4 ms·

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 struc

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.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  > Independent of supporting justification, I think that denying the concept of procedural disadvantage while proposing procedural advantage is also dishonest semantics. I think this is a semantic distinction of your own making. I don't deny either exist, phrase it how you want. I said "procedural advantage", you can say "procedural disadvantage" if you must. It's "deserve" and "punishment" I have a problem with. > Independent of supporting justification, I think that denying the concept of procedural disadvantage while proposing procedural advantage is also dishonest semantics. Agree. And I believe we owe it to marginalized groups to put our hand on the scale. How hard we press I believe can and should be debated. I generally agree with the rest of your statement. There is no way to have a perfect system, but that acknowledgement is usually used to justify doing nothing vs. doing something and thus reinforcing (and potentially worsening) the disparities.
  - HelloMcFly 4y ago
    If it's not obvious, I quoted the wrong part of your reply in my second quote.

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.

HelloMcFly 4y ago
> Independent of supporting justification, I think that denying the concept of procedural disadvantage while proposing procedural advantage is also dishonest semantics. I think this is a semantic distinction of your own making. I don't deny either exist, phrase it how you want. I said "procedural advantage", you can say "procedural disadvantage" if you must. It's "deserve" and "punishment" I have a problem with. > Independent of supporting justification, I think that denying the concept of procedural disadvantage while proposing procedural advantage is also dishonest semantics. Agree. And I believe we owe it to marginalized groups to put our hand on the scale. How hard we press I believe can and should be debated. I generally agree with the rest of your statement. There is no way to have a perfect system, but that acknowledgement is usually used to justify doing nothing vs. doing something and thus reinforcing (and potentially worsening) the disparities.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  If it's not obvious, I quoted the wrong part of your reply in my second quote.