3 ms·

I think there is no argument that the ragged edge will bump around the ideal line - and that in a reasonable expectation of how society works. The question is

by toufka 9y ago

I think there is no argument that the ragged edge will bump around the ideal line - and that in a reasonable expectation of how society works. The question is more of policy and strategy in how to arrive there. And in that it is unclear that a "fast-and-overshoot" is any 'better' than "slow and steady" vs any other strategy. You have not shown that any one strategy is more wrong, nor more right. Nor is there any collective definition of where 'eventual' may lay, preventing the most accurate strategies that might require, 'going fast, then slowing down, then slightly overshooting, then correcting'. More specifically, exactly, this is a 'dilemma', and to frame it as a solved argument, essentially saying, 'get with the program' is unhelpful. And the author of the article is pointing out exactly that the "small price to pay" in some cases is being borne by exactly the group that one says they are trying to help. And in that, the "small price to pay" may actually not be so small as to overcome the inherent nature of the dilemma. The dilemma is very real. Can you not see the perspective that you are telling the article's author that she should "confront her own privilege" and pay the [moral] price of intentionally discriminating against someone that she otherwise would not, because it's somehow better for her in the long run, maybe? That is a very perverse action that you are forcing onto her, that she may not wish to take, even if you say it is in her best long-term interest. For how long should she discriminate, and how strongly, and on what basis? It might actually be in her moral interest to not engage in such a program at all. And that is precisely why this dilemma is both difficult and not so easily remedied with broad strategic declarations.

notacoward 9y ago
You're totally twisting and appropriating what I say. For example... > it is unclear that a "fast-and-overshoot" is any 'better' than "slow and steady" vs any other strategy Nowhere did I say it was unqualifiedly better. I was refuting your absolutist position that "never overshoot" should be a requirement. > essentially saying, 'get with the program' is unhelpful Never said that either. The point I was trying to make is that the OP's own "program" is not globally applicable or sufficient, therefore that she (and you) should consider other strategies as well. > pay the [moral] price of intentionally discriminating against someone Again, never said. Confronting one's own privilege does not inevitably lead to discriminating against others. All I'm suggesting is that we consider programs and policies that have some risk of creating outcomes that are inequitable in some way other than the inequity we already have. It should be obvious - and I think was to most people - that I'm not saying we should deliberately create inequity in any direction, or fail to address it when it occurs. I'm just saying that "never risk harming this group" is too limiting of the things we might try, and noxiously so when "this group" is the one already enjoying substantial unearned advantages.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- toufka 9y ago
  Discussion of how best to achieve equity is a 'dilemma', and to frame any answer to the dilemma as 'correct' is not helpful. Starting off a discussion by saying, "As painful as it is, we have to accentuate and perhaps even exaggerate both the problem and present remedies" is a conclusory statement regarding a philosophical dilemma that disregards the author's perspective (as well as many others here). Discussion quickly then becomes both toxic and treacherous even when you are communicating with those who share your ideals. Be aware of that price.
  - notacoward 9y ago
    > as well as many others here Appeal to popularity. > Discussion quickly then becomes both toxic and treacherous ...when people rely on misrepresentation and logical fallacies as much as you have. There's clearly little more to be said here, so I'll just reiterate my main points. There's a difference between future goals and present actions, but people often conflate the two. The OP's "we shouldn't have to do this (in the future), therefore we shouldn't do this (in the present)" falls into that trap. Your "we should never risk the slightest overcorrection" falls into a different trap, of precluding any but the most inadequate of present actions. As such, it merely reinforces the status quo. Maybe that was the goal. I wouldn't presume to read your mind as you presume to have read mine, but you haven't suggested anything positive here. "Pretend we're already equal" doesn't count.

by toufka 9y ago

notacoward 9y ago

You're totally twisting and appropriating what I say. For example... > it is unclear that a "fast-and-overshoot" is any 'better' than "slow and steady" vs any other strategy Nowhere did I say it was unqualifiedly better. I was refuting your absolutist position that "never overshoot" should be a requirement. > essentially saying, 'get with the program' is unhelpful Never said that either. The point I was trying to make is that the OP's own "program" is not globally applicable or sufficient, therefore that she (and you) should consider other strategies as well. > pay the [moral] price of intentionally discriminating against someone Again, never said. Confronting one's own privilege does not inevitably lead to discriminating against others. All I'm suggesting is that we consider programs and policies that have some risk of creating outcomes that are inequitable in some way other than the inequity we already have. It should be obvious - and I think was to most people - that I'm not saying we should deliberately create inequity in any direction, or fail to address it when it occurs. I'm just saying that "never risk harming this group" is too limiting of the things we might try, and noxiously so when "this group" is the one already enjoying substantial unearned advantages.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
toufka 9y ago
Discussion of how best to achieve equity is a 'dilemma', and to frame any answer to the dilemma as 'correct' is not helpful. Starting off a discussion by saying, "As painful as it is, we have to accentuate and perhaps even exaggerate both the problem and present remedies" is a conclusory statement regarding a philosophical dilemma that disregards the author's perspective (as well as many others here). Discussion quickly then becomes both toxic and treacherous even when you are communicating with those who share your ideals. Be aware of that price.
- notacoward 9y ago
  > as well as many others here Appeal to popularity. > Discussion quickly then becomes both toxic and treacherous ...when people rely on misrepresentation and logical fallacies as much as you have. There's clearly little more to be said here, so I'll just reiterate my main points. There's a difference between future goals and present actions, but people often conflate the two. The OP's "we shouldn't have to do this (in the future), therefore we shouldn't do this (in the present)" falls into that trap. Your "we should never risk the slightest overcorrection" falls into a different trap, of precluding any but the most inadequate of present actions. As such, it merely reinforces the status quo. Maybe that was the goal. I wouldn't presume to read your mind as you presume to have read mine, but you haven't suggested anything positive here. "Pretend we're already equal" doesn't count.