3 ms·

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

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.

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.