6 ms·

As a society we got ourselves into a situation where ignoring race now I promotes inequality as it helps those that have benefited from racism in the past. And

As a society we got ourselves into a situation where ignoring race now I promotes inequality as it helps those that have benefited from racism in the past. And doing ANYTHING proactive now is racism not. The question is just — what type of injustice do you prefer?

brigandish 4y ago
> ignoring race now I promotes inequality as it helps those that have benefited from racism in the past Does it?
- hhmc 4y ago
  I think the argument goes something like: if racial groups and socioeconomic outcomes are correlated due to previous inequalities, and social mobility is limited, then doing nothing further entrenches the inequalities.
  - tjs8rj 4y ago
    Then discriminate on the socioeconomic inequalities. A poor white person and a poor black person should get aid. Obama’s daughter (black, but rich and powerful) doesn’t need any aid or discrimination in her favor. Discriminating on the basis of race for these programs is so stupid. Ask why and people say “because socioeconomic status”, but then why don’t you discriminate on that? I think people know this but it’s a political move (black people vote for democrats for the vast majority, so making it means tested instead wouldn’t be popular with them).
    - hhmc 4y ago
      Sure, just do _anything_ that's a directional improvement. I think a lot of bad faith prevarication prevents any improvement (such as the question I was replying to).
      - brigandish 4y ago
        You are accusing me of a bad faith question? Elaborate, and make it good.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      - tjs8rj 4y ago
        I disagree that poor whites are specifically against welfare because they think it helps black people more. That’s just another way of saying they are all racist. Ive grown up around poor whites and dislike for welfare among them was pretty much always a dislike of government generally, and the perception that welfare makes people lazy (often because they knew other poor people who would take advantage of welfare. One of whom got their kids taken away because they couldn’t financially support them, were told they could get them back if they could hit some financial milestones, then proceeded to use their tax return to buy a used mustang).
        kenjackson 4y ago
        The discussion tends to devolve right around here. Let’s just say we have different data points and agree to disagree.
        kelnos 4y ago
        But isn't that really the issue at hand? You have different data points from the person you replied to. That means that you are both correct, for some subset of people. But do your data points generalize to the larger population, or does the other person's? I don't think these conversations need to devolve. Where are the large-scale studies that show that your data point is the one that's the most common? I'm willing to believe that it is, but everyone seems to just prefer to assume their data point is the one we should be acting upon.
        kenjackson 4y ago
        The problem is you have people who have anecdotal experience that says whites don’t act in racist ways. I have a bunch of data that I could drop here (100s of sources that say otherwise). I’ve seen these debates online before and I’ve never seen a single opinion changed. The problem is the things being challenged for many (of not most or virtually all) people is their identity and morality. Not simply an experiment about if blueberries have more antioxidants than blackberries. Data and evidence simply don’t matter in these sorts of discussions. And that’s why they tend to devolve quickly.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  This is a much longer discussion and one that tends to devolve. And there is a camp that believes that black peoples have it better than whites people today. I find it hard to believe, but they exist.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    You made a statement that clearly begged the question, and now I see that you’ve made this comment twice to try and stop further discussion and examination of your claims, and yet I see a perfectly fine and interesting discussion has continued below and hasn’t devolved at all. Might be time to check more than one of your assumptions, but more importantly, stop trying to police what I and others here say. I’m an adult, if you don’t wish to engage further that’s up to you but I and the others on these boards can make our own decisions, and there are moderators for when things get out of hand. Thanks.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      I never said not to have the discussion. I said it would devolve, and look at what we’re already discussing.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        I pointed out that it hasn't devolved. If you think people calmly and rationally discussing and disagreeing with your assumptions and claims is devolution then you have a further claim to back up.
        kenjackson 4y ago
        Go read what you wrote about policing and other stuff. It was demeaning and clearly not my intent. Apparently you’re an adult, so yes, have whatever discussion you like. I’m just saying I won’t be apart of it, unless you plan to force me.
        4y ago
tjs8rj 4y ago
The answer is really simple: discrimination not on race, but on inequalities. Don’t discriminate because someone is black or white, but give due consideration to factors like family situation/income/legacy/etc This seems like the most reasonable solution. If you believe that systemic racism exists in the background, then this corrects for its real effects. If you don’t, I’m sure you at least accept that all else equal, a smart poor person will have accomplished less than a smart rich person due to lack of resources, so if you can correct for that in admissions you better identify smart people. Need-oriented discrimination, with no accounting for race, is the answer
- sroussey 4y ago
  You should apply some second order thinking on this argument. In the welfare days, those that were in more need were women with children where the man ditched the family. So more effort and money was applied there which seems totally reasonable. But it also incentivized men to leave their families to qualify, and they did in high numbers. These type of things made to correct something in the past also have a tendency to incentivize something bad in the future. This is part of why these things are so difficult in practice.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
- overrun11 4y ago
  Or we could acknowledge that society functions best when the most qualified people are chosen and decide to only discriminate on merit. These selection criteria are meant to match students with schools filled with students of the same ability level. Of course there will always be factors in life that make it harder or easier for people to succeed. Having had exceptionally difficult life circumstances doesn't somehow change the fact that you need to have already mastered Algebra to succeed at MIT for example. We should focus more on mitigating the extent that difficult circumstances hinders learning not just manipulating selection criteria after it already has.
  - kenjackson 4y ago

brigandish 4y ago

> ignoring race now I promotes inequality as it helps those that have benefited from racism in the past Does it?

hhmc 4y ago
I think the argument goes something like: if racial groups and socioeconomic outcomes are correlated due to previous inequalities, and social mobility is limited, then doing nothing further entrenches the inequalities.
- tjs8rj 4y ago
  Then discriminate on the socioeconomic inequalities. A poor white person and a poor black person should get aid. Obama’s daughter (black, but rich and powerful) doesn’t need any aid or discrimination in her favor. Discriminating on the basis of race for these programs is so stupid. Ask why and people say “because socioeconomic status”, but then why don’t you discriminate on that? I think people know this but it’s a political move (black people vote for democrats for the vast majority, so making it means tested instead wouldn’t be popular with them).
  - hhmc 4y ago
    Sure, just do _anything_ that's a directional improvement. I think a lot of bad faith prevarication prevents any improvement (such as the question I was replying to).
    - brigandish 4y ago
      You are accusing me of a bad faith question? Elaborate, and make it good.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    - tjs8rj 4y ago
      I disagree that poor whites are specifically against welfare because they think it helps black people more. That’s just another way of saying they are all racist. Ive grown up around poor whites and dislike for welfare among them was pretty much always a dislike of government generally, and the perception that welfare makes people lazy (often because they knew other poor people who would take advantage of welfare. One of whom got their kids taken away because they couldn’t financially support them, were told they could get them back if they could hit some financial milestones, then proceeded to use their tax return to buy a used mustang).
      - kenjackson 4y ago
        The discussion tends to devolve right around here. Let’s just say we have different data points and agree to disagree.
        kelnos 4y ago
        But isn't that really the issue at hand? You have different data points from the person you replied to. That means that you are both correct, for some subset of people. But do your data points generalize to the larger population, or does the other person's? I don't think these conversations need to devolve. Where are the large-scale studies that show that your data point is the one that's the most common? I'm willing to believe that it is, but everyone seems to just prefer to assume their data point is the one we should be acting upon.
        kenjackson 4y ago
        The problem is you have people who have anecdotal experience that says whites don’t act in racist ways. I have a bunch of data that I could drop here (100s of sources that say otherwise). I’ve seen these debates online before and I’ve never seen a single opinion changed. The problem is the things being challenged for many (of not most or virtually all) people is their identity and morality. Not simply an experiment about if blueberries have more antioxidants than blackberries. Data and evidence simply don’t matter in these sorts of discussions. And that’s why they tend to devolve quickly.
kenjackson 4y ago
This is a much longer discussion and one that tends to devolve. And there is a camp that believes that black peoples have it better than whites people today. I find it hard to believe, but they exist.
- brigandish 4y ago
  You made a statement that clearly begged the question, and now I see that you’ve made this comment twice to try and stop further discussion and examination of your claims, and yet I see a perfectly fine and interesting discussion has continued below and hasn’t devolved at all. Might be time to check more than one of your assumptions, but more importantly, stop trying to police what I and others here say. I’m an adult, if you don’t wish to engage further that’s up to you but I and the others on these boards can make our own decisions, and there are moderators for when things get out of hand. Thanks.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    I never said not to have the discussion. I said it would devolve, and look at what we’re already discussing.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      I pointed out that it hasn't devolved. If you think people calmly and rationally discussing and disagreeing with your assumptions and claims is devolution then you have a further claim to back up.
      - kenjackson 4y ago
        Go read what you wrote about policing and other stuff. It was demeaning and clearly not my intent. Apparently you’re an adult, so yes, have whatever discussion you like. I’m just saying I won’t be apart of it, unless you plan to force me.
        4y ago

tjs8rj 4y ago

The answer is really simple: discrimination not on race, but on inequalities. Don’t discriminate because someone is black or white, but give due consideration to factors like family situation/income/legacy/etc This seems like the most reasonable solution. If you believe that systemic racism exists in the background, then this corrects for its real effects. If you don’t, I’m sure you at least accept that all else equal, a smart poor person will have accomplished less than a smart rich person due to lack of resources, so if you can correct for that in admissions you better identify smart people. Need-oriented discrimination, with no accounting for race, is the answer

sroussey 4y ago
You should apply some second order thinking on this argument. In the welfare days, those that were in more need were women with children where the man ditched the family. So more effort and money was applied there which seems totally reasonable. But it also incentivized men to leave their families to qualify, and they did in high numbers. These type of things made to correct something in the past also have a tendency to incentivize something bad in the future. This is part of why these things are so difficult in practice.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
overrun11 4y ago
Or we could acknowledge that society functions best when the most qualified people are chosen and decide to only discriminate on merit. These selection criteria are meant to match students with schools filled with students of the same ability level. Of course there will always be factors in life that make it harder or easier for people to succeed. Having had exceptionally difficult life circumstances doesn't somehow change the fact that you need to have already mastered Algebra to succeed at MIT for example. We should focus more on mitigating the extent that difficult circumstances hinders learning not just manipulating selection criteria after it already has.
- kenjackson 4y ago