5 ms·

> A person should be advantaged on the basis of their race I read your entire comment, and understand that it contains more nuance than the first statement - b

> A person should be advantaged on the basis of their race I read your entire comment, and understand that it contains more nuance than the first statement - but that does not diminish the fact that this position is explicitly racist. You can either want people to be treated without regard for their race, or you can try to use racist policies to "push the needle the other direction". They are mutually exclusive perspectives.

TameAntelope 4y ago
It's not racist as it does not support the idea that one race is superior or inferior to another. A "racist" idea would be that one race deserves more than another because of some inherent flaw or virtue. The idea of affirmative action is the objective fact that racist policies have already been created, and to decide to "go colorblind" would be de facto support for those racist policies that are already in place. The position you quoted is explicitly antiracist, because it suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences.
- inkblotuniverse 4y ago
  The word 'racist' is overloaded and refers to multiple different things. 'One race is superior to another' is a racist belief. Discriminating based on race is a racist action.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    Fixing an inequity is not racist, the racism is the creation of the inequity. This is like saying it's unfair to help someone with a broken leg because it takes time away from people with other injuries. The problem is that someone broke the person's leg, not that their leg needs attention from a doctor.
    - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
      They're both racist! What you're doing is breaking the leg of some other guy who looks like the original leg-breaker to "make everything even". There were two problems, originally: someone was going around breaking legs, and someone had a broken leg. Now you're cheering on the next leg-breaker, and there's more broken legs in the world. Your justification for being racist doesn't prevent your actions from being racist.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - TameAntelope 4y ago
        They're not both racist, and no; giving a qualified person a spot at a prestigious university is not "breaking the leg" of "some other guy", when that "other guy" has many, many other opportunities to excel in their life, whereas the qualified student being admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive. Going to Yale is not the focus here, it's "being granted chances to excel in life." You continue to ignore the actual problem here (that minorities are disproportionately failing to excel academically and in society), and I'm beginning to wonder if you even see that as a bad thing...
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Going to Yale is not the focus here You can’t say this after claiming someone “admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive.” What evidence do we have that this is uniquely enabling for a person of one race and not another? Yes, it may be uniquely enabling for the affirmative action candidate. But that doesn’t rule out it being uniquely life changing for someone else. > I'm beginning to wonder if you even see that as a bad thing Shoddy form. (And self defeating.)
        TameAntelope 4y ago

TameAntelope 4y ago

It's not racist as it does not support the idea that one race is superior or inferior to another. A "racist" idea would be that one race deserves more than another because of some inherent flaw or virtue. The idea of affirmative action is the objective fact that racist policies have already been created, and to decide to "go colorblind" would be de facto support for those racist policies that are already in place. The position you quoted is explicitly antiracist, because it suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences.

inkblotuniverse 4y ago
The word 'racist' is overloaded and refers to multiple different things. 'One race is superior to another' is a racist belief. Discriminating based on race is a racist action.
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  Fixing an inequity is not racist, the racism is the creation of the inequity. This is like saying it's unfair to help someone with a broken leg because it takes time away from people with other injuries. The problem is that someone broke the person's leg, not that their leg needs attention from a doctor.
  - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
    They're both racist! What you're doing is breaking the leg of some other guy who looks like the original leg-breaker to "make everything even". There were two problems, originally: someone was going around breaking legs, and someone had a broken leg. Now you're cheering on the next leg-breaker, and there's more broken legs in the world. Your justification for being racist doesn't prevent your actions from being racist.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      They're not both racist, and no; giving a qualified person a spot at a prestigious university is not "breaking the leg" of "some other guy", when that "other guy" has many, many other opportunities to excel in their life, whereas the qualified student being admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive. Going to Yale is not the focus here, it's "being granted chances to excel in life." You continue to ignore the actual problem here (that minorities are disproportionately failing to excel academically and in society), and I'm beginning to wonder if you even see that as a bad thing...
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Going to Yale is not the focus here You can’t say this after claiming someone “admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive.” What evidence do we have that this is uniquely enabling for a person of one race and not another? Yes, it may be uniquely enabling for the affirmative action candidate. But that doesn’t rule out it being uniquely life changing for someone else. > I'm beginning to wonder if you even see that as a bad thing Shoddy form. (And self defeating.)
        TameAntelope 4y ago