4 ms·

> I think we're equivocating with kajecounterhack on what 'disadvantage' means, and they chose an unfortunate analogy to illustrate their idea of disadvantage t

> I think we're equivocating with kajecounterhack on what 'disadvantage' means, and they chose an unfortunate analogy to illustrate their idea of disadvantage that is perhaps more fundamental to the disadvantaged person than they were going for. Yeah I do regret drawing this analogy even if I still think it's apt, since it's distracting from my point instead of reinforcing it. > These opportunities exist for pretty much every black kid as long as they don't break the law and avoid addiction. They are in no way 'disabled' and have agency over their own destiny. I wasn't saying black folks are disabled. I was trying to express that some folks have disadvantages in life that start from birth, and color qualifies as one of those because of the way society at large has and continues to discriminate against folks with darker skin. This particular discrimination deserves addressing through efforts like affirmative action because its impact on life outcomes is profound. You could say that the ability to buy an SAT book is all it takes to get a degree, but this doesn't track with reality. Preparation for college education starts from youth, and in the US public school quality is related to where you live. The legacy of slavery and Jim Crow extend to where we live today. An emphasis on education as a means to better yourself is also commonly handed down by your family -- but what if your family traces back (it's not that far) to an era where black folks were discriminated against when it came to education? There are other interesting ways to slice it (e.g. how many of your parents went to college is a predictor of whether you'll go to college and also whether you succeed if you go; being poor at harvard means you actually don't get the same experience as folks who are better off). > They are in no way 'disabled' and have agency over their own destiny. I 100% agree with this statement, I just think that agency can only get you so far. You need supporting infrastructure, otherwise in the aggregate we will continue to perpetuate inequities (which unfortunately also reinforce discriminatory viewpoints).

f154hfds 3y ago
I think I agree with this entirely. The problem is these disadvantages don't justify a policy of race-based affirmative action. To do this, you'd need to do one of three things: 1. Say that the affirmative action policy is temporary based on a time frame. This is tricky because any time you come up with will seem pretty arbitrary. 2. Say that the affirmative action policy is temporary based on a metric. This is also tricky because that metric is arbitrary (worse - it may never be accomplished). 3. Say the affirmative action policy is merited indefinitely which is in my opinion racist, because this is saying there's something fundamental about this group that makes them incapable of handling a level playing field. I simply don't believe this is true. I think we need to come to terms as a society with the hard reality that all three above cases are morally and logically bankrupt, for any meaningful length of time. Arbitrary race-based criteria for determining 'disadvantage' just don't work. People have to be given the dignity of mastery over their own fate and it's patronizing (borderline racist) any other way, unless extremely limited in scope.

f154hfds 3y ago

I think I agree with this entirely. The problem is these disadvantages don't justify a policy of race-based affirmative action. To do this, you'd need to do one of three things: 1. Say that the affirmative action policy is temporary based on a time frame. This is tricky because any time you come up with will seem pretty arbitrary. 2. Say that the affirmative action policy is temporary based on a metric. This is also tricky because that metric is arbitrary (worse - it may never be accomplished). 3. Say the affirmative action policy is merited indefinitely which is in my opinion racist, because this is saying there's something fundamental about this group that makes them incapable of handling a level playing field. I simply don't believe this is true. I think we need to come to terms as a society with the hard reality that all three above cases are morally and logically bankrupt, for any meaningful length of time. Arbitrary race-based criteria for determining 'disadvantage' just don't work. People have to be given the dignity of mastery over their own fate and it's patronizing (borderline racist) any other way, unless extremely limited in scope.