4 ms·

> Because, what you're essentially saying is, "yes, this one group had a 400-year head start at the expense of that other group. But, why punish them for that?"

> Because, what you're essentially saying is, "yes, this one group had a 400-year head start at the expense of that other group. But, why punish them for that?" I feel like you said this as an example of an obviously disagreeable point, but I unironically hold this view. Expanding opportunity for a group is always good; I'm all in favor of funding high-quality schools in historically underfunded districts, or providing free after-school programs to help kids whose parents are working, or to expand tutoring. These are all things that will disproportionately help those groups who have been marginalized throughout history. I am absolutely against, however, grading an individual differently due to their historic group membership. If an Asian student is applying to college, there is nothing that student could have done differently to avoid the opportunities they were born with, so it seems eminently unfair to punish that specific individual for something they have no control in and had no say in. Charge the student more if they're rich, sure, but don't discount the merit of a student solely because of their group membership. tl;dr: I'm all for investing in marginalized groups to level the playing field, but scoring individuals differently for things they have no control over feels flat-out wrong.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
unclebucknasty 5y ago
>I'm all in favor of...These are all things that will disproportionately help those groups who have been marginalized throughout history. >I'm all for investing in marginalized groups to level the playing field, but scoring individuals differently for things they have no control over feels flat-out wrong. I hear you, but what you're kind of doing there is drawing the lines around what you'd feel comfortable with, not what might actually be most effective. And, your comfort is generally tied to addressing things at the macro level. When we talk of groups, people tend to find it more acceptable than when they consider individuals being affected. But, of course, policies, including harmful ones, have historically been aimed at groups and groups are comprised of individuals. >seems eminently unfair to punish that specific individual Likewise with this sentiment. But, if we look at it as "punishing" individual people on one hand, then we're discounting the negative effects (i.e. punishment) experienced by individuals in the original group from previous and ongoing policies. That is, we're kind of unevenly oscillating between the macro and micro views, wherein the previous individual's "punishment" is lost in the group, but the current individual's is clear, present and personalized. The other thing is that those individuals in advantaged groups are frequently also the direct benefeciaries of favorable policies that they didn't earn. Where do we sort that? Because, in that context, even "merit" takes on a different meaning, relatively speaking. It's all suboptimal, but we got to this place by embarking on a massive, multi-century campaign of codified disenfranchisement of some groups in favor of others, to include violence, murder and redistribution of trillions of dollars in wealth. Millions of individuals were harmed as a result. I wish this entire discussion was unnecessary, but if earnestly attempting to address this means that a relative few individuals, say, go to Duke instead of Harvard, then it's unfortunate, but these things don't reasonably show up on the same chart.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

unclebucknasty 5y ago

>I'm all in favor of...These are all things that will disproportionately help those groups who have been marginalized throughout history. >I'm all for investing in marginalized groups to level the playing field, but scoring individuals differently for things they have no control over feels flat-out wrong. I hear you, but what you're kind of doing there is drawing the lines around what you'd feel comfortable with, not what might actually be most effective. And, your comfort is generally tied to addressing things at the macro level. When we talk of groups, people tend to find it more acceptable than when they consider individuals being affected. But, of course, policies, including harmful ones, have historically been aimed at groups and groups are comprised of individuals. >seems eminently unfair to punish that specific individual Likewise with this sentiment. But, if we look at it as "punishing" individual people on one hand, then we're discounting the negative effects (i.e. punishment) experienced by individuals in the original group from previous and ongoing policies. That is, we're kind of unevenly oscillating between the macro and micro views, wherein the previous individual's "punishment" is lost in the group, but the current individual's is clear, present and personalized. The other thing is that those individuals in advantaged groups are frequently also the direct benefeciaries of favorable policies that they didn't earn. Where do we sort that? Because, in that context, even "merit" takes on a different meaning, relatively speaking. It's all suboptimal, but we got to this place by embarking on a massive, multi-century campaign of codified disenfranchisement of some groups in favor of others, to include violence, murder and redistribution of trillions of dollars in wealth. Millions of individuals were harmed as a result. I wish this entire discussion was unnecessary, but if earnestly attempting to address this means that a relative few individuals, say, go to Duke instead of Harvard, then it's unfortunate, but these things don't reasonably show up on the same chart.