3 ms·

You and I probably agree on the principle. I just want to call attention that this sort of snipe doesn't communicate well, in my opinion. I feel like the term r

by tomrod 4y ago

You and I probably agree on the principle. I just want to call attention that this sort of snipe doesn't communicate well, in my opinion. I feel like the term racism has been split between race-based bigotry (which most people argue when they say "I'm not racist!") and supporting systems which encourage systemic preferences for certain groups. As I mention in another comment, I wish I understood this topic more, because the latter definition appears to be where folks are complaining about affirmative action since the end-state metrics aren't well defined (or maybe they are, but aren't well communicated?).

zmgsabst 4y ago
- tomrod 4y ago
  I get your confusion on the topic. But your approach fails to consider that the removal of privilege of a socially preferred group feels like discrimination to members of that group. This means the nuance is a distinction with difference.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    We’re not talking about “removing privilege”, ie, ending a racist program that favors Asians. We’re talking about discrimination against an 18 year old Asian kid who has done nothing on the basis of race.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Negative discrimination of one group results in privilege to another (or, by default, all others).
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        Yes — you’re discriminating against Asians by privileging blacks in selection. That’s what makes this racism.
        tomrod 4y ago
        Ah, you agree with me. Great. You're just missing that bigotry of an individual is not equivalent to a systemic policy.
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        No — individuals can still be racist. But we’re discussing systemic racism against Asians in college admissions, so that’s an irrelevant distinction.
        tomrod 4y ago
        It seems you may have lost the thread of your original complaint on my comment.
TimTheTinker 4y ago
> supporting systems which encourage systemic preferences for certain groups The newest definition is "systems that do not ensure equal outcomes between ethnic groups". I'm sure you can discern the dark side of that statement. The idea is that we should ignore the problem at the source - injustice, unequal treatment, real racism (by your first definition) -- and instead correct it via racial quotas wherever there's supposed to be an objective, impartial test of one's fitness for a role. One of the USA's great mottos used to be "equal opportunity". Not anymore, sadly -- between nepotism, promised donations, and racial quotas it's become nigh on impossible for some otherwise highly qualified but poor kids to go to an ivy-league school.

by tomrod 4y ago

zmgsabst 4y ago

tomrod 4y ago
I get your confusion on the topic. But your approach fails to consider that the removal of privilege of a socially preferred group feels like discrimination to members of that group. This means the nuance is a distinction with difference.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  We’re not talking about “removing privilege”, ie, ending a racist program that favors Asians. We’re talking about discrimination against an 18 year old Asian kid who has done nothing on the basis of race.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Negative discrimination of one group results in privilege to another (or, by default, all others).
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      Yes — you’re discriminating against Asians by privileging blacks in selection. That’s what makes this racism.
      - tomrod 4y ago
        Ah, you agree with me. Great. You're just missing that bigotry of an individual is not equivalent to a systemic policy.
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        No — individuals can still be racist. But we’re discussing systemic racism against Asians in college admissions, so that’s an irrelevant distinction.
        tomrod 4y ago
        It seems you may have lost the thread of your original complaint on my comment.

TimTheTinker 4y ago

> supporting systems which encourage systemic preferences for certain groups The newest definition is "systems that do not ensure equal outcomes between ethnic groups". I'm sure you can discern the dark side of that statement. The idea is that we should ignore the problem at the source - injustice, unequal treatment, real racism (by your first definition) -- and instead correct it via racial quotas wherever there's supposed to be an objective, impartial test of one's fitness for a role. One of the USA's great mottos used to be "equal opportunity". Not anymore, sadly -- between nepotism, promised donations, and racial quotas it's become nigh on impossible for some otherwise highly qualified but poor kids to go to an ivy-league school.