3 ms·

I live in a former socialist country, but most of the system has not changed a lot. Most of what USA does, from affirmative action to preferential hiring based

I live in a former socialist country, but most of the system has not changed a lot. Most of what USA does, from affirmative action to preferential hiring based on race or any kind of born-with status would be seen as very racist and/or sexist here. Even to get into college, points (from grades and standardized testing) are the only thing taken in consideration in most colleges (visual arts, acting, and music being notable exceptions).

watchface 3y ago
[flagged]
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  Depends on what you consider a continent... considering where we slavs came from originally, we did kill a bunch of people before we settled here, and we've also been used as slaves by other cultures, then killed a bunch of other cultures, also killed a bunch of our own cultures, and in more recent times, a bunch of germans, took away almost everything from everyone, gave it to the government, then a few decades of peace then a bit more of killing ourselves again. So basically the same as any other country. edit: but it seems you expect people who never owned slaves to give their spot to people who never were slaves.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    The issue with slavery is that the children of slaves and victims of racism are still affected by it economically. I consider myself middle-of-the-road on most of this stuff, but if everything were fair there'd be an equivalent wealth distribution when comparing races. There's not. Ergo, it's kind of like the British plundering everyone's stuff, sticking it in the British Museum, then declaring "We're done with all that racism stuff, but we're keeping all this stuff that's ours."
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      But does your theory include slavs too? I mean.. the word 'slave' is similar for a reason. What about the irish? Italians? What about young british Bobby or Billy, whos alcoholic single mother moved to USA, and now they both live in a trailer park in bumfuck arizona? Should he be excluded since someone somehwere did something, and that someone lived on the same island as his ancestors did?
      - joshuamorton 3y ago
        Since you've already admitted that you aren't actually from the US, which of the following do you believe / not believe: 1. The US has social programs and educational programs that assist economically underprivileged people in racially independent ways 2. In the US, there are particularities of racial relations and history that make groups like Native and African American populations particularly underserved even when accounting for economic status 3. Social programs that attempt to address (2) are morally objectionable, even if there are particular racial issues unique to the US's history and culture that make race a distinct class in addition to economic class. (One thing I find particularly odd is that people seem to generally favor anti-caste-discrimination regulations on HN, but find anti-US-race-discrimination laws. But both of those stem from the same underlying recognition: caste and race in the US are both strongly correlated with economic class, but even restricting to equivalent economic situations, lower-caste people in India (and subcultures where there is significant Indian cultural influence), and African American people in the US are more likely to face discrimination).
        happytoexplain 3y ago
        It's rarely useful to ask a person to simplify their opinion on something complicated into yes/no answers to a few questions. It's usually a form of leading/framing (even if we don't intend it to be).
    - happytoexplain 3y ago
      Yes, but the problem is that the British have options for fixing that situation that are both effective (just give it back, if those governments want it) and don't do too much collateral harm. It's an oversimplified comparison. The effects of slavery can't just be undone, and the indirect steps we can try to take (force diversity in business/education) do other harm, which some of those harmed will (totally understandably) not tolerate. On top of that, we can only try to force a theoretical ideal - as you say, "if everything were fair there'd be an equivalent wealth distribution when comparing races". But many things are not fair, and the effect of slavery is only one thing contributing to that, so it's an ineffective indicator that the effects of slavery have been undone. And frankly, even if we magically fixed everything unfair, there could still easily be racial differences in wealth distribution by simple correlation of harmless factors (i.e. if there is any racial correlation in types of jobs preferred). It's practically an impossible problem - both to completely fix and even just to discuss. Of course we should do what we can and what is reasonably fair, but ultimately, voters (who are at no fault for the historical situation) must largely agree to what "fair" means. Good luck on that one.
slibhb 3y ago
It's widely considered likely that affirmative action will be banned by the US supreme court in the next few years.
- BigCryo 3y ago
  [dead]

watchface 3y ago

[flagged]

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
Depends on what you consider a continent... considering where we slavs came from originally, we did kill a bunch of people before we settled here, and we've also been used as slaves by other cultures, then killed a bunch of other cultures, also killed a bunch of our own cultures, and in more recent times, a bunch of germans, took away almost everything from everyone, gave it to the government, then a few decades of peace then a bit more of killing ourselves again. So basically the same as any other country. edit: but it seems you expect people who never owned slaves to give their spot to people who never were slaves.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  The issue with slavery is that the children of slaves and victims of racism are still affected by it economically. I consider myself middle-of-the-road on most of this stuff, but if everything were fair there'd be an equivalent wealth distribution when comparing races. There's not. Ergo, it's kind of like the British plundering everyone's stuff, sticking it in the British Museum, then declaring "We're done with all that racism stuff, but we're keeping all this stuff that's ours."
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    But does your theory include slavs too? I mean.. the word 'slave' is similar for a reason. What about the irish? Italians? What about young british Bobby or Billy, whos alcoholic single mother moved to USA, and now they both live in a trailer park in bumfuck arizona? Should he be excluded since someone somehwere did something, and that someone lived on the same island as his ancestors did?
    - joshuamorton 3y ago
      Since you've already admitted that you aren't actually from the US, which of the following do you believe / not believe: 1. The US has social programs and educational programs that assist economically underprivileged people in racially independent ways 2. In the US, there are particularities of racial relations and history that make groups like Native and African American populations particularly underserved even when accounting for economic status 3. Social programs that attempt to address (2) are morally objectionable, even if there are particular racial issues unique to the US's history and culture that make race a distinct class in addition to economic class. (One thing I find particularly odd is that people seem to generally favor anti-caste-discrimination regulations on HN, but find anti-US-race-discrimination laws. But both of those stem from the same underlying recognition: caste and race in the US are both strongly correlated with economic class, but even restricting to equivalent economic situations, lower-caste people in India (and subcultures where there is significant Indian cultural influence), and African American people in the US are more likely to face discrimination).
      - happytoexplain 3y ago
        It's rarely useful to ask a person to simplify their opinion on something complicated into yes/no answers to a few questions. It's usually a form of leading/framing (even if we don't intend it to be).
  - happytoexplain 3y ago
    Yes, but the problem is that the British have options for fixing that situation that are both effective (just give it back, if those governments want it) and don't do too much collateral harm. It's an oversimplified comparison. The effects of slavery can't just be undone, and the indirect steps we can try to take (force diversity in business/education) do other harm, which some of those harmed will (totally understandably) not tolerate. On top of that, we can only try to force a theoretical ideal - as you say, "if everything were fair there'd be an equivalent wealth distribution when comparing races". But many things are not fair, and the effect of slavery is only one thing contributing to that, so it's an ineffective indicator that the effects of slavery have been undone. And frankly, even if we magically fixed everything unfair, there could still easily be racial differences in wealth distribution by simple correlation of harmless factors (i.e. if there is any racial correlation in types of jobs preferred). It's practically an impossible problem - both to completely fix and even just to discuss. Of course we should do what we can and what is reasonably fair, but ultimately, voters (who are at no fault for the historical situation) must largely agree to what "fair" means. Good luck on that one.

slibhb 3y ago

It's widely considered likely that affirmative action will be banned by the US supreme court in the next few years.

BigCryo 3y ago
[dead]