3 ms·

I have never seen a mainstream liberal to push "equality of outcome" ideas. I have seen liberals push for detailed understanding of what leads to different outc

I have never seen a mainstream liberal to push "equality of outcome" ideas. I have seen liberals push for detailed understanding of what leads to different outcomes and for "equality of opportunity". And I have seen only far right people bring up the notion of "equality of outcome", usually as a strawman as above. And yes, being against the government helping with upward social mobility (the only way I can rephrase what you described, but I sincerely hope you will correct me if I misunderstood) is certainly part of modern American right wing politics.

Supermancho 7y ago
> I have never seen a mainstream liberal to push "equality of outcome" ideas These are in the wording of initiatives across multiple US states with broad enough support to pass (eg California Senate Bill 826). The mainstream term is affirmative action; a proportional equality of outcome. If you havent seen mainstream liberal eoo, I can only assume that it is due to willful ignorance.
- krastanov 7y ago
  Modern "affirmative action" is not about "equality of outcome" - that would be a silly and unsustainable model. Most of the efforts in that direction are about "ensure there are women and PoC at the interview" and "blind the interview", not about hiring people based on gender or race without consideration of their abilities. To your particular example, see section 1.c and 1.g for research on the usefulness of their mandate. I personally feel that more research is necessary to understand these effects, I can even agree with someone saying that these efforts are a silly and unpractical bandaid. But instituting a rigid rule against measurable biases is not "equality of outcome", it is very much "equality of opportunity" (nobody would hire an incompetent woman as a board member if that is what worries you)
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    > Modern "affirmative action" is not about "equality of outcome Yes it is. Creating orthogonal standards to meet, in order to axjieve a quota is for the purpose of eoo, within a series of (future) outcomes.
    - krastanov 7y ago
      You disregarded most of my comment: The whole point is that you can have affirmative action without different standards. Affirmative action, when done properly, is about ensuring you have diverse candidates for the job, the rest comes naturally without lowering the standards.
      - Supermancho 7y ago
        I did not. > The whole point is that you can have affirmative action without different standards No. Measuring diversity (for some value of) requires a new standard (sometimes called a rule or requirement or some other deflection), minimum.

Supermancho 7y ago

> I have never seen a mainstream liberal to push "equality of outcome" ideas These are in the wording of initiatives across multiple US states with broad enough support to pass (eg California Senate Bill 826). The mainstream term is affirmative action; a proportional equality of outcome. If you havent seen mainstream liberal eoo, I can only assume that it is due to willful ignorance.

krastanov 7y ago
Modern "affirmative action" is not about "equality of outcome" - that would be a silly and unsustainable model. Most of the efforts in that direction are about "ensure there are women and PoC at the interview" and "blind the interview", not about hiring people based on gender or race without consideration of their abilities. To your particular example, see section 1.c and 1.g for research on the usefulness of their mandate. I personally feel that more research is necessary to understand these effects, I can even agree with someone saying that these efforts are a silly and unpractical bandaid. But instituting a rigid rule against measurable biases is not "equality of outcome", it is very much "equality of opportunity" (nobody would hire an incompetent woman as a board member if that is what worries you)
- Supermancho 7y ago
  > Modern "affirmative action" is not about "equality of outcome Yes it is. Creating orthogonal standards to meet, in order to axjieve a quota is for the purpose of eoo, within a series of (future) outcomes.
  - krastanov 7y ago
    You disregarded most of my comment: The whole point is that you can have affirmative action without different standards. Affirmative action, when done properly, is about ensuring you have diverse candidates for the job, the rest comes naturally without lowering the standards.
    - Supermancho 7y ago
      I did not. > The whole point is that you can have affirmative action without different standards No. Measuring diversity (for some value of) requires a new standard (sometimes called a rule or requirement or some other deflection), minimum.