5 ms·

If you're saying that we should allow individuals and companies to create their own identity policies free from government oversight, then we should allow indiv

If you're saying that we should allow individuals and companies to create their own identity policies free from government oversight, then we should allow individuals and companies to discriminate any way they want. Don't want to hire blacks, gays or Jews? Allowed. To be honest, there is a legitimate argument that this type of discrimination would be better handled through the free market. But I doubt the people who support Asian discrimination in academia would support this.

lukas099 5y ago
Is creating a purely merit-based institution really an identity policy though? I see it as an identity-blind policy, unless you define identity to include merit.
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  The fallacy of meritocracy. You stand on the shoulders of your parents. If you come from a family of crackheads on the bad side of the rail tracks you already lost the race long before 8th grade.
  - lukas099 5y ago
    Merit, by definition, is what you deserve. I could see the case for merit-based applications that take into account how far you've come relative to where you started.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    While this is very true, you cannot force all parents to become crackheads, so you will always have different outcomes. We have the same problem with wealth in that regard. You can only improve education in a way that is offers support for people in difficult homes. Perhaps their difficult childhood will ultimately hinder them from becoming the best. But then perhaps their children will fare better.
    - bradlys 5y ago
      This is why we can do things to make up for the fact that society has failed these children. If you make it so that only “merit” is considered - you’re only gonna get rich kids. (And I see this already through SV - it’s nothing but rich or well educated parents for the children here) What is the argument against letting children who have had a rough lot in their life get a slight lessening of their handicap when applying for colleges or other life changing scenarios that could pull them out of their rut for future generations? If you don’t and are unwilling to address the root cause (and we aren’t willing to address that in the US - we don’t even have universal healthcare yet guys) then you’re gonna keep having this shit continue.
      - notSupplied 5y ago
        The merit-based school such as Styuvesant in NYC and Lowell in SF are both filled with rather poor Asian kids. The demographic profile of these two schools are substantially lower income than the very expensive cities they reside in. Edit: Got the names of the schools wrong.
        bradlys 5y ago
        You know that isn't an argument against what I said, right? Like, at all. It completely supports what I said.
        fallingknife 5y ago
        You said: > If you make it so that only “merit” is considered - you’re only gonna get rich kids. He said: > The merit-based school such as Styuvesant in NYC and Lowell in SF are both filled with rather poor Asian kids. > The demographic profile of these two schools are substantially lower income than the very expensive cities they reside in. It couldn't possibly be further from supporting what you said.
        bradlys 5y ago
  - someguydave 5y ago
    what is the fallacy exactly?
    - AniseAbyss 5y ago
      The fallacy that you went to that nice university because you're smart and not just lucky.
      - someguydave 5y ago
        Do you mean that some people are lucky because they were born smart?
        fallingknife 5y ago
        This is the real issue that no one wants to address.
        notSupplied 5y ago
        Yeah I’m with you here. Would it be reasonable to say that hard work should be rewarded? Well…ones propensity for hard work, it turns out, is highly heritable. Either from your genes or from your upbringing. You didn’t choose your parents, nor did you choose your upbringing. So your propensity for hard work is really just unearned privilege. Same line of reasoning can be applied with future orientation, or smarts. People don’t deserve the fruits of their intellect, because they didn’t do anything to earn it. I’m not sure if there is a name for this kind of absurdity, but “Achievement Fatalism” is a nice fit.
        someguydave 5y ago
        I can sympathize with people who are sad about the inequalities of biology. The trouble is that the best hope for “a rising tide that lifts all boats” is for the top crust of the IQ of humanity to be applied toward fixing real problems. Distracting smart people with stupid fake victim status games literally makes the rest of humanity poorer.
  - notSupplied 5y ago
    Spending extra time reading to your kids, sending your kids to tutors, paying for summer programs, sweating over neighborhood to move into for their good schools...many of these things are now considered “inter-generational privilege transfer”. But not long ago, they were simply called “good parenting”. Why even bother doing good parenting when the ideologues in charge want to “fallacy of meritocracy” away any advantages you have given to your kids? I used to be pretty annoyed by conservatives boasting about "family values". I thought it was just performative virtue signaling. But looking at how the far left views the hard work of parenting as something that ought to be "equalized away" has me thinking maybe the I was wrong.
    - AniseAbyss 5y ago
      Indeed we would have to make everyone completely equal. Mao tried to achieve this with the abolishment of the family.
    - bradlys 5y ago
someguydave 5y ago
In fact the Constitution insists on allowing exactly this kind of discrimination in the assembly clause of the first amendment.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  The freedom of assembly is specifically the freedom that was curtailed by the Civil Rights Act. Legally, it should be added... The freedom protected in the first amendment is the freedom of political assembly. The Civil Rights Act has been argued repeatedly in the Supreme Court, and the court has ruled repeatedly that the constitutionally protected freedom of assembly is not curtailed by requiring corporations, incorporated under the rules of the state, to be required to serve everyone in the protected classes.
  - someguydave 5y ago
    Amazing that the first part of the first amendment does not only apply to political speech. The court was wrong and will be wrong again. I would ask how progressives square two contradictory interpretations of the first amendment but then I realized they don’t really support the freedom of non-progressive speech anymore.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Sorry, that was an error on my part: freedom of association (in the context of providing public accomodation) was curtailed by the Civil Rights Act, not assembly. And your beef isn't with progressives if that's something you're taking issue with; it's with a couple generations of the Supreme Court, which is considered a relatively conservative branch of the government. (IANAL disclaimer) The freedom of association has been implied by analogy to be protected by the explicitly-enumerated freedom to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment, in some specific cases. But it's a loose protection by analogy; the letter of the First Amendment doesn't even mention a freedom of association. The SCOTUS has not ruled that the freedom of association extends to a freedom to exclude in public accommodation; in layman's terms, the reasoning is "You have the freedom to serve as many people as you want, but that does not imply a freedom to not serve other people if you want to operate under the corporate charter that the government grants." This overview describes things much better than I can. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-freedom-of-association.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-... > The court was wrong and will be wrong again. No doubt, but I don't think you'll find a receptive ear (in the public or in legal circles) to the notion that the Court has been wrong regarding upholding the Civil Rights Act.

lukas099 5y ago

Is creating a purely merit-based institution really an identity policy though? I see it as an identity-blind policy, unless you define identity to include merit.

AniseAbyss 5y ago
The fallacy of meritocracy. You stand on the shoulders of your parents. If you come from a family of crackheads on the bad side of the rail tracks you already lost the race long before 8th grade.
- lukas099 5y ago
  Merit, by definition, is what you deserve. I could see the case for merit-based applications that take into account how far you've come relative to where you started.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  While this is very true, you cannot force all parents to become crackheads, so you will always have different outcomes. We have the same problem with wealth in that regard. You can only improve education in a way that is offers support for people in difficult homes. Perhaps their difficult childhood will ultimately hinder them from becoming the best. But then perhaps their children will fare better.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    This is why we can do things to make up for the fact that society has failed these children. If you make it so that only “merit” is considered - you’re only gonna get rich kids. (And I see this already through SV - it’s nothing but rich or well educated parents for the children here) What is the argument against letting children who have had a rough lot in their life get a slight lessening of their handicap when applying for colleges or other life changing scenarios that could pull them out of their rut for future generations? If you don’t and are unwilling to address the root cause (and we aren’t willing to address that in the US - we don’t even have universal healthcare yet guys) then you’re gonna keep having this shit continue.
    - notSupplied 5y ago
      The merit-based school such as Styuvesant in NYC and Lowell in SF are both filled with rather poor Asian kids. The demographic profile of these two schools are substantially lower income than the very expensive cities they reside in. Edit: Got the names of the schools wrong.
      - bradlys 5y ago
        You know that isn't an argument against what I said, right? Like, at all. It completely supports what I said.
        fallingknife 5y ago
        You said: > If you make it so that only “merit” is considered - you’re only gonna get rich kids. He said: > The merit-based school such as Styuvesant in NYC and Lowell in SF are both filled with rather poor Asian kids. > The demographic profile of these two schools are substantially lower income than the very expensive cities they reside in. It couldn't possibly be further from supporting what you said.
        bradlys 5y ago
- someguydave 5y ago
  what is the fallacy exactly?
  - AniseAbyss 5y ago
    The fallacy that you went to that nice university because you're smart and not just lucky.
    - someguydave 5y ago
      Do you mean that some people are lucky because they were born smart?
      - fallingknife 5y ago
        This is the real issue that no one wants to address.
        notSupplied 5y ago
        Yeah I’m with you here. Would it be reasonable to say that hard work should be rewarded? Well…ones propensity for hard work, it turns out, is highly heritable. Either from your genes or from your upbringing. You didn’t choose your parents, nor did you choose your upbringing. So your propensity for hard work is really just unearned privilege. Same line of reasoning can be applied with future orientation, or smarts. People don’t deserve the fruits of their intellect, because they didn’t do anything to earn it. I’m not sure if there is a name for this kind of absurdity, but “Achievement Fatalism” is a nice fit.
        someguydave 5y ago
        I can sympathize with people who are sad about the inequalities of biology. The trouble is that the best hope for “a rising tide that lifts all boats” is for the top crust of the IQ of humanity to be applied toward fixing real problems. Distracting smart people with stupid fake victim status games literally makes the rest of humanity poorer.
- notSupplied 5y ago
  Spending extra time reading to your kids, sending your kids to tutors, paying for summer programs, sweating over neighborhood to move into for their good schools...many of these things are now considered “inter-generational privilege transfer”. But not long ago, they were simply called “good parenting”. Why even bother doing good parenting when the ideologues in charge want to “fallacy of meritocracy” away any advantages you have given to your kids? I used to be pretty annoyed by conservatives boasting about "family values". I thought it was just performative virtue signaling. But looking at how the far left views the hard work of parenting as something that ought to be "equalized away" has me thinking maybe the I was wrong.
  - AniseAbyss 5y ago
    Indeed we would have to make everyone completely equal. Mao tried to achieve this with the abolishment of the family.
  - bradlys 5y ago

someguydave 5y ago

In fact the Constitution insists on allowing exactly this kind of discrimination in the assembly clause of the first amendment.

shadowgovt 5y ago
The freedom of assembly is specifically the freedom that was curtailed by the Civil Rights Act. Legally, it should be added... The freedom protected in the first amendment is the freedom of political assembly. The Civil Rights Act has been argued repeatedly in the Supreme Court, and the court has ruled repeatedly that the constitutionally protected freedom of assembly is not curtailed by requiring corporations, incorporated under the rules of the state, to be required to serve everyone in the protected classes.
- someguydave 5y ago
  Amazing that the first part of the first amendment does not only apply to political speech. The court was wrong and will be wrong again. I would ask how progressives square two contradictory interpretations of the first amendment but then I realized they don’t really support the freedom of non-progressive speech anymore.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Sorry, that was an error on my part: freedom of association (in the context of providing public accomodation) was curtailed by the Civil Rights Act, not assembly. And your beef isn't with progressives if that's something you're taking issue with; it's with a couple generations of the Supreme Court, which is considered a relatively conservative branch of the government. (IANAL disclaimer) The freedom of association has been implied by analogy to be protected by the explicitly-enumerated freedom to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment, in some specific cases. But it's a loose protection by analogy; the letter of the First Amendment doesn't even mention a freedom of association. The SCOTUS has not ruled that the freedom of association extends to a freedom to exclude in public accommodation; in layman's terms, the reasoning is "You have the freedom to serve as many people as you want, but that does not imply a freedom to not serve other people if you want to operate under the corporate charter that the government grants." This overview describes things much better than I can. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-freedom-of-association.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-... > The court was wrong and will be wrong again. No doubt, but I don't think you'll find a receptive ear (in the public or in legal circles) to the notion that the Court has been wrong regarding upholding the Civil Rights Act.