4 ms·

> where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies Well, the CA Democratic Party's official posit

> where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies Well, the CA Democratic Party's official position is that you should have supported Prop 16, which would have unbanned race based affirmative action (racism) [1]. > Sure, yes, this is fine. It is not fine. Myself and many others reject this sort of practice. California voters rejected Prop 16 by a 15 pt margin. It is illegal under federal discrimination laws to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. It is racism, plain and simple. Just because you are (I presume) white and liberal and you aren't affected by such policies does not make them legal or moral. Pretending you are morally superior by discriminating against minorities through affirmative action is just as bad as white supremacy. This sort of "it's fine" attitude is why Trump got elected. And before you accuse me of being a white cis-male, I'm not white. > You should really read those links better > Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though. I quote from the article: "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category". This is literally the sort of DEI affirmative action sexism I was mentioning. You also coincidentally ignore the fact that Asians were discriminated against because women being underpaid fits your political narrative better. One of these things is a direct result of Google's internal policy to discriminate against "overrepresented" minorities like Asians and one of these things is not. [1] https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/State-Propositions-on-the-2020-November-Ballot-.pdf https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/State-Propositi...

joshuamorton 4y ago
> "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category". Right, so you lied when you said that they were prioritizing promoting women, which is false, and is completely unrelated to what you quoted in the article. >You also coincidentally ignore the fact that Asians were discriminated against No I didn't. I literally mentioned them. Me pointing out that you did entirely ignore the discrimination against women (because it does in fact completely invalidate the point you were going for) isn't ignoring Asians. Like I keep saying, its not zero sum. I am capable of believing that it is possible to dsciriminate against multiple groups. > Just because you are (I presume) white and liberal and you aren't affected by such policies does not make them legal or moral. I'm confused, so please explain it to me: If I'm white, and these policies favor nonwhite people over white ones, how could I be unaffected?
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  > Right, so you lied when you said that they were prioritizing promoting women, which is false, and is completely unrelated to what you quoted in the article. Promotion or bonus, do the details really matter? In either case, Google's internal DEI initiatives caused managers either directly or indirectly to favor women. You can't just set diversity KPIs and expect managers to respect anti-discrimination law. Incentives matter. > completely invalidate the point you were going for That Asians are systemically discriminated against by affirmative action? That affirmative action is wrong and racist/sexist? That Google systemically discriminates against Asians through its DEI initiatives? > I am capable of believing that it is possible to dsciriminate against multiple groups Correct, it is possible for women to have been discriminated against by sexist managers and for another set of managers to have discriminated against men and Asians through DEI programs. One of these things is a program promoted by Google and one is not. > its not zero sum So why don't you give up your job to a female person of color then? Headcount is zero sum. If you favor specific minorities, other people get less spots. That's zero sum by definition. > these policies favor nonwhite people over white ones That's where you've got it wrong. Affirmative action doesn't favor nonwhites over whites, it favors specific nonwhites (mainly blacks and latinos) over Asians. If you look at the stats before and after the University of California system banned affirmative action, the proportion of whites stayed about the same [1]. That's what I mean by "you aren't affected by such policies". When you implement affirmative action, it's Asians taking the hit for your moral grandstanding. As a white person, you have no right to come and lecture us minorities about "diversity" and "equity" and "inclusion" when your own policies are racist. [1] https://www.dailycal.org/2018/02/02/prop-209-affirmative-action-uc-berkeley-enrollment/ https://www.dailycal.org/2018/02/02/prop-209-affirmative-act...
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    For most of my life, I didn't live in the bay area. I lived in a place where Asians are less than 5% of the population, which is like most of the US. Disfavoring Asians in such a place is ineffective, as there aren't enough to have an appreciable effect. Are you claiming affirmative action doesn't exist in such areas? There's a bunch of other nonsense in your post (like suggesting $400 and $30,000 are equivalent, or the completely made up claim that managers were being encouraged to pay women more), but like this feels extra egregious.

joshuamorton 4y ago

> "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category". Right, so you lied when you said that they were prioritizing promoting women, which is false, and is completely unrelated to what you quoted in the article. >You also coincidentally ignore the fact that Asians were discriminated against No I didn't. I literally mentioned them. Me pointing out that you did entirely ignore the discrimination against women (because it does in fact completely invalidate the point you were going for) isn't ignoring Asians. Like I keep saying, its not zero sum. I am capable of believing that it is possible to dsciriminate against multiple groups. > Just because you are (I presume) white and liberal and you aren't affected by such policies does not make them legal or moral. I'm confused, so please explain it to me: If I'm white, and these policies favor nonwhite people over white ones, how could I be unaffected?

ceeplusplus 4y ago
> Right, so you lied when you said that they were prioritizing promoting women, which is false, and is completely unrelated to what you quoted in the article. Promotion or bonus, do the details really matter? In either case, Google's internal DEI initiatives caused managers either directly or indirectly to favor women. You can't just set diversity KPIs and expect managers to respect anti-discrimination law. Incentives matter. > completely invalidate the point you were going for That Asians are systemically discriminated against by affirmative action? That affirmative action is wrong and racist/sexist? That Google systemically discriminates against Asians through its DEI initiatives? > I am capable of believing that it is possible to dsciriminate against multiple groups Correct, it is possible for women to have been discriminated against by sexist managers and for another set of managers to have discriminated against men and Asians through DEI programs. One of these things is a program promoted by Google and one is not. > its not zero sum So why don't you give up your job to a female person of color then? Headcount is zero sum. If you favor specific minorities, other people get less spots. That's zero sum by definition. > these policies favor nonwhite people over white ones That's where you've got it wrong. Affirmative action doesn't favor nonwhites over whites, it favors specific nonwhites (mainly blacks and latinos) over Asians. If you look at the stats before and after the University of California system banned affirmative action, the proportion of whites stayed about the same [1]. That's what I mean by "you aren't affected by such policies". When you implement affirmative action, it's Asians taking the hit for your moral grandstanding. As a white person, you have no right to come and lecture us minorities about "diversity" and "equity" and "inclusion" when your own policies are racist. [1] https://www.dailycal.org/2018/02/02/prop-209-affirmative-action-uc-berkeley-enrollment/ https://www.dailycal.org/2018/02/02/prop-209-affirmative-act...
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  For most of my life, I didn't live in the bay area. I lived in a place where Asians are less than 5% of the population, which is like most of the US. Disfavoring Asians in such a place is ineffective, as there aren't enough to have an appreciable effect. Are you claiming affirmative action doesn't exist in such areas? There's a bunch of other nonsense in your post (like suggesting $400 and $30,000 are equivalent, or the completely made up claim that managers were being encouraged to pay women more), but like this feels extra egregious.