4 ms·

>So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal. It is. You're either racist or you're not. You can sugercoat it with c

by emsy 9y ago

>So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal. It is. You're either racist or you're not. You can sugercoat it with comfy terms such as "diversity" or "inclusion" but as soon as you positively discriminate for one race, you negatively discriminate against another and that is racism, even if it "only" affects white males. Or stated differently, would you be for quotas if it meant a POC doesn't get the job, because there are already too many? If not, why?

scientician 9y ago
Hear hear! If you're not against racism, and you support racist policies, you're a racist!
- emsy 9y ago
  There is no need for sarcasm. I'm not a native English speaker, but I'm sure I didn't call anyone "a racist". I intended to use racist as an adjective. Such a misunderstanding could've easily been avoided had you asked me for clarification or picked a more charitable interpretation of my comment.
  - scientician 9y ago
    ..... Why would you think I was being sarcastic? I agree with you ...
dwaltrip 9y ago
> You're either racist or you're not. If only it were this simple... In reality, life doesn't seem to be constrained to our underdeveloped conceptual boxes, no matter how much we get attached to them.
- emsy 9y ago
  I think I understand what you're getting at, but I didn't intend to draw a hard line of what racism is, but merely wanted to point out the slippery slope you're of using racist policies to fix discriminatory issues.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    Is it actually racist to make reparations for former wrongs that have had a direct, severely negative impact on the aggregate experiences of a group living today? Those reparations have to come from somewhere, so in most cases anyone could complain that it's "taking away" from whatever. I don't think it is so easy to answer that question off the cuff, especially without further details. Also, I think it is very important to remember: these situations are usually _not_ zero sum. Helping one group does not mean another group has been harmed in equal magnitude.
    - emsy 9y ago
      >Is it actually racist to make reparations for former wrongs They are not reparations. A reparation is a material compensation for a past harm. You don't take away from a group, you take away from individuals. I can't help but think of soviet farmers that were dispossessed in the name of communism. >Helping one group does not mean another group has been harmed in equal magnitude Again, you don't harm groups, you harm individuals. It's something different if you take taxes, where white people happen to pay more because they earn more, and use them to improve education in areas mainly inhabited by people of color. That would actually be not zero sum. But a position at a company is a limited resource. And if one person get's the position the other person can't get it. This is very much a zero sum situation. I do welcome actions that help marginalized groups. But the way these issues are currently handled is short-sighted, ill-conceived and unethical.
      - dwaltrip 9y ago
        > A reparation is a material compensation for a past harm. That's not correct. First definition on google: "the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged." Reparations are not limited to material compensation. > You don't take away from a group, you take away from individuals. A group is a collection of individuals. Some things happen on the individual level. Other aspects or dynamics are only present on the group level and must be analyzed there. > But a position at a company is a limited resource. And if one person get's the position the other person can't get it. This is very much a zero sum situation. This is correct on the specific dimension you are looking at. But you are ignoring second order effects. That job may have a significant positive effect for the marginalized individual, and then in turn have a positive ripple effect on the marginalized community that he or she comes from. This could certainly result in a positive sum situation for society as a whole. EDIT: To be clear, I'm totally with you that this could be taken too far, and we must proceed with caution. I also agree we should try to focus on cases where the positive sum benefits are most clear. But it is a difficult problem, and I think many instances of positive sum benefits are not fully appreciated.

by emsy 9y ago

scientician 9y ago

Hear hear! If you're not against racism, and you support racist policies, you're a racist!

emsy 9y ago
There is no need for sarcasm. I'm not a native English speaker, but I'm sure I didn't call anyone "a racist". I intended to use racist as an adjective. Such a misunderstanding could've easily been avoided had you asked me for clarification or picked a more charitable interpretation of my comment.
- scientician 9y ago
  ..... Why would you think I was being sarcastic? I agree with you ...

dwaltrip 9y ago

> You're either racist or you're not. If only it were this simple... In reality, life doesn't seem to be constrained to our underdeveloped conceptual boxes, no matter how much we get attached to them.

emsy 9y ago
I think I understand what you're getting at, but I didn't intend to draw a hard line of what racism is, but merely wanted to point out the slippery slope you're of using racist policies to fix discriminatory issues.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  Is it actually racist to make reparations for former wrongs that have had a direct, severely negative impact on the aggregate experiences of a group living today? Those reparations have to come from somewhere, so in most cases anyone could complain that it's "taking away" from whatever. I don't think it is so easy to answer that question off the cuff, especially without further details. Also, I think it is very important to remember: these situations are usually _not_ zero sum. Helping one group does not mean another group has been harmed in equal magnitude.
  - emsy 9y ago
    >Is it actually racist to make reparations for former wrongs They are not reparations. A reparation is a material compensation for a past harm. You don't take away from a group, you take away from individuals. I can't help but think of soviet farmers that were dispossessed in the name of communism. >Helping one group does not mean another group has been harmed in equal magnitude Again, you don't harm groups, you harm individuals. It's something different if you take taxes, where white people happen to pay more because they earn more, and use them to improve education in areas mainly inhabited by people of color. That would actually be not zero sum. But a position at a company is a limited resource. And if one person get's the position the other person can't get it. This is very much a zero sum situation. I do welcome actions that help marginalized groups. But the way these issues are currently handled is short-sighted, ill-conceived and unethical.
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      > A reparation is a material compensation for a past harm. That's not correct. First definition on google: "the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged." Reparations are not limited to material compensation. > You don't take away from a group, you take away from individuals. A group is a collection of individuals. Some things happen on the individual level. Other aspects or dynamics are only present on the group level and must be analyzed there. > But a position at a company is a limited resource. And if one person get's the position the other person can't get it. This is very much a zero sum situation. This is correct on the specific dimension you are looking at. But you are ignoring second order effects. That job may have a significant positive effect for the marginalized individual, and then in turn have a positive ripple effect on the marginalized community that he or she comes from. This could certainly result in a positive sum situation for society as a whole. EDIT: To be clear, I'm totally with you that this could be taken too far, and we must proceed with caution. I also agree we should try to focus on cases where the positive sum benefits are most clear. But it is a difficult problem, and I think many instances of positive sum benefits are not fully appreciated.