5 ms·

Do you really think that steering (a pretty neutral action) is a right analogy to an action that is inherently hurting people? The problem here is that you try

by mbel 9y ago

Do you really think that steering (a pretty neutral action) is a right analogy to an action that is inherently hurting people? The problem here is that you try to compensate injustice done to some people by doing injustice to others.

zimpenfish 9y ago
It's a simplistic analogy, sure. > to an action that is inherently hurting people? Which action is that? The original biases which has been hurting people for hundreds of years or the current attempt at bias correction which has been around for, let's say, 5 years? > The problem here is that you try to compensate injustice done to some people by doing injustice to others. No. What's happening here is that people are trying to balance the scales by helping up the lower pan and the people on the higher pan are bleating about this "injustice".
- mbel 9y ago
  Putting aside the fact that I believe that any race-based discrimination is inherently wrong. I don't believe those actions can balance scales. They only increase the scale of conflict between "diverse" and "non-diverse people". Right now both of the camps will be able to say that they are discriminated by the other one. To introduce yet another simplistic analogy: it's putting out fire with gasoline.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > Right now both of the camps will be able to say that they are discriminated by the other one. But only one of those camps is actually correct. > it's putting out fire with gasoline Not even slightly.
    - mbel 9y ago
      > But only one of those camps is actually correct. Yes, currently. I spoke about long term effects of using discrimination to fight discrimination.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        >> But only one of those camps is actually correct. > Yes, currently. To clarify, then, is the "Right now" part of this wrong? "Right now both of the camps will be able to say that they are discriminated by the other one."
        mbel 9y ago
        Most likely. I used "right now" as "In consequence of that", probably a carry over from my native language.

by mbel 9y ago

zimpenfish 9y ago

It's a simplistic analogy, sure. > to an action that is inherently hurting people? Which action is that? The original biases which has been hurting people for hundreds of years or the current attempt at bias correction which has been around for, let's say, 5 years? > The problem here is that you try to compensate injustice done to some people by doing injustice to others. No. What's happening here is that people are trying to balance the scales by helping up the lower pan and the people on the higher pan are bleating about this "injustice".

mbel 9y ago
Putting aside the fact that I believe that any race-based discrimination is inherently wrong. I don't believe those actions can balance scales. They only increase the scale of conflict between "diverse" and "non-diverse people". Right now both of the camps will be able to say that they are discriminated by the other one. To introduce yet another simplistic analogy: it's putting out fire with gasoline.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > Right now both of the camps will be able to say that they are discriminated by the other one. But only one of those camps is actually correct. > it's putting out fire with gasoline Not even slightly.
  - mbel 9y ago
    > But only one of those camps is actually correct. Yes, currently. I spoke about long term effects of using discrimination to fight discrimination.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      >> But only one of those camps is actually correct. > Yes, currently. To clarify, then, is the "Right now" part of this wrong? "Right now both of the camps will be able to say that they are discriminated by the other one."
      - mbel 9y ago
        Most likely. I used "right now" as "In consequence of that", probably a carry over from my native language.