6 ms·

I mainly agree with the OP. While they don't come out and say it, most on the DEI frontlines execute on the idea that the fix to the fact that "those people hav

I mainly agree with the OP. While they don't come out and say it, most on the DEI frontlines execute on the idea that the fix to the fact that "those people have been discriminated against, well, forever" is not to do away with discrimination completely, but rather to discriminate actively against races/genders/orientations that haven't been discriminated against in the same way. This strikes me as faulty thinking. Revenge-driven justice fails; two wrongs don't make a right. Either you're against discrimination or you're only against discrimination against <protected class X>, which makes you a discriminator. Anyone who followed that "Activism as a Vocation" link here a few days ago can probably agree that the fix to the current cancel-culture chaos of academia isn't going to happen within academia. It's about mass media dollars. School administrators, like the rest of us, are just manipulated "useful idiots."

throwaway894345 4y ago
> Either you're against discrimination or you're only against discrimination against <protected class X>, which makes you a discriminator. "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House" Moreover, I strongly suspect this kind of "reverse discrimination" (and general conditioning to identify racially) is driving a lot of right-wing radicalization. Even if you don't think "reverse racism" qualifies as "racism", surely you should be concerned if it is indeed driving more ole-fashioned, anti-minority racism, right?
- MrStonedOne 4y ago
handoflixue 4y ago
Giving alms to the poor isn't "revenge-driven justice against the rich" - it's helping out people in need. Refusing to give alms to the poor "because it would discriminate against the rich" seems obviously fallacious to me. Surely one can by analogy reason that there are ways to support historically disadvantaged groups that aren't "perpetuating discrimination"?
- bumby 4y ago
  I think part of the problem is that the lines upon which diversity hires may be cut is a very rudimentary proxy for opportunity. Minority != "the poors", despite Wolf Blitzer's gaffs. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sfo32rlkiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sfo32rlkiE
- green_on_black 4y ago
  I agree with your train of thought, but I disagree with the specifics. Though, that's in part due to my own definition of discrimination in this context to be "placing a label to tell 2+ groups apart and taking action using that label". Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor is inherently discriminating between the rich and the poor with a follow-up action to remove resources from one group (the rich) and give to the other (the poor). The action is there regardless of the reason or ethics of the context (i.e. why someone is rich or poor). If someone really doesn't want to discriminate, sure. But I think the argument of "labelling it discrimination is wrong" is wrong in the sense of my own definition of discrimination. For me, a more useful argument would be "well, let's figure out the metrics we're optimizing when we discriminate like this".
  - handoflixue 4y ago
    I think that definition is going to cause some very confusing conversations. We don't generally talk about it being "discrimination" to put criminals in jail, keep abusers away from positions of power, or distrust liars. Generally speaking, when people talk about discrimination, it's because there's an injustice - the difference in treatment is based on stereotypes and hatred rather than any truth about that individual.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hpkuarg 4y ago
  > Refusing to give alms to the poor "because it would discriminate against the rich" seems obviously fallacious to me. In what way is this obviously fallacious? Alms have to come from somewhere, and if you take them from the rich then it is clearly discrimination against the rich. You could very well make the argument that this is justified, but fallacious it is not. That aside, it doesn't take a lot of scanning through those who purportedly wish to give alms to the poor before you find some outright revenge-driven rhetoric.

throwaway894345 4y ago

> Either you're against discrimination or you're only against discrimination against <protected class X>, which makes you a discriminator. "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House" Moreover, I strongly suspect this kind of "reverse discrimination" (and general conditioning to identify racially) is driving a lot of right-wing radicalization. Even if you don't think "reverse racism" qualifies as "racism", surely you should be concerned if it is indeed driving more ole-fashioned, anti-minority racism, right?

MrStonedOne 4y ago

handoflixue 4y ago

Giving alms to the poor isn't "revenge-driven justice against the rich" - it's helping out people in need. Refusing to give alms to the poor "because it would discriminate against the rich" seems obviously fallacious to me. Surely one can by analogy reason that there are ways to support historically disadvantaged groups that aren't "perpetuating discrimination"?

bumby 4y ago
I think part of the problem is that the lines upon which diversity hires may be cut is a very rudimentary proxy for opportunity. Minority != "the poors", despite Wolf Blitzer's gaffs. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sfo32rlkiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sfo32rlkiE
green_on_black 4y ago
I agree with your train of thought, but I disagree with the specifics. Though, that's in part due to my own definition of discrimination in this context to be "placing a label to tell 2+ groups apart and taking action using that label". Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor is inherently discriminating between the rich and the poor with a follow-up action to remove resources from one group (the rich) and give to the other (the poor). The action is there regardless of the reason or ethics of the context (i.e. why someone is rich or poor). If someone really doesn't want to discriminate, sure. But I think the argument of "labelling it discrimination is wrong" is wrong in the sense of my own definition of discrimination. For me, a more useful argument would be "well, let's figure out the metrics we're optimizing when we discriminate like this".
- handoflixue 4y ago
  I think that definition is going to cause some very confusing conversations. We don't generally talk about it being "discrimination" to put criminals in jail, keep abusers away from positions of power, or distrust liars. Generally speaking, when people talk about discrimination, it's because there's an injustice - the difference in treatment is based on stereotypes and hatred rather than any truth about that individual.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hpkuarg 4y ago
> Refusing to give alms to the poor "because it would discriminate against the rich" seems obviously fallacious to me. In what way is this obviously fallacious? Alms have to come from somewhere, and if you take them from the rich then it is clearly discrimination against the rich. You could very well make the argument that this is justified, but fallacious it is not. That aside, it doesn't take a lot of scanning through those who purportedly wish to give alms to the poor before you find some outright revenge-driven rhetoric.