4 ms·
If you cheat during a football game, there's a yardage penalty applied that gives the other team an "unearned" advantage. It's somehow plainly obvious there tha
by majormajor 6y ago
If you cheat during a football game, there's a yardage penalty applied that gives the other team an "unearned" advantage. It's somehow plainly obvious there that if you simply say "don't commit penalties" but don't enforce it, people will cheat and commit penalties. And this wouldn't be fair or just.
Yet people lose their shit when it comes to trying to apply proactive equalizers to a historically deeply unfair society.
There's no real mystery, it's just selfishness taking precedence over correcting past wrongs.
That said, to do it effectively, I believe we need to focus on doing it early on in schooling, and the burden and pressure being put on companies is a heavy one because it doesn't align with where the opportunities first diverge.
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoThis is an absurd analogy that doesn’t map to the situation at all. What you’re actually saying is that if a white person cheated at football before you were even alive, all white people playing today should get a yardage penalty. What is selfish is you punishing someone else with the same skin color, and then upholding literal racism as a virtue. They absolutely should lose their shit over that.
- jonfw 6y agoSports are one of the few examples of a zero sum game in life. It is impossible to punish one team without giving an opposing team an unearned advantage in their league's standings. This unearned advantage is a negative externality of a game's best solution to prevent bad behavior. In hiring, which is not a zero sum game, we can prevent these undesired behaviors (acknowledging and correcting for bias) without giving token advantages which undermine meritocracy
- xyzzyz 6y agoCan you explain to me how hiring is not a zero sum game? Suppose I have an open position. If I hire person A, I am not hiring person B, C, D, etc. How is it not zero sum?
- temac 6y agoSo you think countries are necessarily made of teams of extremely cohesive people organized by e.g. skin color? And that all their members shall be jointly punished in case of wrongdoing of other members or even of their ancestors? Some of the results of that policy, if applied in its entirety, could well be not what you seem to expect. And I'm not to say that would be fair, when looking at an appropriate big picture, but let's not fall into infalsifiable hypotheses either. Nor complete essentialisation. I agree with the need to attempt to correct unfairness by starting early, though. Just also pay attention to confounding factors, and never lose sight of the goal.