4 ms·

Isn't that just using a cherry-picked definition of "liberal"? How do you define "liberal" if you say history has been a march towards these ideals? My underst

Isn't that just using a cherry-picked definition of "liberal"? How do you define "liberal" if you say history has been a march towards these ideals? My understanding of how Americans use the word "liberal" is that it's an alternative way of saying "left wing". In that case history has not been a march towards left wing views, surely the fall of the USSR, the rise of Reagan and Thatcher ... it's been the opposite. And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? It looks like you just picked a few things that are widely regarded as good, and labelled them liberal.

coldpie 10y ago
> And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? Your scope of the playing field is limited. Affirmative action is indeed unfair when you consider only the choice at hand. You have to back up and take in a larger scope. Minorities are frequently disadvantaged in many areas of their lives: they are born into poverty at a larger percentage than whites; they are policed with much less forgiveness; they are killed by police at a much higher rate, and must live with that fear at all times; their fathers are incarcerated at a much higher rate. The list goes on and on. Affirmative action is an attempt to give an advantage in important employment and education opportunities to make up for those disadvantages.
vtlynch 10y ago
>And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? Saying this reveals a dire mis-understanding of access and opportunity in society. The reason those initiatives are needed is because of the extreme amount of inequality that currently exists. Women would not need to be put into tech if they were already well there. Affirmative action would have no purpose if minority groups were properly represented. These are initiatives fighting the status quo, which has an extreme bias towards men and white people. It is exactly the opposite of giving "unequal chances."

coldpie 10y ago

> And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? Your scope of the playing field is limited. Affirmative action is indeed unfair when you consider only the choice at hand. You have to back up and take in a larger scope. Minorities are frequently disadvantaged in many areas of their lives: they are born into poverty at a larger percentage than whites; they are policed with much less forgiveness; they are killed by police at a much higher rate, and must live with that fear at all times; their fathers are incarcerated at a much higher rate. The list goes on and on. Affirmative action is an attempt to give an advantage in important employment and education opportunities to make up for those disadvantages.

vtlynch 10y ago

>And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? Saying this reveals a dire mis-understanding of access and opportunity in society. The reason those initiatives are needed is because of the extreme amount of inequality that currently exists. Women would not need to be put into tech if they were already well there. Affirmative action would have no purpose if minority groups were properly represented. These are initiatives fighting the status quo, which has an extreme bias towards men and white people. It is exactly the opposite of giving "unequal chances."