3 ms·

> he amount of lip service paid to MLK in particular is astounding, especially by politicians who actively undermine his movement for racial and economic justic

• danans 6y ago
  > It's also not clear if MLK ever believed in enforced equality of outcomes (as opposed to just equality of opportunities). "Equality of outcome" is a popular straw man for many who take the highly incredulous position that equality of opportunity exists today. Simply ending the use of rhetorical racism would do little to remove structural racism that gives rise to the inequality of opportunity that persists.
  • bhupy 6y ago
    > "Equality of outcome" is a popular straw man for many who take the highly incredulous position that equality of opportunity exists today. I think this is itself a straw man, because it ascribes onto any criticism of “equality of outcome” approaches to problem-solving the underlying conception that “equality of opportunity” already exists in the most perfect form. The most good-faith argument against the current rhetoric around racial issues is the following: we have neither equality of outcomes nor equality of opportunities, but the solutions we’re uncompromisingly implementing are the wrong ones because they focus on attaining equality of outcomes rather than attaining equality of opportunities. That’s the steel-man, engage with that. > Simply ending the use of rhetorical racism would do little to remove structural racism that gives rise to the inequality of opportunity that persists. You’ll find that a lot of people agree that there exists structural racism (the extent is debatable). Where the disagreement lies is on what the solutions should be. Leaving aside whether this stuff is correct on the merits, when hyper-activists amplify a “my way or the highway” approach to solving these problems, they aren’t just drawing attention to the problems, they’re prescribing a particular solution. Taking several steps back, we’ve found ourselves to be litigating yet again whether it was MLK or Malcolm X that had the right idea about how to combat the very real evils of racism. The point that I’m making is that the political side that’s allegedly the most devoted to rooting out racism has taken ironically the most racialized and segregationist approach to solving those problems — an approach that MLK steadfastly opposed. MLK is a part of the aforementioned American pantheon precisely because his rhetoric was the one that was not only effective, but also had the broadest support. We need more MLK’s today, but unfortunately we have too many Malcolm X’s.
    • danans 6y ago
      > the solutions we’re uncompromisingly implementing are the wrong ones because they focus on attaining equality of outcomes This argument, whenever it shows up, is usually a thinly veiled attack on affirmative action, which is aimed increasing the equality of opportunity - university education being far more an opportunity than an outcome. The thrust of current civil rights efforts: ending disproportionate police violence against POC, bolstering public education in poor neighborhoods, healthcare as a right, these are all about the equality of opportunity.
      • bhupy 6y ago
        > This argument, whenever it shows up, is usually a thinly veiled attack on affirmative action, which is aimed increasing the equality of opportunity - university education being far more an opportunity than an outcome. First of all, I’m not sure it’s “thinly veiled”; being opposed to affirmative action is a legitimate position with its own set of arguments. The confidence with which you declare your opinion about affirmative action as though it is some settled fact makes discussing these issues extremely difficult. Ultimately, you’re entitled to your opinions, but they’re still opinions. “University education being an opportunity than an outcome” is extremely debatable. Is your first job out of college also an opportunity rather than an outcome? Where we draw the line is something society needs to litigate, and it’s by no means a settled issue. For example, one might argue that while attending university is an opportunity that everyone ought to have, attending Harvard University (or other selective institutions) isn’t. The reality is that adolescents are rewarded for their academic achievements by being accepted to prestigious institutions (and yes “legacy admissions” are anathema to this); that can be considered an outcome rather than some random opportunity. In fact, you lose all of the nuances, edge cases, and asterisks associated with the messiness of reality when you make blithe declarations like “university education is an opportunity not an outcome”. It’s like lossy compression; we lose information and the discourse is worse off for it. > The thrust of current civil rights efforts: ending disproportionate police violence against POC, bolstering public education in poor neighborhoods, healthcare as a right, these are all about the equality of opportunity. Sure, and in any grab-bag of policy positions, you’re bound to find positions that most of society would agree fall under the “equality of opportunity” bucket. There are disagreements as to how best to achieve all of those things, but by and large most people agree that “everyone having access to better education” is the goal or “everyone having access to better and cheap healthcare” as a goal. If you’ll notice, I never said “public education” or “x is a right” because those declarations start to become more prescriptive as to what the solution should be — and I encourage you to try to understand the steel-man arguments against those specific prescriptions.