3 ms·

That’s not the thesis of the book.

busterarm 4y ago
Absolutely it is and presented clearly as so. The book presents 5 questions to settle the question of "Am I racist?" __always giving primacy to the individual over the collective, or group; __always embracing the concept of individual rights to help me judge problematic social interactions; __never assessing quantities of stuff in gauging whether a policy is racist; __always attempting to embrace the “color-blind rule” when making choices; __always maintaining awareness of the distinctions between equity and equality; never compromizing equality of rights in order to bring about equity of stuff.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  These questions and what you said are two different things. You don’t need to treat any group poorly and none of those questions suggest you do. You made a leap that doesn’t logically follow.
  - busterarm 4y ago
    You clearly have not read the book or even the quoted parts of it in the article. This quote is highlighted by Haidt who even supports and says there is a place for anti-racism. > "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The book makes its point of view as plain as day. I haven't made any kinds of leap whatsoever. Haidt only drew the line at his work being compelled to promote anti-racism because that's contradictory to the aim for truth and why we do research in the first place.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      Your characterization of poor treatment seems like a leap. I guess the question for you is: if I discriminate against you in the post in such a way it creates inequity, but never attempt to correct it but merely say from this point forward no one can discriminate — is everyone being treated fairly?
      - busterarm 4y ago
        You say it's a leap but then you present an argument where only way to achieve "fairness" is to engage in discrimination the other way. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BOOK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CALLS FOR! Life isn't and will never be fair. The fairness you seem to be seeking is "eye for an eye". You know what does make life fair though? We're all headed for worms and dirt eventually. None of us escape that. That's how you square the inequalities of what happens in between. I can't engage with you any more on this. The doublethink required to accept your argument is off the charts.
        kenjackson 4y ago
        Your rationale for the lack of attempting to right past wrongs is we all die? Is that how you view the Justice system? I assume you see no need for detectives.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        jl6 4y ago
        You seem to be suggesting that the only way to right past wrongs is to commit further wrongs. Is there really no positive way forward?
        kenjackson 4y ago
        As a society we view “further wrongs” differently. Taking money from someone who stole from you (with the help of the legal system) isn’t considered a further wrong. Criminals rarely utilize the “let’s do no further wrong defense” at sentencing. But maybe they should, as there seems to be a huge appetite for this sort of thing.
        zozbot234 4y ago
        > As a society we view “further wrongs” differently. Yes, and that includes letting bygones be bygones when we all have terrible injustices in our collective past. This is what a generalized amnesty is all about. The only alternative is a destructive war of all against all, as indeed is often seen in "honor-bound" societies where "the duty of righting wrongs" is taken as an absolute.
dmitrygr 4y ago
I read it. It very much is. Have you?

Absolutely it is and presented clearly as so. The book presents 5 questions to settle the question of "Am I racist?" __always giving primacy to the individual over the collective, or group; __always embracing the concept of individual rights to help me judge problematic social interactions; __never assessing quantities of stuff in gauging whether a policy is racist; __always attempting to embrace the “color-blind rule” when making choices; __always maintaining awareness of the distinctions between equity and equality; never compromizing equality of rights in order to bring about equity of stuff.

kenjackson 4y ago
These questions and what you said are two different things. You don’t need to treat any group poorly and none of those questions suggest you do. You made a leap that doesn’t logically follow.
- busterarm 4y ago
  You clearly have not read the book or even the quoted parts of it in the article. This quote is highlighted by Haidt who even supports and says there is a place for anti-racism. > "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The book makes its point of view as plain as day. I haven't made any kinds of leap whatsoever. Haidt only drew the line at his work being compelled to promote anti-racism because that's contradictory to the aim for truth and why we do research in the first place.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    Your characterization of poor treatment seems like a leap. I guess the question for you is: if I discriminate against you in the post in such a way it creates inequity, but never attempt to correct it but merely say from this point forward no one can discriminate — is everyone being treated fairly?
    - busterarm 4y ago
      You say it's a leap but then you present an argument where only way to achieve "fairness" is to engage in discrimination the other way. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BOOK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CALLS FOR! Life isn't and will never be fair. The fairness you seem to be seeking is "eye for an eye". You know what does make life fair though? We're all headed for worms and dirt eventually. None of us escape that. That's how you square the inequalities of what happens in between. I can't engage with you any more on this. The doublethink required to accept your argument is off the charts.
      - kenjackson 4y ago
        Your rationale for the lack of attempting to right past wrongs is we all die? Is that how you view the Justice system? I assume you see no need for detectives.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        jl6 4y ago
        You seem to be suggesting that the only way to right past wrongs is to commit further wrongs. Is there really no positive way forward?
        kenjackson 4y ago
        As a society we view “further wrongs” differently. Taking money from someone who stole from you (with the help of the legal system) isn’t considered a further wrong. Criminals rarely utilize the “let’s do no further wrong defense” at sentencing. But maybe they should, as there seems to be a huge appetite for this sort of thing.
        zozbot234 4y ago
        > As a society we view “further wrongs” differently. Yes, and that includes letting bygones be bygones when we all have terrible injustices in our collective past. This is what a generalized amnesty is all about. The only alternative is a destructive war of all against all, as indeed is often seen in "honor-bound" societies where "the duty of righting wrongs" is taken as an absolute.

dmitrygr 4y ago

I read it. It very much is. Have you?