4 ms·

you just confirmed my assumption, by saying “it will on average net out”. I agree that “on average” the white population will still not be disadvantaged. But i

by skyde 4y ago

you just confirmed my assumption, by saying “it will on average net out”. I agree that “on average” the white population will still not be disadvantaged. But it’s still morally wrong because for one particular individual it would not. It the same thing as laws making it illegal to own a pit bull dogs in some city. Maybe it’s true the majority of pitbull are dangerous! but is it still fair to the pitbull owner that have a well trained one to suffer the ban because it will average out ? In my example you can say that affirmative action (banning pitbull) is still discrimination against pitbull ! which is why people call it reverse discrimination. but if you prefer you can simply call it legal discrimination

michaelmrose 4y ago
It doesn't merely average out in terms of population it averages out even in the case of individuals because a single individual in the course of putting out many job applications will deal with far more employers who will give them preference because they are white than those that will give a minority preference.
- skyde 4y ago
  unfortunately if you are an individual that does not have connection. It will not average out because the business will keep the spot for white people only for people from rich family that have connection. So your probability of getting hired will become less than a minority.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    This is completely fictional and provably so. Distinctively black names on identical resumes are less likely to get a call back. This is classic white victimhood.
    - skyde 4y ago
      i think you don’t understand my point at all. You are correct in saying the Majority of white (80%) will have better odd of getting a call back compared to an average black person. But while forcing company to use hiring quota will help the the black population. it will make it harder for poor white people to get hired as compared to poor black people. you could say it’s acceptable collateral damage but you can’t say it’s not true .
      - michaelmrose 4y ago
        I specifically don't agree as a poor white person that I have it harder than a poor black person of identical qualifications nor do I see any affirmative action policies as applied anywhere changing this even if they became pervasive.

by skyde 4y ago

michaelmrose 4y ago

It doesn't merely average out in terms of population it averages out even in the case of individuals because a single individual in the course of putting out many job applications will deal with far more employers who will give them preference because they are white than those that will give a minority preference.

skyde 4y ago
unfortunately if you are an individual that does not have connection. It will not average out because the business will keep the spot for white people only for people from rich family that have connection. So your probability of getting hired will become less than a minority.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  This is completely fictional and provably so. Distinctively black names on identical resumes are less likely to get a call back. This is classic white victimhood.
  - skyde 4y ago
    i think you don’t understand my point at all. You are correct in saying the Majority of white (80%) will have better odd of getting a call back compared to an average black person. But while forcing company to use hiring quota will help the the black population. it will make it harder for poor white people to get hired as compared to poor black people. you could say it’s acceptable collateral damage but you can’t say it’s not true .
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      I specifically don't agree as a poor white person that I have it harder than a poor black person of identical qualifications nor do I see any affirmative action policies as applied anywhere changing this even if they became pervasive.