3 ms·

It depends on how you define equality. My definition is "people are judged on their abilities and character, not by the color of their skin, gender, orientation

by qwerpy 5y ago

It depends on how you define equality. My definition is "people are judged on their abilities and character, not by the color of their skin, gender, orientation, etc.". Not "every pairwise combination of race and gender is proportionally represented in college admissions and high-paying jobs". As an Asian, I don't expect that Asians are proportionally represented in the NFL despite the fact that I'd love to have a job that pays me millions per year. But I also don't see a problem with Asians being overrepresented in Ivy Leagues and engineering jobs. I haven't seen any evidence that red is hindering equality, but DEI to me is the opposite of equality. So to me, voting for red is actually a vote for equality.

vineyardmike 5y ago
> I haven't seen any evidence that red is hindering equality So, I’m going to provide a single example of how it is, to provide it is, but there’s more than one. The very easy and historically obvious example is American slavery. One group of people -judged by race not ability or character- was forced to be slaves. this is first case of being judged on race. Easy obvious and hard to argue with. We freed the slaves but “grandfathered” white people with the rights to vote. They did not vote pro-slaves, they voted for their own interests. Surprising no one, former slaves with no rights (who are still tormented and killed by white people) did not advance economically or educationally - regardless of their abilities or character. Once they got the protected right to vote, it was mid 1900s. That’s 100 years. 100 years of being unable to protect their interests due to their race. Along the way they had redlining, keeping them without growing wealth in poor neighborhoods with poor education. This limits their ability to go to college and grow, like those Ivys you mentioned (pretending there wasn’t explicit race based admission). Historically black neighborhoods were redlined, keeping them black. You can look up a map and find the explicit lines of race in most cities. They’re poorer with worse education. This was all explicitly due to race. Today, you can find red gerrymandering along those historic race lines to break up the voting blocks so this group of people have weaker voting power. Voter ID laws, voter registration scrubbing, tons of examples of continuing disenfranchisement. That’s due to race. 150 years since the civil war. It’s very easy to say you want your race over represented in Ivy league schools but you’re ok if not all races are, and other races can have the NFL. How do you feel about legacy admissions at Ivys? The same group of rich white ivy grads in office that want to end DEI will certainly protect legacy system a lot harder. It’s about “merit” until it’s the next challenge to their children’s admission. Red spent a long time keeping black people from having full rights and full ability to succeed based on their true ability. Breaking down DEI rules used to help push up black people may let Asians shine now, but you’ve seen how other people are treated, so be careful who you lay with.

by qwerpy 5y ago

vineyardmike 5y ago

> I haven't seen any evidence that red is hindering equality So, I’m going to provide a single example of how it is, to provide it is, but there’s more than one. The very easy and historically obvious example is American slavery. One group of people -judged by race not ability or character- was forced to be slaves. this is first case of being judged on race. Easy obvious and hard to argue with. We freed the slaves but “grandfathered” white people with the rights to vote. They did not vote pro-slaves, they voted for their own interests. Surprising no one, former slaves with no rights (who are still tormented and killed by white people) did not advance economically or educationally - regardless of their abilities or character. Once they got the protected right to vote, it was mid 1900s. That’s 100 years. 100 years of being unable to protect their interests due to their race. Along the way they had redlining, keeping them without growing wealth in poor neighborhoods with poor education. This limits their ability to go to college and grow, like those Ivys you mentioned (pretending there wasn’t explicit race based admission). Historically black neighborhoods were redlined, keeping them black. You can look up a map and find the explicit lines of race in most cities. They’re poorer with worse education. This was all explicitly due to race. Today, you can find red gerrymandering along those historic race lines to break up the voting blocks so this group of people have weaker voting power. Voter ID laws, voter registration scrubbing, tons of examples of continuing disenfranchisement. That’s due to race. 150 years since the civil war. It’s very easy to say you want your race over represented in Ivy league schools but you’re ok if not all races are, and other races can have the NFL. How do you feel about legacy admissions at Ivys? The same group of rich white ivy grads in office that want to end DEI will certainly protect legacy system a lot harder. It’s about “merit” until it’s the next challenge to their children’s admission. Red spent a long time keeping black people from having full rights and full ability to succeed based on their true ability. Breaking down DEI rules used to help push up black people may let Asians shine now, but you’ve seen how other people are treated, so be careful who you lay with.