6 ms·

So you mean if you totally changed the context? Gee, for this completely different situation that really has little to do with this one, yes people would be off

So you mean if you totally changed the context? Gee, for this completely different situation that really has little to do with this one, yes people would be offended. But, you know, the context and implications are so completely different. What's your point?

imaginenore 10y ago
Reversing the genders is not totally changing the context. It just shows that it is discrimination based on gender.
- jacalata 10y ago
  It is changing the context. I don't know if you know this, but there are a lot of existing gender-based influences in the world already, they aren't inventing the concept.
- deciplex 10y ago
  Unfortunately fighting discrimination purely by working to eliminate instances of it and revert to a gender-neutral (or race-neutral, or sexual orientation-neutral, etc) method of operation does not work. You must counter discrimination by elevating the oppressed group i.e. giving them privileges the already-privileged group does not possess. This is the basis of affirmative action, for example. It works because we care first and foremost about the net privilege one group possesses over the other, not that they have one particular privilege that another group does not (though obviously the long-term goal is to eliminate that as well). And, in case you were not aware, there remains a significant "privilege gap" between the genders and it is in favor of men. Once that gap no longer exists, we can talk about rolling back these programs.
  - H0n3sty 10y ago
    What if the "privilege" you think you see is actually a difference in average ability or preferences between groups of people that are in fact different from each other? Affirmative action does not help the groups it is directed towards, it simply handicaps them further by preventing them from being properly matched to their level or ability. Clarence Thomas recently wrote about this in detail... Slaveholders argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life. A century later, segregationists similarly asserted that segregation was not only benign, but good for black students. Although cloaked in good intentions, the University’s racial tinkering harms the very people it claims to be helping If you'd like to learn about the unfortunate real outcomes of affirmative action then I strongly recommend researching Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell.
    - deciplex 10y ago
      Promoting university enrollment for disadvantaged students really, like fucking really, is not the same as enslaving them. Likewise segregation was bad for a host of reasons among which was social isolation and misappropriation of resources (i.e. whites-only schools were well-funded while blacks-only schools were left to languish), both of which affirmative action is designed to remedy (and objectively does remedy based on fifty years studying the effects of these policies). Clarence Thomas is a pretty shitty Justice tbh. Recommendation rejected.
      - H0n3sty 10y ago
        But isolating/segregating with women-only groups like this is good? I hope your dislike of Justice Thomas is just because you don't agree with his politics. I think your use of profanity is inappropriate regardless of your reasoning. Perhaps you would like economist Thomas Sowell better. Or perhaps you're unwilling to give honest consideration to other views.
        deciplex 10y ago
        Nice subtle accusation of racism, person-who-literally-thinks-that-some-races-are-inferior-to-others.
        H0n3sty 10y ago
        You have that backwards. If you don't believe that some races are inferior then there are no reasons for things like affirmative action.
        deciplex 10y ago
        I already laid out the case for affirmative action which has nothing to do with any inherent racial ability whatsoever. Your reply: > What if the "privilege" you think you see is actually a difference in average ability or preferences between groups of people that are in fact different from each other? ...is the textbook definition of racism (and sexism). Moreover it criticizes affirmative action precisely on the basis that there are inherent differences of ability among different groups, by race or gender, etc. Initially I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming for the sake of argument and also in the interest of fair discussion that you probably didn't mean what you said, exactly. It is clear now I overestimated you.

imaginenore 10y ago

Reversing the genders is not totally changing the context. It just shows that it is discrimination based on gender.

jacalata 10y ago
It is changing the context. I don't know if you know this, but there are a lot of existing gender-based influences in the world already, they aren't inventing the concept.
deciplex 10y ago
Unfortunately fighting discrimination purely by working to eliminate instances of it and revert to a gender-neutral (or race-neutral, or sexual orientation-neutral, etc) method of operation does not work. You must counter discrimination by elevating the oppressed group i.e. giving them privileges the already-privileged group does not possess. This is the basis of affirmative action, for example. It works because we care first and foremost about the net privilege one group possesses over the other, not that they have one particular privilege that another group does not (though obviously the long-term goal is to eliminate that as well). And, in case you were not aware, there remains a significant "privilege gap" between the genders and it is in favor of men. Once that gap no longer exists, we can talk about rolling back these programs.
- H0n3sty 10y ago
  What if the "privilege" you think you see is actually a difference in average ability or preferences between groups of people that are in fact different from each other? Affirmative action does not help the groups it is directed towards, it simply handicaps them further by preventing them from being properly matched to their level or ability. Clarence Thomas recently wrote about this in detail... Slaveholders argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life. A century later, segregationists similarly asserted that segregation was not only benign, but good for black students. Although cloaked in good intentions, the University’s racial tinkering harms the very people it claims to be helping If you'd like to learn about the unfortunate real outcomes of affirmative action then I strongly recommend researching Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell.
  - deciplex 10y ago
    Promoting university enrollment for disadvantaged students really, like fucking really, is not the same as enslaving them. Likewise segregation was bad for a host of reasons among which was social isolation and misappropriation of resources (i.e. whites-only schools were well-funded while blacks-only schools were left to languish), both of which affirmative action is designed to remedy (and objectively does remedy based on fifty years studying the effects of these policies). Clarence Thomas is a pretty shitty Justice tbh. Recommendation rejected.
    - H0n3sty 10y ago
      But isolating/segregating with women-only groups like this is good? I hope your dislike of Justice Thomas is just because you don't agree with his politics. I think your use of profanity is inappropriate regardless of your reasoning. Perhaps you would like economist Thomas Sowell better. Or perhaps you're unwilling to give honest consideration to other views.
      - deciplex 10y ago
        Nice subtle accusation of racism, person-who-literally-thinks-that-some-races-are-inferior-to-others.
        H0n3sty 10y ago
        You have that backwards. If you don't believe that some races are inferior then there are no reasons for things like affirmative action.
        deciplex 10y ago
        I already laid out the case for affirmative action which has nothing to do with any inherent racial ability whatsoever. Your reply: > What if the "privilege" you think you see is actually a difference in average ability or preferences between groups of people that are in fact different from each other? ...is the textbook definition of racism (and sexism). Moreover it criticizes affirmative action precisely on the basis that there are inherent differences of ability among different groups, by race or gender, etc. Initially I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming for the sake of argument and also in the interest of fair discussion that you probably didn't mean what you said, exactly. It is clear now I overestimated you.