4 ms·

> This is why discrimination any basis is wrong, because the individual's experience, advantages and disadvantages are not dictated by whatever group they belo

by dnomad 8y ago

> This is why discrimination any basis is wrong, because the individual's experience, advantages and disadvantages are not dictated by whatever group they belong to. Privilege is a statistical metric, but individual experience is not causally dictated by such metrics. But this is nonsense. How can any reasonable person believe that one's "group" has absolutely no impact on one's life experiences? You're literally saying "one individual's experience as a member of X group has no impact on one's individual experience." Does that really parse in your head? Look, there's no there there and you can devise silly rationalizations all day. The only thing that matters are the ends. The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? People should just be honest about their aims and end goals and we can skip the endless rationalizations. I find it all a bit too theatrical. Like internships for Pacific Islanders are absolutely harmless. They literally cause zero harm. There are few things in this world absolutely harmless but this is one of them. But here they are being protested as discrimination! It turns out any attempt to be inclusive is decried as some betrayal of "individual experience," whatever that actually means and we get flamboyant resignations in response. It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.

code_sloth 8y ago
> The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? Don't think anyone said that. Quite the opposite. You read what you wanted to read, and arrived at that conclusion all by yourself. > I find it all a bit too theatrical. Yes, and you're on stage.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
18pfsmt 8y ago
>The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? This is not a charitable way to interpret the actions of others. Because of the unfortunate treatment of certain people in the past, it doesn't justify poor treatment of others now. The ends do not justify the means. To quote Gandhi: "They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...”
naasking 8y ago
> How can any reasonable person believe that one's "group" has absolutely no impact on one's life experiences? You're literally saying "one individual's experience as a member of X group has no impact on one's individual experience." Does that really parse in your head? Of course, because that's literally what those words mean. Privilege is a statistical measure, to which a particular individual may or may not conform. Obviously most group members' experiences are governed by the group's statistics, but this is again a statistical claim. You can't assume such claims apply to all individuals. To put it another way: certain minority groups are statistically more likely to commit crimes, but we shouldn't then assume that any particular member of that group is more likely to be a criminal. Racial profiling is unethical, but your position suggests it should be ethical. It's simply a contradiction for the argument to apply in one case, but not the other, where I consistently assert that both are wrong. > The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? Just FYI, you have a habit of being uncharitable with people who disagree with you. > Like internships for Pacific Islanders are absolutely harmless. They literally cause zero harm. And this is the disconnect. We're all after a more equitable society where discrimination against anyone for any reason simply doesn't happen. You and others are consequentialists, who see a shortcut to that ultimate goal if we just compromise our ethics in enacting a small, temporary discriminatory measure to redress an imbalance. Do the ends justify the means? Not everyone is a consequentialist. Deontologists think ethical compromise of any kind is unethical, period. Any discrimination is wrong, period. The path to an equitable society is not through compromise, but through rigourous adherence to ethical principles. Consequentialists then started a word game in redefining sexism/racism and other forms of discrimination to be about "power", and so members of dominant groups in power can't be discriminated against, and thus, such measures are not unethical. This is true theatre. In any case, I'm merely pointing out that just because someone doesn't agree with your ethical philosophy does not make them evil, nor does it make them wrong.

by dnomad 8y ago

code_sloth 8y ago

> The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? Don't think anyone said that. Quite the opposite. You read what you wanted to read, and arrived at that conclusion all by yourself. > I find it all a bit too theatrical. Yes, and you're on stage.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

18pfsmt 8y ago

>The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? This is not a charitable way to interpret the actions of others. Because of the unfortunate treatment of certain people in the past, it doesn't justify poor treatment of others now. The ends do not justify the means. To quote Gandhi: "They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...”

naasking 8y ago

> How can any reasonable person believe that one's "group" has absolutely no impact on one's life experiences? You're literally saying "one individual's experience as a member of X group has no impact on one's individual experience." Does that really parse in your head? Of course, because that's literally what those words mean. Privilege is a statistical measure, to which a particular individual may or may not conform. Obviously most group members' experiences are governed by the group's statistics, but this is again a statistical claim. You can't assume such claims apply to all individuals. To put it another way: certain minority groups are statistically more likely to commit crimes, but we shouldn't then assume that any particular member of that group is more likely to be a criminal. Racial profiling is unethical, but your position suggests it should be ethical. It's simply a contradiction for the argument to apply in one case, but not the other, where I consistently assert that both are wrong. > The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? Just FYI, you have a habit of being uncharitable with people who disagree with you. > Like internships for Pacific Islanders are absolutely harmless. They literally cause zero harm. And this is the disconnect. We're all after a more equitable society where discrimination against anyone for any reason simply doesn't happen. You and others are consequentialists, who see a shortcut to that ultimate goal if we just compromise our ethics in enacting a small, temporary discriminatory measure to redress an imbalance. Do the ends justify the means? Not everyone is a consequentialist. Deontologists think ethical compromise of any kind is unethical, period. Any discrimination is wrong, period. The path to an equitable society is not through compromise, but through rigourous adherence to ethical principles. Consequentialists then started a word game in redefining sexism/racism and other forms of discrimination to be about "power", and so members of dominant groups in power can't be discriminated against, and thus, such measures are not unethical. This is true theatre. In any case, I'm merely pointing out that just because someone doesn't agree with your ethical philosophy does not make them evil, nor does it make them wrong.