4 ms·

In all honesty, I'm sure the south wouldn't mind the social welfare state with all its trappings if it wasn't draped in progressive supremacist ideology. Surel

by ihsw2 8y ago

In all honesty, I'm sure the south wouldn't mind the social welfare state with all its trappings if it wasn't draped in progressive supremacist ideology. Surely there's an opportunity here, driving forward things like public healthcare (or public education) sans the diversity rhetoric.

matthewmacleod 8y ago
Surely there's an opportunity here, driving forward things like public healthcare (or public education) sans the diversity rhetoric. What is "the diversity rhetoric"? Is it practically speaking possible to have a public healthcare system or a pubic education system without examining "diversity" in those services?
- praha14 8y ago
  Of course, Scandanavian countries have both of those things without being diverse. In some sense, high-quality public services have only been observed in non-diverse countries.
- iguy 8y ago
  Most of the ways in which public education could be better would improve it for everyone. But the NY Times (for example) is unable to discuss it without focusing on differences between groups of people. I think GP is saying that this gets people's backs up, and isn't necessary for making improvements. The reason it angers people isn't entirely irrational. For example, if you know that your next public school principal is going to be judged not on the total quality, but solely on the black-white difference, then you know that he will be tempted to game the rating system and make things worse for one group.
  - confounded 8y ago
    > For example, if you know that your next public school principal is going to be judged not on the total quality, but solely on the black-white difference, then you know that he will be tempted to game the rating system and make things worse for one group. I find this claim astonishing. Do you have an example of it happening?
    - iguy 8y ago
      Not this exact scenario, but I think almost everything has an element of this. Maybe a less charged example: Every time I hear about a green investment fund I wonder what the incentive structure is. Clearly if it was 100% green 0% returns, the manager would just donate your money to charity, cash his bonus check, and buy a yacht. Really it needs to have imperceptibly lower returns than the non-green competition, because the customers will notice whole percentage points, and will look elsewhere. Another: What's the incentive structure for everyone making decisions in how to dig a subway in NYC? Since they end up spending, I forget, say it's 4x as much as Paris, at least 75% of the spending seems to be decided by priorities other than actually having a train. But the voters are unable to stop this. Which of these is closer to the school board?
- ihsw2 8y ago
  Diversity rhetoric, in this context, refers to social constructivism. The basic idea behind this kind of social constructivism is that society is "sinful" and it must be corrected through moralizing (ie: interpreting all social issues as moral issues), essentialism (ie: reducing people to superficial qualities like race and gender), and Utopian ideology (ie: striving for a perfect society free of sin). "Examining" "diversity" is largely unrelated to providing health services.
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    Ah, in other words “I have created a pretend problem where none exists”.

by ihsw2 8y ago

matthewmacleod 8y ago

Surely there's an opportunity here, driving forward things like public healthcare (or public education) sans the diversity rhetoric. What is "the diversity rhetoric"? Is it practically speaking possible to have a public healthcare system or a pubic education system without examining "diversity" in those services?

praha14 8y ago
Of course, Scandanavian countries have both of those things without being diverse. In some sense, high-quality public services have only been observed in non-diverse countries.
iguy 8y ago
Most of the ways in which public education could be better would improve it for everyone. But the NY Times (for example) is unable to discuss it without focusing on differences between groups of people. I think GP is saying that this gets people's backs up, and isn't necessary for making improvements. The reason it angers people isn't entirely irrational. For example, if you know that your next public school principal is going to be judged not on the total quality, but solely on the black-white difference, then you know that he will be tempted to game the rating system and make things worse for one group.
- confounded 8y ago
  > For example, if you know that your next public school principal is going to be judged not on the total quality, but solely on the black-white difference, then you know that he will be tempted to game the rating system and make things worse for one group. I find this claim astonishing. Do you have an example of it happening?
  - iguy 8y ago
    Not this exact scenario, but I think almost everything has an element of this. Maybe a less charged example: Every time I hear about a green investment fund I wonder what the incentive structure is. Clearly if it was 100% green 0% returns, the manager would just donate your money to charity, cash his bonus check, and buy a yacht. Really it needs to have imperceptibly lower returns than the non-green competition, because the customers will notice whole percentage points, and will look elsewhere. Another: What's the incentive structure for everyone making decisions in how to dig a subway in NYC? Since they end up spending, I forget, say it's 4x as much as Paris, at least 75% of the spending seems to be decided by priorities other than actually having a train. But the voters are unable to stop this. Which of these is closer to the school board?
ihsw2 8y ago
Diversity rhetoric, in this context, refers to social constructivism. The basic idea behind this kind of social constructivism is that society is "sinful" and it must be corrected through moralizing (ie: interpreting all social issues as moral issues), essentialism (ie: reducing people to superficial qualities like race and gender), and Utopian ideology (ie: striving for a perfect society free of sin). "Examining" "diversity" is largely unrelated to providing health services.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  Ah, in other words “I have created a pretend problem where none exists”.