12 ms·

That's a pretty solid letter given the 1953 date! Consider it predates MLK's and Rosa Park's most famous activism. Not bad.

eddieroger 2y ago
[flagged]
- hdjjhhvvhga 2y ago
  To people downvoting the above comment - could you explain your reasons? You may feel all arguments have already been said on this issue but the situation is different today. And especially young people, whether white or colored, feel they have more bleak future in front of them than the previous generations and basically refuse to reproduce globally. In this light, it's worth having this discussion again because it is not the same.
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    I didn't but I would have. It appears to be dragging the discussion towards political flamewar. It doesn't present any substantial observations or reasoning, just ideological talking points that we've all heard countless times by now. If there had at least been some attempt to tie things back to the headline article in a nontrivial way then maybe I'd be more sympathetic.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    I didn't downvote, but I gave a long, good faith response as to why I think it's sub-optimal reasoning at best. I think this divide is a huge problem for the left, and it's actually creating new problems while the left pats itself on the back thinking we're solving them.
- scoofy 2y ago
  There is a conflation in the idea behind this comment that drives me crazy. This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life that are actually based on a wide variety of factors. Equality based on race is treating peoples race as equal. The idea that we care about equity is important, but using race as a proxy means we need to care especially about the proxy and making sure the proxy is representative of the outcomes and how the inputs are effecting the outputs. And, if we're being honest, it's kind of an arbitrary proxy beyond the correlation. We are already seeing huge problems here with men vs women using gender as a proxy for outcomes, where we've basically flip-flopped graduation rates, but since it's a lagging indicator, we've really gotten ourselves into a pickle where we are creating an equity problem while trying to solve an equity problem, because we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that we're missing a massive shift in the inputs (like who we're graduating). Equality is important. Equity is important. They are different things, that should have different attention. Equality uses identity directly. Equity uses identity as a proxy for outcomes. We need to be very careful when we focus too much on one over the other.
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    Why use various proxies at all? Most of the group differences seem to largely share poverty as a primary root factor, and this impacts plenty of sub-groups within the supposedly advantaged groups as well. So why are we not simply addressing that directly? A refrain I've been seeing a lot lately is that the outcome of a system is its purpose. Perhaps that reasoning should be equally applied to an analysis of the implementation choices made by various social programs and the solutions espoused by various political movements.
    - scoofy 2y ago
      Why? I presume that people don’t look for second and third order effects. They see disproportionate numbers of people of color struggling, they blame the first order grouping as the cause. Statistics is complicated. People reject even straightforward theories with obvious scientific bases. It makes sense.
    - maerF0x0 2y ago
      the fun part here is seeing interesting tradeoffs like a wealthy person of <Race-preferred> chosen over a poor person of <Race-tarnished> for some kind of wealth producing choice. Making a wealthy member of that group wealthier will pull up the average, but IMO the just choice is to help the lagging human regardless of their race. It leads to weird outcomes too like the deaths of despair in Appalachia being "non news" because it largely covers a group we deem as "privileged". A big part of the issue is reductionistic / simplistic thinking that wants to reduce the cognitive load of decision making by setting up only a few binary gates instead of having to do complex analysis on a case by case basis. This is normal for human brains to try and do.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    > This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life Because racism is ongoing and negatively impacts people of color, it makes sense to focus where harm is being done. There is a leftist school of thought that agrees with you (focus on class instead of race). But I personally don’t believe that a focus purely on outcomes would be applied equitably while racism still exists. > we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that were missing a massive shift in the inputs It is a fallacy to think we can’t focus on multiple things at once. Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others.

eddieroger 2y ago

[flagged]

hdjjhhvvhga 2y ago
To people downvoting the above comment - could you explain your reasons? You may feel all arguments have already been said on this issue but the situation is different today. And especially young people, whether white or colored, feel they have more bleak future in front of them than the previous generations and basically refuse to reproduce globally. In this light, it's worth having this discussion again because it is not the same.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  I didn't but I would have. It appears to be dragging the discussion towards political flamewar. It doesn't present any substantial observations or reasoning, just ideological talking points that we've all heard countless times by now. If there had at least been some attempt to tie things back to the headline article in a nontrivial way then maybe I'd be more sympathetic.
- scoofy 2y ago
  I didn't downvote, but I gave a long, good faith response as to why I think it's sub-optimal reasoning at best. I think this divide is a huge problem for the left, and it's actually creating new problems while the left pats itself on the back thinking we're solving them.
scoofy 2y ago
There is a conflation in the idea behind this comment that drives me crazy. This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life that are actually based on a wide variety of factors. Equality based on race is treating peoples race as equal. The idea that we care about equity is important, but using race as a proxy means we need to care especially about the proxy and making sure the proxy is representative of the outcomes and how the inputs are effecting the outputs. And, if we're being honest, it's kind of an arbitrary proxy beyond the correlation. We are already seeing huge problems here with men vs women using gender as a proxy for outcomes, where we've basically flip-flopped graduation rates, but since it's a lagging indicator, we've really gotten ourselves into a pickle where we are creating an equity problem while trying to solve an equity problem, because we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that we're missing a massive shift in the inputs (like who we're graduating). Equality is important. Equity is important. They are different things, that should have different attention. Equality uses identity directly. Equity uses identity as a proxy for outcomes. We need to be very careful when we focus too much on one over the other.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  Why use various proxies at all? Most of the group differences seem to largely share poverty as a primary root factor, and this impacts plenty of sub-groups within the supposedly advantaged groups as well. So why are we not simply addressing that directly? A refrain I've been seeing a lot lately is that the outcome of a system is its purpose. Perhaps that reasoning should be equally applied to an analysis of the implementation choices made by various social programs and the solutions espoused by various political movements.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    Why? I presume that people don’t look for second and third order effects. They see disproportionate numbers of people of color struggling, they blame the first order grouping as the cause. Statistics is complicated. People reject even straightforward theories with obvious scientific bases. It makes sense.
  - maerF0x0 2y ago
    the fun part here is seeing interesting tradeoffs like a wealthy person of <Race-preferred> chosen over a poor person of <Race-tarnished> for some kind of wealth producing choice. Making a wealthy member of that group wealthier will pull up the average, but IMO the just choice is to help the lagging human regardless of their race. It leads to weird outcomes too like the deaths of despair in Appalachia being "non news" because it largely covers a group we deem as "privileged". A big part of the issue is reductionistic / simplistic thinking that wants to reduce the cognitive load of decision making by setting up only a few binary gates instead of having to do complex analysis on a case by case basis. This is normal for human brains to try and do.
- relaxing 2y ago
  > This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life Because racism is ongoing and negatively impacts people of color, it makes sense to focus where harm is being done. There is a leftist school of thought that agrees with you (focus on class instead of race). But I personally don’t believe that a focus purely on outcomes would be applied equitably while racism still exists. > we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that were missing a massive shift in the inputs It is a fallacy to think we can’t focus on multiple things at once. Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others.