4 ms·

"surely you don't earnestly believe that affirmative action is intended to mitigate inherent racial inferiorities (or do you?)." Of course, I don't. That's not

by eruci 8y ago

"surely you don't earnestly believe that affirmative action is intended to mitigate inherent racial inferiorities (or do you?)." Of course, I don't. That's not what I've been saying at all! No matter what it appears to your point of view. The common good is optimized when the best people, regardless of their skin color, occupy the positions they deserve in all fields of professional activity. The common good is also optimized by openly and fairly having these discussions, in a way that pushes people to see each other's point of view, hence pushing all sides towards the middle. It is a way to prevent the election of extremists in high positions of power who then polarize us even further apart.

tptacek 8y ago
The only point of view you're willing to entertain is your own, the one that says that "skin color" has no bearing on how people are treated professionally. When a credentialed professional tells the NYT that that hasn't been their experience, you take offense, and from your offense construct a claim that they must not be professional or even competent.
eruci 8y ago
Btw, to ascertain the competence for a given individual in a given field it is easy to check. Go to Google Scholar and look at the number of citations. For Edray Goins it is a relatively low number, that's why I used the word "mediocre."
unclebucknasty 8y ago
>Of course, I don't. That's not what I've been saying at all! Right. So, the point is that if you know the purpose of affirmative action is not to mitigate racial inferiorities, yet you make the argument that affirmative action isn't needed because there aren't racial inferiorities, then your argument is obviously disingenuous. That is, there's something else motivating your distate for affirmative action; something you'd clearly prefer to conceal. But, the rest of your comment offers a clue. In any case, if you find people unwilling to engage in a discussion with you "for the common good", it's because they see through your transparent attempts at misdirection.

by eruci 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

The only point of view you're willing to entertain is your own, the one that says that "skin color" has no bearing on how people are treated professionally. When a credentialed professional tells the NYT that that hasn't been their experience, you take offense, and from your offense construct a claim that they must not be professional or even competent.

eruci 8y ago

Btw, to ascertain the competence for a given individual in a given field it is easy to check. Go to Google Scholar and look at the number of citations. For Edray Goins it is a relatively low number, that's why I used the word "mediocre."

unclebucknasty 8y ago

>Of course, I don't. That's not what I've been saying at all! Right. So, the point is that if you know the purpose of affirmative action is not to mitigate racial inferiorities, yet you make the argument that affirmative action isn't needed because there aren't racial inferiorities, then your argument is obviously disingenuous. That is, there's something else motivating your distate for affirmative action; something you'd clearly prefer to conceal. But, the rest of your comment offers a clue. In any case, if you find people unwilling to engage in a discussion with you "for the common good", it's because they see through your transparent attempts at misdirection.