6 ms·

> If someone hires a person based on their color, that's wrong regardless of who's doing it. Let's say a company is set to hire 1,000 employees. For the first

> If someone hires a person based on their color, that's wrong regardless of who's doing it. Let's say a company is set to hire 1,000 employees. For the first 900 hires, they intentionally exclude white people. Should they, then, make up for this intentional exclusion by then prioritizing white people in their hiring? Or should they correct the problem by giving those who were intentionally excluded priority? In other words, should the racist status quo be allowed to continue, or should it be intentionally corrected?

whynaut 4y ago
There is no reasonable answer for this strange hypothetical, probably because it is not presented in good faith.
- boplicity 4y ago
  Why is it a strange hypothetical? Extremely similar situations were actually quite common historically. Many, many ethnic groups have been intentionally excluded from many types of jobs over the years. It's not just a hypothetical: It's a past reality that has real-world impacts that last through today. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/occupational-segregation-in-america/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/occupational-segreg... https://prospect.org/features/black-workers-remember/ https://prospect.org/features/black-workers-remember/
  - lovecg 4y ago
    Have a specific company done what you were describing in your example or was this a societal level ill? Also the way you phrased your question (“should the racist status quo be allowed to continue, or should it be intentionally corrected?”) made it sound like you weren’t interested in having a discussion, thus the other comment.
    - boplicity 4y ago
      Yes, of course, many companies in the U.S. had blatantly racist hiring practices that were eventually made illegal. Those practices have not always been corrected, though, and the racial demographics of many companies and positions have not shifted very much. This is a broad societal issue, as well as one that can be traced to individual companies.
wang_li 4y ago
You can't correct racism against Bob be being racist in favor of Carl. Which is one reason why Affirmative Action is bullshit.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  In an ideal world, it would be. However, because of mainly the US' political system, people of different demographic backgrounds - like class, race, family wealth, etc - will not have access to the same education as others. In an ideal world, everybody (in in this case the US) would have access to the same standard of living, the same standard of education, and everyone would start at the same point in their career, so that employers can do blind job applications (censoring out an applicant's name, age, gender, etc) and hire on merit alone. But that ideal is still far away, as is blind interviewing. Especially in tech where people are judged not only on merit, but on personality as well - you have to work with them, after all. And that's when things like classism, racism - not even the morally indefensible or conscious type - show up.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Oftentimes, blind interviewing produces results opposite what people expect: https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/ https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-ma...
- boplicity 4y ago
  Imagine you have two kids, and you only give one of them a cookie. Should you make up for it, by giving the next cookie to the kid who didn't get one? Of course! Should you do this even if the other kids kick and scream and say it's "bullshit"? Of course!
  - wang_li 4y ago
    This isn't what AA/DEI policies do though. Working with your analogy AA is this: You have two kids a boy and a girl. You give the boy a cookie, and the girl gets nothing. Eighty years later your adult grand kids buy cookies and give them to all the little girls in they neighborhood and explicitly exclude the boys because their great aunt didn't get a cookie. This fixes nothing. The original girl got nothing, the later generation girls get a preference though there's no evidence that they were discriminated against in their own lives or even if they lack cookies. And later generation boys are harmed regardless of how deserving they are of receiving a cookie. Your non-analogous analogies are strawmen and we really don't need to make analogies or strawmen if we want to discuss AA, DEI, or discrimination. We're all adults and are able to communicate without using analogies or metaphors.
Akronymus 4y ago
> hould they, then, make up for this intentional exclusion by then prioritizing white people in their hiring? No. More racism isnt the solution to racism.
- boplicity 4y ago
  Can you explain how correcting a past mistake is racism? Imagine you have two kids, and you only give one of them a cookie. Should you make up for it, by giving the next cookie to the kid who didn't get one? Of course!
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    > Can you explain how correcting a past mistake is racism? Because its not correcting a past mistake. But rather make new ones that inevittably are going to lead to even more resentment. And also hurting the ones you are supposedly helping by making them question whether they got in through their abilities or through diversity points. Which can lead to quite a large reduction in their self confidence. I would call the cookie example irrelevant to this. Treating someone differently because of their race, no matter if positive or negative, is racism.
    - boplicity 4y ago
      Just to clarify, you reasons against this are: 1. It will make some people resentful. 2. It will cause "doubt" among people who benefit. In essence, your first argument is about further benefiting the people who are already in an advantaged position. And your second argument is blaming people who would benefit. Yikes. That is some twisted logic.
      - Akronymus 4y ago
        > Just to clarify, you reasons against this are: I will NOT let you put words into my mouth > 1. It will make some people resentful. Thats not the reason I am against racism, that is a consequence of racism. The resentment will lead to racism against the people who benefited from the racism. You can't break that cycle with more racism. > 2. It will cause "doubt" among people who benefit. It will lead to a lower self esteem, which leads to less likely to negotiate for high salaries, which leads to a wage gap between different races in the same profession. There are MUCH better ways to get a "better" ratio, like expanding the pool of applicants of underrepresented groups. For example, through advertisments in areas where such people could be located. I have nothing against that. What I have a problem with, is justifying racism in the name of fighting racism. > In essence, your first argument is about further benefiting the people who are already in an advantaged position. And your second argument is blaming people who would benefit. Yikes. That is some twisted logic. This, to me, reads like arguing in bad faith.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
Can you get rid of unnecessary discrimination by continuing to discriminate, no. Punishing people today who had no input into situations in the past, only because of a characteristic they have that they can not alter ... that's just breeding more resentment. A teenager of my acquaintance was accepted last minute to an educational opportunity, it was well over-subscribed. When they got there they found there were actually places on the course which were not filled. The reason? Those places were only for people of the opposite sex. Students missed the opportunity due only to their sex. How is that fair for those students who missed out?
- boplicity 4y ago
  > How is that fair for those students who missed out? That's exactly the question: When people miss out due to intentional discrimination, it's not fair. Should anything be done about that? Of course! I fail to see how this is controversial, except that people don't want resources to go to those who were discriminated against.
aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
If I slap you from the left, do I “correct” this by slapping you from the right? Or how about I stop slapping you?
- boplicity 4y ago
  I don't see how correcting a problem is violence. It's more like giving a kid a cookie when they didn't get one. Sure, the other kids will want to keep getting all the cookies, but that's not right, no matter how much they complain.
  - aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
    Except it’s not the same kids. The kids who used to get all the cookies have already grown up. You’re punishing different individuals, just because they have the same skin color as someone who had unfair advantages in the past.
Manuel_D 4y ago
> In other words, should the racist status quo be allowed to continue, or should it be intentionally corrected? There's also the third option: stop discriminating entirely.

whynaut 4y ago

There is no reasonable answer for this strange hypothetical, probably because it is not presented in good faith.

boplicity 4y ago
Why is it a strange hypothetical? Extremely similar situations were actually quite common historically. Many, many ethnic groups have been intentionally excluded from many types of jobs over the years. It's not just a hypothetical: It's a past reality that has real-world impacts that last through today. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/occupational-segregation-in-america/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/occupational-segreg... https://prospect.org/features/black-workers-remember/ https://prospect.org/features/black-workers-remember/
- lovecg 4y ago
  Have a specific company done what you were describing in your example or was this a societal level ill? Also the way you phrased your question (“should the racist status quo be allowed to continue, or should it be intentionally corrected?”) made it sound like you weren’t interested in having a discussion, thus the other comment.
  - boplicity 4y ago
    Yes, of course, many companies in the U.S. had blatantly racist hiring practices that were eventually made illegal. Those practices have not always been corrected, though, and the racial demographics of many companies and positions have not shifted very much. This is a broad societal issue, as well as one that can be traced to individual companies.

wang_li 4y ago

You can't correct racism against Bob be being racist in favor of Carl. Which is one reason why Affirmative Action is bullshit.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
In an ideal world, it would be. However, because of mainly the US' political system, people of different demographic backgrounds - like class, race, family wealth, etc - will not have access to the same education as others. In an ideal world, everybody (in in this case the US) would have access to the same standard of living, the same standard of education, and everyone would start at the same point in their career, so that employers can do blind job applications (censoring out an applicant's name, age, gender, etc) and hire on merit alone. But that ideal is still far away, as is blind interviewing. Especially in tech where people are judged not only on merit, but on personality as well - you have to work with them, after all. And that's when things like classism, racism - not even the morally indefensible or conscious type - show up.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Oftentimes, blind interviewing produces results opposite what people expect: https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/ https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-ma...
boplicity 4y ago
Imagine you have two kids, and you only give one of them a cookie. Should you make up for it, by giving the next cookie to the kid who didn't get one? Of course! Should you do this even if the other kids kick and scream and say it's "bullshit"? Of course!
- wang_li 4y ago
  This isn't what AA/DEI policies do though. Working with your analogy AA is this: You have two kids a boy and a girl. You give the boy a cookie, and the girl gets nothing. Eighty years later your adult grand kids buy cookies and give them to all the little girls in they neighborhood and explicitly exclude the boys because their great aunt didn't get a cookie. This fixes nothing. The original girl got nothing, the later generation girls get a preference though there's no evidence that they were discriminated against in their own lives or even if they lack cookies. And later generation boys are harmed regardless of how deserving they are of receiving a cookie. Your non-analogous analogies are strawmen and we really don't need to make analogies or strawmen if we want to discuss AA, DEI, or discrimination. We're all adults and are able to communicate without using analogies or metaphors.

Akronymus 4y ago

> hould they, then, make up for this intentional exclusion by then prioritizing white people in their hiring? No. More racism isnt the solution to racism.

boplicity 4y ago
Can you explain how correcting a past mistake is racism? Imagine you have two kids, and you only give one of them a cookie. Should you make up for it, by giving the next cookie to the kid who didn't get one? Of course!
- Akronymus 4y ago
  > Can you explain how correcting a past mistake is racism? Because its not correcting a past mistake. But rather make new ones that inevittably are going to lead to even more resentment. And also hurting the ones you are supposedly helping by making them question whether they got in through their abilities or through diversity points. Which can lead to quite a large reduction in their self confidence. I would call the cookie example irrelevant to this. Treating someone differently because of their race, no matter if positive or negative, is racism.
  - boplicity 4y ago
    Just to clarify, you reasons against this are: 1. It will make some people resentful. 2. It will cause "doubt" among people who benefit. In essence, your first argument is about further benefiting the people who are already in an advantaged position. And your second argument is blaming people who would benefit. Yikes. That is some twisted logic.
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      > Just to clarify, you reasons against this are: I will NOT let you put words into my mouth > 1. It will make some people resentful. Thats not the reason I am against racism, that is a consequence of racism. The resentment will lead to racism against the people who benefited from the racism. You can't break that cycle with more racism. > 2. It will cause "doubt" among people who benefit. It will lead to a lower self esteem, which leads to less likely to negotiate for high salaries, which leads to a wage gap between different races in the same profession. There are MUCH better ways to get a "better" ratio, like expanding the pool of applicants of underrepresented groups. For example, through advertisments in areas where such people could be located. I have nothing against that. What I have a problem with, is justifying racism in the name of fighting racism. > In essence, your first argument is about further benefiting the people who are already in an advantaged position. And your second argument is blaming people who would benefit. Yikes. That is some twisted logic. This, to me, reads like arguing in bad faith.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

Can you get rid of unnecessary discrimination by continuing to discriminate, no. Punishing people today who had no input into situations in the past, only because of a characteristic they have that they can not alter ... that's just breeding more resentment. A teenager of my acquaintance was accepted last minute to an educational opportunity, it was well over-subscribed. When they got there they found there were actually places on the course which were not filled. The reason? Those places were only for people of the opposite sex. Students missed the opportunity due only to their sex. How is that fair for those students who missed out?

boplicity 4y ago
> How is that fair for those students who missed out? That's exactly the question: When people miss out due to intentional discrimination, it's not fair. Should anything be done about that? Of course! I fail to see how this is controversial, except that people don't want resources to go to those who were discriminated against.

aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago

If I slap you from the left, do I “correct” this by slapping you from the right? Or how about I stop slapping you?

boplicity 4y ago
I don't see how correcting a problem is violence. It's more like giving a kid a cookie when they didn't get one. Sure, the other kids will want to keep getting all the cookies, but that's not right, no matter how much they complain.
- aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
  Except it’s not the same kids. The kids who used to get all the cookies have already grown up. You’re punishing different individuals, just because they have the same skin color as someone who had unfair advantages in the past.

Manuel_D 4y ago

> In other words, should the racist status quo be allowed to continue, or should it be intentionally corrected? There's also the third option: stop discriminating entirely.