as you know, I think privilege theory is fvcking stupid. But that's a different conversation entirely.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 1:54:29 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 12:03:05 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/25/2015 11:34:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:47:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/25/2015 8:06:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/25/2015 7:45:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
In a perfect world, only the most qualified would be accepted. The fault for not possessing the skills for the work you want would rest on the individual. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where not everyone has equal opportunities to develop those necessary skills. Many people - prominently but not exclusively white, middle/upper class men - possess enormous advantages over others. These are not advantages they've received through any merit of their own but rather the circumstance of their birth, their upbringing, and their treatment by society at large.

And in a rational world, all merits at birth would be ignored, and the true intellectual capacity of one individual would me evaluated. The whole idea of repairing the wrongs of racism is stupid. You cannot detriment and guilt one man to help another, unless that man had a direct role in another's subjugation.

It's not even just about racism (though any human with a basic sense of empathy and decency will feel for the less fortunate). It's about the massive inequalities that still exist today.

If that were true, then people would be seeking for affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic class first, not race, gender, and sexual identity, because socioeconomic class is the single most important predictor of upwards mobility in our society. Instead, it is ignored while people focus on race, sex, and sexual identitiy, and the result is that those people who occupy higher socioeconomic class in all of those groups are grossly over-represented, while the disenfranchised lower classes in all of those groups, especially historically oppressed ones, are shut out of the sun. This system has divided the lower classes against themselves and elevated the already privileged further into the stratosphere, while the comfortably bourgeois can pat themselves on the shoulder over having 'raised awareness' and 'elevated the dialogue.' The fact that the son of a railroad executive worth $200 million can call himself oppressed and not be questioned by so-called progressives, while a destitute straight white male who is caught in a cycle of poverty is ridiculed if he does so, is nothing short of grotesque. Either actually put privilege theory into practice, or drop it entirely.

AA should be based on socioeconomic status. Your point?

It isn't, and nobody on the Left raises a din about that fact, while vociferously defending the institution as is. In fact, most on the left actively support the existing paradigm through the judicious use class-blind privilege theory.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 2:05:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 1:08:15 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 12/25/2015 11:34:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If that were true, then people would be seeking for affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic class first, not race, gender, and sexual identity, because socioeconomic class is the single most important predictor of upwards mobility in our society. Instead, it is ignored while people focus on race, sex, and sexual identitiy, and the result is that those people who occupy higher socioeconomic class in all of those groups are grossly over-represented, while the disenfranchised lower classes in all of those groups, especially historically oppressed ones, are shut out of the sun. This system has divided the lower classes against themselves and elevated the already privileged further into the stratosphere, while the comfortably bourgeois can pat themselves on the shoulder over having 'raised awareness' and 'elevated the dialogue.' The fact that the son of a railroad executive worth $200 million can call himself oppressed and not be questioned by so-called progressives, while a destitute straight white male who is caught in a cycle of poverty is ridiculed if he does so, is nothing short of grotesque. Either actually put privilege theory into practice, or drop it entirely.

These are somewhat valid points. You're right that AA rarely helps the poorest among us, specifically those who have lost a grip on employment altogether. But AA isn't just a vehicle for elites. Tens of thousands of minority firefighters, police officers, corrections personnel, lower-level office workers owe their positions to AA. And the appropriate response to its drawbacks is minimization. We can avoid a lot of these problems by experimenting with different types of AA programs, working on improving them rather than getting rid of them. I see no problem supplement AA with efforts that extend it to poorer communities and to the disadvantaged generally regardless of race. There's no reason to exclude class from the equation.

That said, there are several reasons to reject a "class but not race" AA position. Specifically, solely class-based AA will likely fail to adequately address racial injustices that aren't related to class. There are observable differences in the circumstances of whites and blacks of the same income level, largely the result of things like housing issues, neighborhood issues, valuable social networks, and so on. Only race-based AA can address those issues. The ideal is to have programs that take into account both race and class, not one or the other.

I agree with most of this; my problem with AA is not that it exists, but that it ignores class and acts as a contentious wedge among the lower class, which just enables exploitation at the voting booth (it allows the influence of destitute blacks and whites to be split among two parties which don't give a damn about either of their welfare). AA with class included would actually level the playing field quite heavily, which is why I don't think that I will ever see it enacted.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 2:10:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 1:08:51 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 12/25/2015 11:34:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Either actually put privilege theory into practice, or drop it entirely.

Also, as you know, I think privilege theory is fvcking stupid. But that's a different conversation entirely.

I don't like it, but consistent privilege theory at least brings the systematically oppressed together. Class-blind privilege theory, as it is practiced today, is downright pernicious; it takes those who ought to be uniting and turns them against one another stronger than just about anything else. Look at BLM to see the perfect example; they never gained real traction because the privilege theory-fueled outrage directed at whites in general stopped destitute white people, who have no love whatsoever for police abuses, from joining forces with those in the black community who had suffered injustice.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 2:20:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 2:10:54 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/26/2015 1:08:51 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 12/25/2015 11:34:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Either actually put privilege theory into practice, or drop it entirely.

Also, as you know, I think privilege theory is fvcking stupid. But that's a different conversation entirely.

I don't like it, but consistent privilege theory at least brings the systematically oppressed together. Class-blind privilege theory, as it is practiced today, is downright pernicious; it takes those who ought to be uniting and turns them against one another stronger than just about anything else. Look at BLM to see the perfect example; they never gained real traction because the privilege theory-fueled outrage directed at whites in general stopped destitute white people, who have no love whatsoever for police abuses, from joining forces with those in the black community who had suffered injustice.

Whoa...
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 2:34:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 6:05:12 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
When Trudeau was elected as Prime Minister of Canada, he staffed his Cabinet with 15 men and 15 women. His response for why he had an equal amount of each gender was "It's 2015".

I personally disagree with this, and I find it to be painfully narcissistic to choose individuals based on gender, race, or disability. In today's age, qualifications seem to matter less than physical traits, and that frankly is terrible.

No one should pick an employee, a politician, a leader, or a student, based upon what they have under their underwear, or what color their skin is. I do not want mediocre women in office, if someone more qualified who also happens to be a male could do the job. I don't want mediocre minorities in Universities, when someone with a higher chance of success and more intellectual capacity could be accepted. Race and gender should never be taken into account when filing for some level of employment or education.

As a scenario - Let's state that there are 100 job openings in a Computer Science field, and 200 people applied, with 100 being men and the rest being women. If it happens to be that the worst of that 100 men is better than the best of the 100 women, then all the men should be accepted. It doesn't matter if those women are "under-represented", because they do it to themselves. If they were to be more competitive, and not weak damsels in distress with no qualifications whatsoever, then they could get the job. Instead, the males, who happen to be more qualified and competent, are employed.

However, in today's society, out of those 100 jobs, half would be men and half would be women, even if the 50 men that got denied are better than all the 50 women that got accepted. Terrible society we live in.

I want to hear your thoughts on this. Please comment.

You are right. I don't mind that he has diversity in his cabinet, but his justification for it is rather stupid. Diversity is not a bad thing (most of the time) but merit comes first.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k