3 ms·

Despite ideals, people don't like reducing inequality

2 points by webmaven 4y ago

incomingpain 4y ago
>Most Americans say they want a more equal society, yet policies aimed at increasing equality for disadvantaged groups in higher education, corporations, government, and elsewhere continue to generate backlash. So lets flush this out. There's no women in tech is a common concern. The shoot from the hip is that men are discriminatory or harassing in the workplace. But that doesn't stand up to there being no women doing tech in college. The problem occurs before college. So lets say we want equality. What do we do? We don't go to high school and get women into tech? wtf? That isn't what we do. Instead we offer free college tuition if you're female. We outright are discriminating against men. What will that do? If you're a man, the way to look at this correctly is that tuition is covered unless you're a man. You are being punished for being male. What's the consequences? It's going to make those men angry they are being punished. While women get a free ride. Then men/women get out of college, you are all a bunch of newbs and you apply for a job but the woman gets it solely because she's a woman. You are being punished for being male. What do you think is happening? You aren't fixing the problem of equality. You're making the problem worse, you're going to have off the cuff remarks that any woman in a tech field is only there because she's female. Did she earn that position? Maybe she deserves to be there but giving women a free ride is going to create prejudice against them. >"We found that people think of the world in zero-sum terms, so that a gain for one group must necessarily be a loss for another," says study co-author Derek Brown, a Berkeley Haas doctoral student. "This seems to be a cognitive mistake that everyone is susceptible to, not just a vociferous minority that has antipathy toward any certain group." Where in my above illustration is it zero-sum? This is worse than zero-sum. You are producing new prejudice, a huge negative. You are still discriminating against identity, a huge negative. Your actions are making everything worse, of course we are going to oppose stupidity.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
What puts me off the most is how corporations handled PR or in general the equality/equity topic. It is clear as day that they pretty quickly find a fall guy to promote someone whose qualification is gender or ethnicity or whatever. With the accompanying unofficial NDA that nobody is to criticise these moves. That is just not desirable basis for anyone. > gain for one group must necessarily be a loss for another Because that is the most realistic result. In the end it will be the people at the top deciding who gets the most cake and they are pressured by the sentiment of vocal minorities driven mostly by vanity, surprisingly often from the most privileged groups of all. Only solution here is to treat everyone equally and in the worst case, like the sentiment is now, it has to be enshrined in law. Instead of policies for the "just" splitting of booty, increase access to opportunities and transience of mainly economic class in areas that are struggling. And yes, generalizing white, black, latin or whatever people and trying to balance the scales always requires a racist approach. My opinion, perhaps wrong but I don't see evidence against it. Now to my prejudice: Could it be that academics just don't understand that discriminating groups for a labor market inevitably makes them competitors in the labour market? The theories against the idea of a zero sum game cannot hold up, in fact you created it yourself by discriminating like you did. It is self-evidence by the metrics that are put up. > people still found a way to believe they'll be harmed Maybe it is you then? > The change itself has to be the justification. Ah, true believers, discussion pointless... typical for racists.
pmdulaney 4y ago
As a politically conservative Christian, I am completely opposed to woke attempts to bring about equity because I think each person should be treated as an individual and not as the member of a group. And that means equal opportunity for all, not equal outcomes for all. On the other hand, the failure to extend kindness and respect to those who have newly joined the ranks of the successful is small-minded envy and is sin.

2 points by webmaven 4y ago

>Most Americans say they want a more equal society, yet policies aimed at increasing equality for disadvantaged groups in higher education, corporations, government, and elsewhere continue to generate backlash. So lets flush this out. There's no women in tech is a common concern. The shoot from the hip is that men are discriminatory or harassing in the workplace. But that doesn't stand up to there being no women doing tech in college. The problem occurs before college. So lets say we want equality. What do we do? We don't go to high school and get women into tech? wtf? That isn't what we do. Instead we offer free college tuition if you're female. We outright are discriminating against men. What will that do? If you're a man, the way to look at this correctly is that tuition is covered unless you're a man. You are being punished for being male. What's the consequences? It's going to make those men angry they are being punished. While women get a free ride. Then men/women get out of college, you are all a bunch of newbs and you apply for a job but the woman gets it solely because she's a woman. You are being punished for being male. What do you think is happening? You aren't fixing the problem of equality. You're making the problem worse, you're going to have off the cuff remarks that any woman in a tech field is only there because she's female. Did she earn that position? Maybe she deserves to be there but giving women a free ride is going to create prejudice against them. >"We found that people think of the world in zero-sum terms, so that a gain for one group must necessarily be a loss for another," says study co-author Derek Brown, a Berkeley Haas doctoral student. "This seems to be a cognitive mistake that everyone is susceptible to, not just a vociferous minority that has antipathy toward any certain group." Where in my above illustration is it zero-sum? This is worse than zero-sum. You are producing new prejudice, a huge negative. You are still discriminating against identity, a huge negative. Your actions are making everything worse, of course we are going to oppose stupidity.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

What puts me off the most is how corporations handled PR or in general the equality/equity topic. It is clear as day that they pretty quickly find a fall guy to promote someone whose qualification is gender or ethnicity or whatever. With the accompanying unofficial NDA that nobody is to criticise these moves. That is just not desirable basis for anyone. > gain for one group must necessarily be a loss for another Because that is the most realistic result. In the end it will be the people at the top deciding who gets the most cake and they are pressured by the sentiment of vocal minorities driven mostly by vanity, surprisingly often from the most privileged groups of all. Only solution here is to treat everyone equally and in the worst case, like the sentiment is now, it has to be enshrined in law. Instead of policies for the "just" splitting of booty, increase access to opportunities and transience of mainly economic class in areas that are struggling. And yes, generalizing white, black, latin or whatever people and trying to balance the scales always requires a racist approach. My opinion, perhaps wrong but I don't see evidence against it. Now to my prejudice: Could it be that academics just don't understand that discriminating groups for a labor market inevitably makes them competitors in the labour market? The theories against the idea of a zero sum game cannot hold up, in fact you created it yourself by discriminating like you did. It is self-evidence by the metrics that are put up. > people still found a way to believe they'll be harmed Maybe it is you then? > The change itself has to be the justification. Ah, true believers, discussion pointless... typical for racists.

pmdulaney 4y ago

As a politically conservative Christian, I am completely opposed to woke attempts to bring about equity because I think each person should be treated as an individual and not as the member of a group. And that means equal opportunity for all, not equal outcomes for all. On the other hand, the failure to extend kindness and respect to those who have newly joined the ranks of the successful is small-minded envy and is sin.