4 ms·

So even if we have aggregate statistics showing how certain groups of people are disadvantaged, the fact that the rules do not apply universally means we should

So even if we have aggregate statistics showing how certain groups of people are disadvantaged, the fact that the rules do not apply universally means we should just ignore them?

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
You can flip the script and ask why you should apply rules based on the aggregate despite obvious counterexamples. White boonies kid isn't happy to be excluded over the fact they are white, either. Point being this whole strive for 'ultimate equality' is going to create victims in its fanatical wake. No perfect method exists and no one wants to be on the losing end. But it is easier for those in a position of affluence to decide who is allowed in, as long as they won't get hurt themselves.
- peter422 4y ago
  So we throw up our hands and perpetuate the obviously unjust status quo?
  - notch656a 4y ago
    The beauty of capitalism is the process that farms for the most net value extracted from the employees is more favored to win. I'm all for competitor companies hiring based on diversity (aka progressive-approved racism) , it creates market opportunities for the firms I work for.
    - peter422 4y ago
      Perfect, so you have no problem with Microsoft having this policy! Problem solved.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I don't follow the logic that suggests that because I have no personal problem, a problem doesn't exist.
        psd1 4y ago
        Splendid, we agree. I'm expensively-educated but not particularly talented. Inner-city kids who are smarter than me don't have anything like my opportunities. I have no personal problem, but a problem exists.
        notch656a 4y ago
        Hiring people based on skin color is not equality of opportunity, it is equality of outcome.
  - fsniper 4y ago
    No, you go and fix the social inequalities and trickle that up. You can't trickle down equality by introducing more "positive" inequality
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
origin_path 4y ago
Yes. "Disadvantaged" isn't a clear enough concept to act on, even if it were the same thing as race or gender, which it isn't. It's not even semantically clear. Does it mean something bad has been inflicted on them externally in the past, or does it merely mean their present situation is worse than average without passing judgement on why? The whole woke DEI idea of people being "disadvantaged" is itself a disempowering notion. It tells people that there is no point making better decisions or trying harder in life, because what you do or don't do doesn't matter, only outcomes matter, and if they are poor someone else will give you stuff for free. It's the ultimate form of emasculation.

So even if we have aggregate statistics showing how certain groups of people are disadvantaged, the fact that the rules do not apply universally means we should just ignore them?

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

You can flip the script and ask why you should apply rules based on the aggregate despite obvious counterexamples. White boonies kid isn't happy to be excluded over the fact they are white, either. Point being this whole strive for 'ultimate equality' is going to create victims in its fanatical wake. No perfect method exists and no one wants to be on the losing end. But it is easier for those in a position of affluence to decide who is allowed in, as long as they won't get hurt themselves.

peter422 4y ago
So we throw up our hands and perpetuate the obviously unjust status quo?
- notch656a 4y ago
  The beauty of capitalism is the process that farms for the most net value extracted from the employees is more favored to win. I'm all for competitor companies hiring based on diversity (aka progressive-approved racism) , it creates market opportunities for the firms I work for.
  - peter422 4y ago
    Perfect, so you have no problem with Microsoft having this policy! Problem solved.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I don't follow the logic that suggests that because I have no personal problem, a problem doesn't exist.
      - psd1 4y ago
        Splendid, we agree. I'm expensively-educated but not particularly talented. Inner-city kids who are smarter than me don't have anything like my opportunities. I have no personal problem, but a problem exists.
        notch656a 4y ago
        Hiring people based on skin color is not equality of opportunity, it is equality of outcome.
- fsniper 4y ago
  No, you go and fix the social inequalities and trickle that up. You can't trickle down equality by introducing more "positive" inequality

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

origin_path 4y ago

Yes. "Disadvantaged" isn't a clear enough concept to act on, even if it were the same thing as race or gender, which it isn't. It's not even semantically clear. Does it mean something bad has been inflicted on them externally in the past, or does it merely mean their present situation is worse than average without passing judgement on why? The whole woke DEI idea of people being "disadvantaged" is itself a disempowering notion. It tells people that there is no point making better decisions or trying harder in life, because what you do or don't do doesn't matter, only outcomes matter, and if they are poor someone else will give you stuff for free. It's the ultimate form of emasculation.