4 ms·

Doesn't this go both ways? Is it really more meritocratic to choose someone who made a greater contribution if they were given significantly better opportunitie

Doesn't this go both ways? Is it really more meritocratic to choose someone who made a greater contribution if they were given significantly better opportunities throughout their life to achieve it? Can you even judge merit if not everyone is given an equal start?

systemvoltage 6y ago
The problem your opposition sees is that: It is a gross generalization and on an individual basis there is no way to check or know if that ______ person had equal opportunities or they didn’t. The problem with generalized appropriations but localized relief is that unfairness is vividly unbearable to those who are impacted. Imagine if race ______ gets 20 more points in an exam than the rest because they just happen to be a part of a minority. That would be infuriating to a lot of people who took that exam. It’s no fault of ours - this is a natural reaction of all humans. Now, if you’re not taking that exam, that might sound very benevolent. Life is like an exam in some ways. If everyone can take the exam, that would be great. Some can’t even take it, and that where the focus should be - eliminate poverty, inspire people to work hard, and enable people to go to college. Imagine for a moment - you’re laid off, your family depends solely on you to survive. You’ve interviewed and you think you got the job only to realize that a minority person took it instead only because of the color of their skin. Would you be ok with that(assuming it’s true that there was no meritocracy involved)? This whole thing about improving the world goes into the toilet when your child is crying and you’re looking at your house being foreclosed. If you’re well off, everything is rosy. You need to also consider other viewpoints.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Now imagine that your great grandparents were enslaved. Then your grandparents and parents suffered through Jim Crow. Then you go through life being slighted and made to feel like an other and anytime you achieve something, some idiot claims it was because of racial quotas and you know some others think it to themselves. Then you are told that you didn't get the job because now (as of the day the civil rights act passed or the day Obama was elected) we no longer have racial bias in our hiring practices and we are now officially a meritocracy. So no, I don't see a problem with a system that might slightly favor a minority because I doubt that on the whole they are actually getting any sort of advantage anyway. 97% feels oppressive when you are used to 100%.
  - nec4b 6y ago
    Do you have a spreadsheet or something similar of who is more deserving based on past injustices? I'm interested how native Americans are ranked compared to black people?
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      It's not about comparing those injustices. It's just about knowing our American History and acting with compassion to try to right the wrongs of our past. Both Native Americans and African Americans have a special situation due to their origin story in the founding of our country. But the African American experience is also different from most others due to the more obvious visual differences between a white and black person. It allowed injustices to continue both spoken and unspoken for many, many decades, and still to this day continue both consciously and sub-consciously. If a white person grew up poor and in a single parent home, they can put on a nice suit and go to a job interview and blend in. And I'm not necessarily just talking about today. But definitely in the very recent past. Which affects the parents of children today and their ability to provide a good education among many other things to make their children competitive. But talking more about today, it was in the early 2000s I believe where a study was done sending out thousands of identical resumes. Some with white sounding names and others with black sounding names. The white names got 50% more callbacks than the black names. That is an astounding difference and that alone shows that we have a serious problem. I suspect if we did that today, the results would be better, but still not "color blind".
      - nec4b 6y ago
        Well at the and of the day you still have to make a choice who deserves what. Since you don't want meritocracy and argue for a compassionate ideological framework you still haven't provided how people are ranked in your system. How does a Russian immigrant Igor who is white, has a bad accent, hardly speaks the language compares to Karim, a successful black business man? All I see is a group of white people arguing with an another group of white people for power and one is using minorities just so that it can call the other white group racist. No where have i seen minorities ranking themselves in the historical injustice ladder. You don't even realize how patronizing you are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk

systemvoltage 6y ago

The problem your opposition sees is that: It is a gross generalization and on an individual basis there is no way to check or know if that ______ person had equal opportunities or they didn’t. The problem with generalized appropriations but localized relief is that unfairness is vividly unbearable to those who are impacted. Imagine if race ______ gets 20 more points in an exam than the rest because they just happen to be a part of a minority. That would be infuriating to a lot of people who took that exam. It’s no fault of ours - this is a natural reaction of all humans. Now, if you’re not taking that exam, that might sound very benevolent. Life is like an exam in some ways. If everyone can take the exam, that would be great. Some can’t even take it, and that where the focus should be - eliminate poverty, inspire people to work hard, and enable people to go to college. Imagine for a moment - you’re laid off, your family depends solely on you to survive. You’ve interviewed and you think you got the job only to realize that a minority person took it instead only because of the color of their skin. Would you be ok with that(assuming it’s true that there was no meritocracy involved)? This whole thing about improving the world goes into the toilet when your child is crying and you’re looking at your house being foreclosed. If you’re well off, everything is rosy. You need to also consider other viewpoints.

jjeaff 6y ago
Now imagine that your great grandparents were enslaved. Then your grandparents and parents suffered through Jim Crow. Then you go through life being slighted and made to feel like an other and anytime you achieve something, some idiot claims it was because of racial quotas and you know some others think it to themselves. Then you are told that you didn't get the job because now (as of the day the civil rights act passed or the day Obama was elected) we no longer have racial bias in our hiring practices and we are now officially a meritocracy. So no, I don't see a problem with a system that might slightly favor a minority because I doubt that on the whole they are actually getting any sort of advantage anyway. 97% feels oppressive when you are used to 100%.
- nec4b 6y ago
  Do you have a spreadsheet or something similar of who is more deserving based on past injustices? I'm interested how native Americans are ranked compared to black people?
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    It's not about comparing those injustices. It's just about knowing our American History and acting with compassion to try to right the wrongs of our past. Both Native Americans and African Americans have a special situation due to their origin story in the founding of our country. But the African American experience is also different from most others due to the more obvious visual differences between a white and black person. It allowed injustices to continue both spoken and unspoken for many, many decades, and still to this day continue both consciously and sub-consciously. If a white person grew up poor and in a single parent home, they can put on a nice suit and go to a job interview and blend in. And I'm not necessarily just talking about today. But definitely in the very recent past. Which affects the parents of children today and their ability to provide a good education among many other things to make their children competitive. But talking more about today, it was in the early 2000s I believe where a study was done sending out thousands of identical resumes. Some with white sounding names and others with black sounding names. The white names got 50% more callbacks than the black names. That is an astounding difference and that alone shows that we have a serious problem. I suspect if we did that today, the results would be better, but still not "color blind".
    - nec4b 6y ago
      Well at the and of the day you still have to make a choice who deserves what. Since you don't want meritocracy and argue for a compassionate ideological framework you still haven't provided how people are ranked in your system. How does a Russian immigrant Igor who is white, has a bad accent, hardly speaks the language compares to Karim, a successful black business man? All I see is a group of white people arguing with an another group of white people for power and one is using minorities just so that it can call the other white group racist. No where have i seen minorities ranking themselves in the historical injustice ladder. You don't even realize how patronizing you are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk