6 ms·

> a doctrine that discriminating against Whites is very good and correct, because they deserve it. This is an argument put forth in bad faith. The thought - ag

> a doctrine that discriminating against Whites is very good and correct, because they deserve it. This is an argument put forth in bad faith. The thought - agree or disagree - is white individuals in America have systemic advantages that persist due to historical social practices the manifest across many years of education and just existence in life in America. It's not about "deserving less" but about acknowledging they nudges in their favor many had along the way. I'm not going to debate the veracity of that thought on a forum, but it's not some sort of punitive belief.

samatman 4y ago
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  I don't think my characterization is "merely rephrasing" what you said. If you believe policies and practices people are trying to disadvantage white people in decision-making because white people "deserve" less, you're wrong. I think you can debate the morality of helping mitigate structural disadvantages (which I hope you acknowledge exist) that many underrepresented groups face with intentional, procedural advantages for those same groups. I won't do it with you, but I think ignoring structural disadvantages created by a history of racism isn't the solution. I don't know what the solution is.
- generj 4y ago
  This seems a rather uncharitable and combative read of the above commentator. Where did they start lying?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 4y ago
How does acknowledgement of favor manifest if not by punitive discrimination? Is a simple admission of favor sufficient, or must corrective action be taken? It seems that this is simply the argument for why the punitive belief is just.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  I had another response to a now-deleted reply, but I'll put it here. Ultimately, there are policies and practices in place that try to mitigate documented structural disadvantages for underrepresented groups using a counterweight of procedural advantage. There is a debate to be had here (though I won't have it online), but the reality is true fairness and justice cannot occur without an intentional efforts to redress systemic structural unfairness because by it's very nature it won't "just work out eventually" for those affected. At least not on a reasonable timescale. In other words: in some decision-making settings non-White groups have a procedural weight in their favor to minimally counterbalance the way society has objectively and still measurably disadvantaged them for generations. If you want to call that "punishment" because White people "deserve it" then fine. However, I personally think that's semi-dishonest semantics that may be technically correct in the most literal sense of the word, but is not expressed in a way commensurate with the parlance of our times.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Independent of supporting justification, I think that denying the concept of procedural disadvantage while proposing procedural advantage is also dishonest semantics. In a zero-sum competition like hiring or admission, adjusting the criteria to give advantage to one is identical to giving a disadvantage to the other. Any denial of this fact taints the credibility of the speaker. I fully agree that certain individuals face significant structural disadvantages. I actually think that most people, including those seeking social justice, are blind to many of those structural disadvantages because they find them distasteful to admit, and too adjacent to racist talking points. If one recognizes that structural advantage exist, as we do, the questions become the appropriate methods and timeline for resolving inequity. This last one is particularly complex, and almost never discussed in any context. The reality is that even in the best case scenario, true equality without a hand on the scale will be a multi-generational project. Regarding methods, I think it is important to note that while racial groups share many similar experiences, suffering takes place at the individual level, and individual circumstances vary widely. Heavy handed policies that treat all blacks or all whites as equivalent to each other will always have a lot of inherent injustice and collateral damage baked into them. A poor white immigrant from Ukraine is not the same as a rich white bankers son. A rich black immigrant is not the same as poor inner city child with the baggage of 200 years of systemic racism. When folk talk of procedural advantage based on race, what many people hear is "you are acceptable collateral damage". I think the more the conversation admits who will suffer and benefit from efforts to reduce inequities of birth, the more honest and productive discussion we can have.

samatman 4y ago

HelloMcFly 4y ago
I don't think my characterization is "merely rephrasing" what you said. If you believe policies and practices people are trying to disadvantage white people in decision-making because white people "deserve" less, you're wrong. I think you can debate the morality of helping mitigate structural disadvantages (which I hope you acknowledge exist) that many underrepresented groups face with intentional, procedural advantages for those same groups. I won't do it with you, but I think ignoring structural disadvantages created by a history of racism isn't the solution. I don't know what the solution is.
generj 4y ago
This seems a rather uncharitable and combative read of the above commentator. Where did they start lying?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

s1artibartfast 4y ago

How does acknowledgement of favor manifest if not by punitive discrimination? Is a simple admission of favor sufficient, or must corrective action be taken? It seems that this is simply the argument for why the punitive belief is just.

HelloMcFly 4y ago
I had another response to a now-deleted reply, but I'll put it here. Ultimately, there are policies and practices in place that try to mitigate documented structural disadvantages for underrepresented groups using a counterweight of procedural advantage. There is a debate to be had here (though I won't have it online), but the reality is true fairness and justice cannot occur without an intentional efforts to redress systemic structural unfairness because by it's very nature it won't "just work out eventually" for those affected. At least not on a reasonable timescale. In other words: in some decision-making settings non-White groups have a procedural weight in their favor to minimally counterbalance the way society has objectively and still measurably disadvantaged them for generations. If you want to call that "punishment" because White people "deserve it" then fine. However, I personally think that's semi-dishonest semantics that may be technically correct in the most literal sense of the word, but is not expressed in a way commensurate with the parlance of our times.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Independent of supporting justification, I think that denying the concept of procedural disadvantage while proposing procedural advantage is also dishonest semantics. In a zero-sum competition like hiring or admission, adjusting the criteria to give advantage to one is identical to giving a disadvantage to the other. Any denial of this fact taints the credibility of the speaker. I fully agree that certain individuals face significant structural disadvantages. I actually think that most people, including those seeking social justice, are blind to many of those structural disadvantages because they find them distasteful to admit, and too adjacent to racist talking points. If one recognizes that structural advantage exist, as we do, the questions become the appropriate methods and timeline for resolving inequity. This last one is particularly complex, and almost never discussed in any context. The reality is that even in the best case scenario, true equality without a hand on the scale will be a multi-generational project. Regarding methods, I think it is important to note that while racial groups share many similar experiences, suffering takes place at the individual level, and individual circumstances vary widely. Heavy handed policies that treat all blacks or all whites as equivalent to each other will always have a lot of inherent injustice and collateral damage baked into them. A poor white immigrant from Ukraine is not the same as a rich white bankers son. A rich black immigrant is not the same as poor inner city child with the baggage of 200 years of systemic racism. When folk talk of procedural advantage based on race, what many people hear is "you are acceptable collateral damage". I think the more the conversation admits who will suffer and benefit from efforts to reduce inequities of birth, the more honest and productive discussion we can have.