4 ms·

Eliminating “gifted” programs because they offend the racial sensibilities of the managerial class is a blatant exercise in privilege and ladder-pulling. I thi

Eliminating “gifted” programs because they offend the racial sensibilities of the managerial class is a blatant exercise in privilege and ladder-pulling. I think it’s grotesque how many privileged people are happily destroying the lives of others (often, those they pretend to care about) so they don’t have to think critically about or be uncomfortable thinking about race. Seattle is the epitome of “privileged White liberals hurt everyone for their comfort”: The bourgeois have become the baizuo.

CoastalCoder 4y ago
I'm pretty socially conservative, and the equality-of-outcome mindset is very unintuitive for me. It's very tempting (edit: for me) to lazily rest on the caricature, "I don't care how many people I hurt, as long as I can help just one!" Despite that, or maybe because of that, I make a conscious effort to understand where the other side is coming from. I figure there's little chance of finding a compromise if I can't even comprehend their viewpoint. So far I haven't been very successful. Maybe it's because the chasm is so large regarding values, understandings of human nature, predictions about how things will play out, etc. Or maybe I have blind spots that get in the way. I wish I were better at this. It seems like at a very zoomed-out level we want similar things.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  > I figure there's little chance of finding a compromise if I can't even comprehend their viewpoint. I understand it just fine, but there’s a fundamental disagreement, in that I don’t support racism nor view people in terms of “racial tribes” — while proponents of equity do. That’s the frame they’re working from when they say denying an Asian student a place at Harvard in favor of a less qualified black applicant is “good”: that it’s okay to harm that person because they’re yellow and we need to balance between yellows and blacks — to accomplish their Utopian vision. Collectivism when applied to race inevitably leads to institutional racism. I don’t believe that’s something we need to “compromise” on: institutional racism was a disaster when we tried it before and modern attempts (eg, Netflix and Disney catering to those views) show that bigotry is widely unpopular and a poor way to run a company. Sometimes you just have to say “bigotry is wrong and we’re not trying it again — no matter how you dress it up in the language of civil rights or how righteous you feel about being a bigot”.
  - nlittlepoole 4y ago
    They aren't saying that. They are recognizing that many forms of power in society are zero sum. There are plenty of ways to get a great education but only one Harvard and a limited amount of power to be distributed via an institution like Harvard. You and many like you believe that access to these institutions should be gatekeeped via a meritocracy. The supporters of this form of affirmative action recognize that in a system where black/latino/indigenous students have structural disadvantages (poverty, prejudice, health, etc) that any pure meritocracy leads to a system where their racial group possesses disproportionately less power vs their population. The reason you see that as "racial tribes" is that you fundamentally are underestimating how much marginalized communities distrust communities outside of their own. Black people do not trust that if Asian students go to Harvard and gain positions of power that those adults will protect their interests. They want their own in those positions.
    - MockObject 4y ago
      > There are plenty of ways to get a great education but only one Harvard We had only one Harvard when the country's population was quite a bit smaller. Perhaps, instead of the zero-sum struggle for Harvard attendance, we should be working to create new Harvards. We have the oversupply of academics.
      - secabeen 4y ago
        > Perhaps, instead of the zero-sum struggle for Harvard attendance, we should be working to create new Harvards. That takes not dis-investing in public higher ed to the degree we did during the 2008 recession. It takes decades to build a new R1 research institution, and a commitment of large sums of money over that time. Rockefeller created the University of Chicago, Leyland Stanford his namesake, where are Buffet, Bloomberg, Walton, Mars, and Gates Universities? That could be a good use of some of the modern billionaire money, if we're not going to spend tax dollars on new R1 institutions.
        MockObject 4y ago
- MockObject 4y ago
  Equality of outcome simply isn't a rational value, because it can be achieved by bringing down the achievers, as well as bringing up the disadvantaged. When people call for that, they're most charitably engaging in very imprecise thinking.

CoastalCoder 4y ago

I'm pretty socially conservative, and the equality-of-outcome mindset is very unintuitive for me. It's very tempting (edit: for me) to lazily rest on the caricature, "I don't care how many people I hurt, as long as I can help just one!" Despite that, or maybe because of that, I make a conscious effort to understand where the other side is coming from. I figure there's little chance of finding a compromise if I can't even comprehend their viewpoint. So far I haven't been very successful. Maybe it's because the chasm is so large regarding values, understandings of human nature, predictions about how things will play out, etc. Or maybe I have blind spots that get in the way. I wish I were better at this. It seems like at a very zoomed-out level we want similar things.

zmgsabst 4y ago
> I figure there's little chance of finding a compromise if I can't even comprehend their viewpoint. I understand it just fine, but there’s a fundamental disagreement, in that I don’t support racism nor view people in terms of “racial tribes” — while proponents of equity do. That’s the frame they’re working from when they say denying an Asian student a place at Harvard in favor of a less qualified black applicant is “good”: that it’s okay to harm that person because they’re yellow and we need to balance between yellows and blacks — to accomplish their Utopian vision. Collectivism when applied to race inevitably leads to institutional racism. I don’t believe that’s something we need to “compromise” on: institutional racism was a disaster when we tried it before and modern attempts (eg, Netflix and Disney catering to those views) show that bigotry is widely unpopular and a poor way to run a company. Sometimes you just have to say “bigotry is wrong and we’re not trying it again — no matter how you dress it up in the language of civil rights or how righteous you feel about being a bigot”.
- nlittlepoole 4y ago
  They aren't saying that. They are recognizing that many forms of power in society are zero sum. There are plenty of ways to get a great education but only one Harvard and a limited amount of power to be distributed via an institution like Harvard. You and many like you believe that access to these institutions should be gatekeeped via a meritocracy. The supporters of this form of affirmative action recognize that in a system where black/latino/indigenous students have structural disadvantages (poverty, prejudice, health, etc) that any pure meritocracy leads to a system where their racial group possesses disproportionately less power vs their population. The reason you see that as "racial tribes" is that you fundamentally are underestimating how much marginalized communities distrust communities outside of their own. Black people do not trust that if Asian students go to Harvard and gain positions of power that those adults will protect their interests. They want their own in those positions.
  - MockObject 4y ago
    > There are plenty of ways to get a great education but only one Harvard We had only one Harvard when the country's population was quite a bit smaller. Perhaps, instead of the zero-sum struggle for Harvard attendance, we should be working to create new Harvards. We have the oversupply of academics.
    - secabeen 4y ago
      > Perhaps, instead of the zero-sum struggle for Harvard attendance, we should be working to create new Harvards. That takes not dis-investing in public higher ed to the degree we did during the 2008 recession. It takes decades to build a new R1 research institution, and a commitment of large sums of money over that time. Rockefeller created the University of Chicago, Leyland Stanford his namesake, where are Buffet, Bloomberg, Walton, Mars, and Gates Universities? That could be a good use of some of the modern billionaire money, if we're not going to spend tax dollars on new R1 institutions.
      - MockObject 4y ago
MockObject 4y ago
Equality of outcome simply isn't a rational value, because it can be achieved by bringing down the achievers, as well as bringing up the disadvantaged. When people call for that, they're most charitably engaging in very imprecise thinking.