4 ms·

I can understand the rationale behind quotas, but I am not convinced that it is effective. What worries me though is that racist and sexist policies like that

I can understand the rationale behind quotas, but I am not convinced that it is effective. What worries me though is that racist and sexist policies like that are prevalent and accepted without anyone knowing if it is the right way to go. I think that equality of outcome not only will not solve the problems that our societies have, but exacerbate them

raxxorrax 5y ago
It plainly isn't possible to implement without discrimination. Some argue that this is good discrimination. It is also noteworthy that only desirable jobs get quotas like this.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
It's one step towards gender equality; if you use quotas to award different population groups equally, it will on the one hand normalize them for everyone else, and may inspire others to try on the other hand. If the top of whatever Nobel prizes are handed out for remains white men, nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance. Anyway, it's one strategy; the other, and IMO more important one, is to give everybody equal access to education and the sciences. This is a governmental issue, who should be paying for everyone's education, transport to said education, and if need be, housing near said education. And of course strict anti-discrimination and anti-elitism laws. Breaking up concepts of 'class' should also be a thing, since right now, working class people will be less inclined to go to university for example. I've been lucky in that regard; grew up 'working class', but thanks to the at the time government policies of giving out stipends for education I got college educated and a career in software development, moving up to middle class. It's a great example of social mobility, and I think everyone should have that opportunity. But after my education, the government pulled up the ladder behind me. First by changing the scholarship rules so that after a certain age you are no longer entitled, making it harder for people to go from college to university for example. Then they changed it so it's 100% a loan, which on the one hand makes people less inclined to start a higher level education, and on the other it starts their career with tens of thousands of debt, making it harder to e.g. buy a house and start a family alongside their career. I mean there's voices going up to undo those changes now, but it's been years under this shitty system and damage has already been done. It's stupid as well, because it's a relatively small cost at great benefit - it doesn't make financial sense. Say an education costs the government 50.000 per person. That is repaid in income taxes alone within 3-5 years. edit: well this comment meandered a bit.
- tomp 5y ago
  > nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance Well, that's certainly true for people who are sexist (think that just because someone is a different sex, they are fundamentally different and cannot be a role model) and know no history (Marie Curie is the most distinguished Nobel prize winner).
- nix23 5y ago
  >remains white men, nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance. Ah yeah...let's test your borderline racist expression: -David Jay -> US -Ardem Patapoutian -> Libanon -Syukuro Manabe -> Japan -Klaus Hasselmann -> Germany -Giorgio Parisi -> Italy -Abdulrazak Gurnah -> Zanzibar -Maria Ressa -> Philippines -Dmitry Muratov -> Russia And so on....i don't see the "only white men can win the price" here.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - sgt 5y ago
    Short analysis; 3 out of those 8 are non-white (note: Lebanese are white). One is however Japanese, who are maybe not in any context considered discriminated against, rather they are revered. So you're left with Abdulrazak Gurnah and Maria Ressa as "ethnic minorities" for which AA sometimes makes sense. Still, 2 out of 8 is actually pretty good. It shows that you don't have to force this issue. IMHO 25% is solid. A bigger concern is maybe that there are so few women.
    - lbreakjai 5y ago
      "(note: Lebanese are white)." Based on what? Is there an official colour palette you know about? Or is it based on their skull measurements? It's quite amazing how fast we're walking back to all the racist theories for the 18th and 19th century ... but somehow this time for Good? This american obsession about race would be less insufferable if it at least didn't seem crafted by a four years old. There's white, black, brown, and yellow. People from a colour are all the same. Somehow that's the basis to explain everything. I mean, at least the horoscope has twelve signs, that's three times as much nuance ...
MadeThisToReply 5y ago
> I think that equality of outcome not only will not solve the problems that our societies have, but exacerbate them. As should be obvious to anyone who has studied the history of communism.
- slashdev 5y ago
  Yes, communism definately proved that focus on strict equality of outcome economically is disastrous. It just made everyone equally poor. It's a good question if that applies to things like affirmative action or minority quotas. Will that also act as a disincentive? I suspect probably, but to a much more limited extent. I don't know the answer though.
SiempreViernes 5y ago
I think a big problem is that places with deep rooted problems see quotas as a simple way to fix the complicated problem they have, and so implement quotas in a stupid way.
globular-toast 5y ago
> I can understand the rationale behind quotas I can't. When I hire a removal company the work will be carried out by strong men. Would this company benefit from "diversity"? Should they be hiring more women or disabled people to carry out this work? Would people from different ethnic backgrounds contribute to a more effective team? I doubt it would make any difference at all. But, of course, nobody is talking about jobs like this because they aren't considered desirable. I question the premise that "diversity" is even a good thing. Where is the evidence that it is? What is it better for? Efficiency? Productivity? Happiness? Just give me one concrete piece of evidence that it's a good thing. I see efficient teams composed of very similar people all the time and I don't see how they would be improved by diversity. So no, I don't think it's rational at all. Rather, people have been conditioned now to look at people's skin colour, sex, age etc. and be embarrassed if everyone around them is "the same". But this is identical to racism/sexism/ageism etc. It's the very thing we were trying to get away from and it's completely irrational.

raxxorrax 5y ago

It plainly isn't possible to implement without discrimination. Some argue that this is good discrimination. It is also noteworthy that only desirable jobs get quotas like this.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

It's one step towards gender equality; if you use quotas to award different population groups equally, it will on the one hand normalize them for everyone else, and may inspire others to try on the other hand. If the top of whatever Nobel prizes are handed out for remains white men, nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance. Anyway, it's one strategy; the other, and IMO more important one, is to give everybody equal access to education and the sciences. This is a governmental issue, who should be paying for everyone's education, transport to said education, and if need be, housing near said education. And of course strict anti-discrimination and anti-elitism laws. Breaking up concepts of 'class' should also be a thing, since right now, working class people will be less inclined to go to university for example. I've been lucky in that regard; grew up 'working class', but thanks to the at the time government policies of giving out stipends for education I got college educated and a career in software development, moving up to middle class. It's a great example of social mobility, and I think everyone should have that opportunity. But after my education, the government pulled up the ladder behind me. First by changing the scholarship rules so that after a certain age you are no longer entitled, making it harder for people to go from college to university for example. Then they changed it so it's 100% a loan, which on the one hand makes people less inclined to start a higher level education, and on the other it starts their career with tens of thousands of debt, making it harder to e.g. buy a house and start a family alongside their career. I mean there's voices going up to undo those changes now, but it's been years under this shitty system and damage has already been done. It's stupid as well, because it's a relatively small cost at great benefit - it doesn't make financial sense. Say an education costs the government 50.000 per person. That is repaid in income taxes alone within 3-5 years. edit: well this comment meandered a bit.

tomp 5y ago
> nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance Well, that's certainly true for people who are sexist (think that just because someone is a different sex, they are fundamentally different and cannot be a role model) and know no history (Marie Curie is the most distinguished Nobel prize winner).
nix23 5y ago
>remains white men, nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance. Ah yeah...let's test your borderline racist expression: -David Jay -> US -Ardem Patapoutian -> Libanon -Syukuro Manabe -> Japan -Klaus Hasselmann -> Germany -Giorgio Parisi -> Italy -Abdulrazak Gurnah -> Zanzibar -Maria Ressa -> Philippines -Dmitry Muratov -> Russia And so on....i don't see the "only white men can win the price" here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sgt 5y ago
  Short analysis; 3 out of those 8 are non-white (note: Lebanese are white). One is however Japanese, who are maybe not in any context considered discriminated against, rather they are revered. So you're left with Abdulrazak Gurnah and Maria Ressa as "ethnic minorities" for which AA sometimes makes sense. Still, 2 out of 8 is actually pretty good. It shows that you don't have to force this issue. IMHO 25% is solid. A bigger concern is maybe that there are so few women.
  - lbreakjai 5y ago
    "(note: Lebanese are white)." Based on what? Is there an official colour palette you know about? Or is it based on their skull measurements? It's quite amazing how fast we're walking back to all the racist theories for the 18th and 19th century ... but somehow this time for Good? This american obsession about race would be less insufferable if it at least didn't seem crafted by a four years old. There's white, black, brown, and yellow. People from a colour are all the same. Somehow that's the basis to explain everything. I mean, at least the horoscope has twelve signs, that's three times as much nuance ...

MadeThisToReply 5y ago

> I think that equality of outcome not only will not solve the problems that our societies have, but exacerbate them. As should be obvious to anyone who has studied the history of communism.

slashdev 5y ago
Yes, communism definately proved that focus on strict equality of outcome economically is disastrous. It just made everyone equally poor. It's a good question if that applies to things like affirmative action or minority quotas. Will that also act as a disincentive? I suspect probably, but to a much more limited extent. I don't know the answer though.

SiempreViernes 5y ago

I think a big problem is that places with deep rooted problems see quotas as a simple way to fix the complicated problem they have, and so implement quotas in a stupid way.

globular-toast 5y ago

> I can understand the rationale behind quotas I can't. When I hire a removal company the work will be carried out by strong men. Would this company benefit from "diversity"? Should they be hiring more women or disabled people to carry out this work? Would people from different ethnic backgrounds contribute to a more effective team? I doubt it would make any difference at all. But, of course, nobody is talking about jobs like this because they aren't considered desirable. I question the premise that "diversity" is even a good thing. Where is the evidence that it is? What is it better for? Efficiency? Productivity? Happiness? Just give me one concrete piece of evidence that it's a good thing. I see efficient teams composed of very similar people all the time and I don't see how they would be improved by diversity. So no, I don't think it's rational at all. Rather, people have been conditioned now to look at people's skin colour, sex, age etc. and be embarrassed if everyone around them is "the same". But this is identical to racism/sexism/ageism etc. It's the very thing we were trying to get away from and it's completely irrational.