4 ms·

> Equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes are not opposed goals, and the left hasn't abandoned the former for the latter. They may not be opposed go

> Equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes are not opposed goals, and the left hasn't abandoned the former for the latter. They may not be opposed goals but if a method includes the exclusion of certain racial and sex groups then you can not call the method an equality of opportunity. You are simply trying to gift success to a preferential and privileged race or sex. That is the method the American liberal left has chosen. And it is racist and sexist methodology. > The left, OTOH, recognized that the absence of the latter causes the absence of the former (outcomes at t0 define opportunities at t1; one of the most important parts of outcomes are the opportunities that they create) and so in the absence of equality of outcomes, corrective measures are necessary to create equality of opportunity, and those measures are in many cases going to involve moving toward equality of outcomes, both in direct nature and indirect effect. Equality of opportunity will never, and can never guarantee an equality of outcome. In most cases including employment and other competitive activities there will always be losers. When two tennis players play a game there will be one winner and one loser. When there is a management spot open in a company there will only be one winner and multiple losers. When 1000 applicants apply for a single job opening there will be one winner that gets the job and 999 people who lose. What the Liberal Left has embraced by promoting equality of outcomes is the removal of equality of opportunity in its entirety for anyone they have preemptively decided should be the looser. There can be no competition in the first place and there is no opportunity. Winners are simply anointed by a committee of divinely anointed deciders. If 1000 people apply for a job and 999 of them are White and Asian men and one is Black woman and the anointed deciders decide that a Black woman should get the job, which is what race based quotas do, those 999 white and Asian men had no equality of opportunity period. If this is the sort of game that the Liberal left thinks they are going to play with hundreds of millions of people's lives, and they think they cap pick and choose who's hopes and dreams come true, and they can exclude hundred of thousand on a whim to meet an arbitraty and ever changing percentage of racialy balanced winners, good luck. The small window of accaptence of these sort of ideas are closing with the Baby Boomers. The vast majority of people under under 60 do not sees these type of policies as fair or good. And they have every right to reject them. These are massive iniquality that the left thinks they are entitled to try and engineer into a very fragile and tenuous democracy. In conclusion promoting the equality of outcomes is erasing the possibility of equality of opportunity. And in the specific case of hiring decisions using race as a criteria for deciding who wins the job it's simply an act of blatent discrimination by the specific employer and the management who made the decisions.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> They may not be opposed goals but if a method includes the exclusion of certain racial and sex groups then you can not call the method an equality of opportunity. Actual affirmative action programs do not include the exclusion of racial or gender groups, so your comment is a non-sequitur regardless of its validity in isolation. > Equality of opportunity will never, and can never guarantee an equality of outcome. Which is why its likely affirmative action will always be necessary, though the calibration will need to change over time, because while a cohort having equality of opportunity between subcohorts does not, as you accurately describe, produce equality of outcome, inequality of outcome within the cohort does guarantee inequality of opportunity in the successor cohort. However, we're nowhere near that sort of nearest-approximation-of-ideal situation where the inequality of opportunity we are concerned with leveling is merely the result of the result of the inevitable inequality of outcome in a prior cohort with equalized opportunity; we still see historically disadvantaged groups (by race/ethnicity, but also gender, gender identity, sexuality, and other axes) continuing to be disadvantaged not only by durable effects of past de jure and de facto discrimination, but also in many cases by overt and covert current discrimination. > The vast majority of people under under 60 do not sees these type of policies as fair or good Every poll I've ever seen breaking out support for affirmative action policies by age groups, and I've seen a lot over the from the early 1990s through the last couple of years, has consistently found support higher among younger Americans. (And also shown overwhelming majority support for Affirmative Action generally, though only minority support for the kind of strict mechanical preference measures which have generally been eliminated many decades ago everywhere except college admissions.)
- generic_user 9y ago
  > Which is why its likely affirmative action will always be necessary. Affirmative action programs like most progressive ideology and policy has simply not produced any tangible lasting results. In most respects the focus groups of these programs are in worse shape now then they were 30 years ago. The presumption that 'racism', 'sexism' or 'oppression' is responsible for the failure of certain groups is simply unfounded blame shifting by sloppy ideologues. And the notion that gifting them undeserved employment opportunities is going to fix there problems is also a misguided and harmful idea. The premise is simply wrong and will continue to fail at its stated goal but have the consequence of creating new groups of disadvantaged people who have been systemically discriminated against for having an undesirable skin color or genitalia according to the Liberal Lefts preferred fetishes. Either out of social opposition or economic necessity these programs will be ended. The most egregious of policies such as race based admission quotas that certain universities use is already under sustained lawsuits and there is every indication that they will be forced to stop there racist and misandrist discrimination against European and Asian men. > Every poll I've ever seen breaking out support for affirmative action policies by age groups, and I've seen a lot over the from the early 1990s through the last couple of years, has consistently found support higher among younger Americans. The Baby Boomers cling to these ideas out of stubborn habit but people under 60 when asked if they think certain racial groups should get preferential access to job opportunities strongly disagree. That's not to say certain groups think they themselves should get preferential access to jobs for xyz reasons. Disparate groups claiming they deserve affirmative action for a cornucopia of mostly undefinable grievances like 'oppression' and 'reparations' is not going to sustain these misguided programs in the current century. It's a shame that people cling to these misguided failed ideas. There is a lot of good work people could do trying to fix the broken communities that have problems. But I suppose that would be a lot of work and perhaps not as economically rewarding as keeping a failed and bloated bureaucratic failure on its feat at least until they can retire.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> They may not be opposed goals but if a method includes the exclusion of certain racial and sex groups then you can not call the method an equality of opportunity. Actual affirmative action programs do not include the exclusion of racial or gender groups, so your comment is a non-sequitur regardless of its validity in isolation. > Equality of opportunity will never, and can never guarantee an equality of outcome. Which is why its likely affirmative action will always be necessary, though the calibration will need to change over time, because while a cohort having equality of opportunity between subcohorts does not, as you accurately describe, produce equality of outcome, inequality of outcome within the cohort does guarantee inequality of opportunity in the successor cohort. However, we're nowhere near that sort of nearest-approximation-of-ideal situation where the inequality of opportunity we are concerned with leveling is merely the result of the result of the inevitable inequality of outcome in a prior cohort with equalized opportunity; we still see historically disadvantaged groups (by race/ethnicity, but also gender, gender identity, sexuality, and other axes) continuing to be disadvantaged not only by durable effects of past de jure and de facto discrimination, but also in many cases by overt and covert current discrimination. > The vast majority of people under under 60 do not sees these type of policies as fair or good Every poll I've ever seen breaking out support for affirmative action policies by age groups, and I've seen a lot over the from the early 1990s through the last couple of years, has consistently found support higher among younger Americans. (And also shown overwhelming majority support for Affirmative Action generally, though only minority support for the kind of strict mechanical preference measures which have generally been eliminated many decades ago everywhere except college admissions.)

generic_user 9y ago
> Which is why its likely affirmative action will always be necessary. Affirmative action programs like most progressive ideology and policy has simply not produced any tangible lasting results. In most respects the focus groups of these programs are in worse shape now then they were 30 years ago. The presumption that 'racism', 'sexism' or 'oppression' is responsible for the failure of certain groups is simply unfounded blame shifting by sloppy ideologues. And the notion that gifting them undeserved employment opportunities is going to fix there problems is also a misguided and harmful idea. The premise is simply wrong and will continue to fail at its stated goal but have the consequence of creating new groups of disadvantaged people who have been systemically discriminated against for having an undesirable skin color or genitalia according to the Liberal Lefts preferred fetishes. Either out of social opposition or economic necessity these programs will be ended. The most egregious of policies such as race based admission quotas that certain universities use is already under sustained lawsuits and there is every indication that they will be forced to stop there racist and misandrist discrimination against European and Asian men. > Every poll I've ever seen breaking out support for affirmative action policies by age groups, and I've seen a lot over the from the early 1990s through the last couple of years, has consistently found support higher among younger Americans. The Baby Boomers cling to these ideas out of stubborn habit but people under 60 when asked if they think certain racial groups should get preferential access to job opportunities strongly disagree. That's not to say certain groups think they themselves should get preferential access to jobs for xyz reasons. Disparate groups claiming they deserve affirmative action for a cornucopia of mostly undefinable grievances like 'oppression' and 'reparations' is not going to sustain these misguided programs in the current century. It's a shame that people cling to these misguided failed ideas. There is a lot of good work people could do trying to fix the broken communities that have problems. But I suppose that would be a lot of work and perhaps not as economically rewarding as keeping a failed and bloated bureaucratic failure on its feat at least until they can retire.