6 ms·
That's true in the sense that if A has 50 resource points and B has 40, A has an advantage that is lost when, in rectifying inequality, we redistribute the reso
by jm_l 11y ago
That's true in the sense that if A has 50 resource points and B has 40, A has an advantage that is lost when, in rectifying inequality, we redistribute the resource points to 45-45. What is being suggested here, however, is that perhaps it is possible to find 10 extra resource points in the budget and give them to B so that we finish with 50-50.
- zorpner 11y agois that perhaps it is possible to find 10 extra resource points in the budget and give them to B so that we finish with 50-50. The point is that A will very often perceive this as a negative outcome.
- kelukelugames 11y agoLoss of privilege is often perceived as oppression. On the other hand, the creator of Dilbert just shrugged it off and started a new job each time his employer said they couldn't promote another white male.
- thatcat 11y agoequality requires not a loss of privilege, but an equal distribution of privilege. This means hiring/firing should give an equal consideration to both genders. A 50/50 m/f ratio is not a statistical "proof of equality".
- Chris2048 11y agoYeah, Rosa Parks shoulda shrugged it off and waited for another bus! Seriously though, 'often' is just a weasel word if you don't specify the context. This might qualify as a mechanism for dismissing valid complaints...
- kelukelugames 11y agoAre you comparing discrimination against black people in the 50s to what may have happened to a man? A lot of civil rights activists wanted affirmative action too. Often is most of the time. People perceive relative changes as terrible. That's why they arrested Parks instead of agreeing with her.
- Chris2048 11y agoWhy? It's an analogy, the relevant parts match; There's no rule that says discrimination has to reach a certain level before it should be resisted . Stop derailing my point with irrelevancies. "A lot of civil rights activist" - which ones and why? Maybe their reasoning is sensitive to their particular interest. I understand what 'often' means, I don't agree with it as a generality. Even 'People perceive relative changes as terrible' isn't always true.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- npizzolato 11y agoContinuing the analogy, if it was originally 60-40 men-women, and the allegation is correct that only women are allowed to appeal their results, that's more like tipping the balance 40-60, which is a negative outcome for men. Allowing both genders to appeal their results would be a more balanced 50-50.
- zorpner 11y agoif it was originally 60-40 men-women, and the allegation is correct that only women are allowed to appeal their results, that's more like tipping the balance 40-60 Is your assertion that every other aspect of these women's employment is equal to or greater than the corresponding aspect for the men?
- hguant 11y agoYou don't fix inequality over there by adding "balancing" inequality over here.
- zorpner 11y agoName one single instance where systemic inequality was fixed at the root. I'll wait.
- trhway 11y agoSlavery, gay marriage.
- kelukelugames 11y agoIs this a joke? "Hey let's end slavery." "No, I rather secede." Civil war
- Chris2048 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_Kin...
- wwweston 11y ago> The point is that A will very often perceive this as a negative outcome. Has this been systematically tested in some way, or is it simply assumed? (I think I've seen this happen, so I'm not arguing it doesn't occur, but I am asking what the basis is for assuming it's a primary driver of systemic discrimination. The words "very often" seem like they cross a threshold to generality.)
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoThat may have been what was happening in the OP?