3 ms·

> You may notice that I didn't argue against objective metrics at all? All I've said is that objective metrics don't mean you're directly measuring merit. It's

> You may notice that I didn't argue against objective metrics at all? All I've said is that objective metrics don't mean you're directly measuring merit. It's important to keep this in mind, for example by ensuring equal access to specialized training materials. But then who are you arguing against? Is there someone strongly opposed to providing equal access to training materials, e.g. by making them available in school libraries? > DEI doesn't necessarily mean race quotas - it's telling that you think it does. That's how it's most commonly implemented in practice whether de jure or de facto and that's its opponents' primary objection to it. > But the kids don't necessarily live in higher density areas! In general the poor kids live in higher density areas and the affluent kids live in the suburbs. > You seem to effectively be arguing that meritocracy is either impossible, or should not be the goal. Actual perfect meritocracy is impossible because actual perfect anything is impossible. But meritocracy is the goal and what you want is to get closer to it. Which providing better study materials in school libraries can do, but that isn't what anybody is complaining about when they're complaining about DEI.

Timon3 2y ago
> But then who are you arguing against? Is there someone strongly opposed to providing equal access to training materials, e.g. by making them available in school libraries? The materials aren't available. Why do you think that is? > In general the poor kids live in higher density areas and the affluent kids live in the suburbs. Ah, and that means we can ignore poor kids who don't fall into this pattern, as well as poor kids who live too far away from libraries? > Actual perfect meritocracy is impossible because actual perfect anything is impossible. But meritocracy is the goal and what you want is to get closer to it. Which providing better study materials in school libraries can do, but that isn't what anybody is complaining about when they're complaining about DEI. You're ignoring that this is only part of the equation, as the tutoring etc. is also missing. There must be special programs for the disadvantaged to level the playing field here, but that's what anti-DEI advocates also complain about! Actual meritocracy isn't the goal when you argue that the disadvantaged should be fine with far worse resources and opportunities, as you've done in this thread. You've repeatedly argued that it's fine if they have far higher time investments and far worse materials, as long as they theoretically could achieve similar things as the rich. That's simply not meritocracy.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > The materials aren't available. Why do you think that is? To begin with, they often are. A lot of school libraries actually have test prep materials available. They don't all have them because libraries are locally administered and each locality gets to make its own choices, but if that's the case in your locality then you can direct your complaints to the town council rather than the federal government. > Ah, and that means we can ignore poor kids who don't fall into this pattern, as well as poor kids who live too far away from libraries? This is the thing where perfect is impossible. If you live in an urban area, having a library within walking distance is feasible because there are enough people there to justify it. If you live in a rural area, it isn't. What do you propose to do about it? > You're ignoring that this is only part of the equation, as the tutoring etc. is also missing. There must be special programs for the disadvantaged to level the playing field here, but that's what anti-DEI advocates also complain about! Rich people will pay for things that aren't scalable. If your parents make $20M/year, they can spend $1M/year on their kid. If you spent $1M/year on each of the 74M kids in the US, the cost would be $74 Trillion, which exceeds the US GDP. And there is a threshold past which additional spending has diminishing returns. Again, the goal is to get as close to measuring merit as feasible; "closer than now" is possible but perfection isn't.
  - Timon3 2y ago
    > To begin with, they often are. A lot of school libraries actually have test prep materials available. They have some materials available, but often older or less specialized ones. That's my whole point: rich people have access to better materials. This is simply a fact. > This is the thing where perfect is impossible. If you live in an urban area, having a library within walking distance is feasible because there are enough people there to justify it. If you live in a rural area, it isn't. What do you propose to do about it? How about introducing DEI programs that help these disadvantaged people access the same materials? Again, you're basically saying that they have to suck it up and accept their position. That's not meritocracy. > Rich people will pay for things that aren't scalable. If your parents make $20M/year, they can spend $1M/year on their kid. If you spent $1M/year on each of the 74M kids in the US, the cost would be $74 Trillion, which exceeds the US GDP. And there is a threshold past which additional spending has diminishing returns. There's obviously an incredibly large gap between "spend $1M/year on each of the 74M kids in the US" and "poor kids should either have no access at all, or have to walk large distances to public libraries, only have access to worse materials and have no tutoring available". The latter simply isn't meritocracy, yet you keep arguing that it is, and keep arguing against DEI programs.
mystraline 2y ago
> In general the poor kids live in higher density areas and the affluent kids live in the suburbs. The poor kids also live rural. Remind me again, where there are lower costs, but also lower income, less opportunity, harder to get anywhere, less education? And also, who did most of rural vote for? In most situations, rural = poverty = trap. Our society is nowhere near prepared in addressing the rurality and poverty trap. But really, this whole dei being a proxy for this gender or that race issue is looking around the real problem. In the end, its all about access to 2 resources: money and time. The bourgeoisie have it, the proletariat do not. As long as there is a massive gulf between the 2, we'll argue this in different names and forms (civil rights, affirmative action, political correctness, DEI)

Timon3 2y ago

> But then who are you arguing against? Is there someone strongly opposed to providing equal access to training materials, e.g. by making them available in school libraries? The materials aren't available. Why do you think that is? > In general the poor kids live in higher density areas and the affluent kids live in the suburbs. Ah, and that means we can ignore poor kids who don't fall into this pattern, as well as poor kids who live too far away from libraries? > Actual perfect meritocracy is impossible because actual perfect anything is impossible. But meritocracy is the goal and what you want is to get closer to it. Which providing better study materials in school libraries can do, but that isn't what anybody is complaining about when they're complaining about DEI. You're ignoring that this is only part of the equation, as the tutoring etc. is also missing. There must be special programs for the disadvantaged to level the playing field here, but that's what anti-DEI advocates also complain about! Actual meritocracy isn't the goal when you argue that the disadvantaged should be fine with far worse resources and opportunities, as you've done in this thread. You've repeatedly argued that it's fine if they have far higher time investments and far worse materials, as long as they theoretically could achieve similar things as the rich. That's simply not meritocracy.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> The materials aren't available. Why do you think that is? To begin with, they often are. A lot of school libraries actually have test prep materials available. They don't all have them because libraries are locally administered and each locality gets to make its own choices, but if that's the case in your locality then you can direct your complaints to the town council rather than the federal government. > Ah, and that means we can ignore poor kids who don't fall into this pattern, as well as poor kids who live too far away from libraries? This is the thing where perfect is impossible. If you live in an urban area, having a library within walking distance is feasible because there are enough people there to justify it. If you live in a rural area, it isn't. What do you propose to do about it? > You're ignoring that this is only part of the equation, as the tutoring etc. is also missing. There must be special programs for the disadvantaged to level the playing field here, but that's what anti-DEI advocates also complain about! Rich people will pay for things that aren't scalable. If your parents make $20M/year, they can spend $1M/year on their kid. If you spent $1M/year on each of the 74M kids in the US, the cost would be $74 Trillion, which exceeds the US GDP. And there is a threshold past which additional spending has diminishing returns. Again, the goal is to get as close to measuring merit as feasible; "closer than now" is possible but perfection isn't.
- Timon3 2y ago
  > To begin with, they often are. A lot of school libraries actually have test prep materials available. They have some materials available, but often older or less specialized ones. That's my whole point: rich people have access to better materials. This is simply a fact. > This is the thing where perfect is impossible. If you live in an urban area, having a library within walking distance is feasible because there are enough people there to justify it. If you live in a rural area, it isn't. What do you propose to do about it? How about introducing DEI programs that help these disadvantaged people access the same materials? Again, you're basically saying that they have to suck it up and accept their position. That's not meritocracy. > Rich people will pay for things that aren't scalable. If your parents make $20M/year, they can spend $1M/year on their kid. If you spent $1M/year on each of the 74M kids in the US, the cost would be $74 Trillion, which exceeds the US GDP. And there is a threshold past which additional spending has diminishing returns. There's obviously an incredibly large gap between "spend $1M/year on each of the 74M kids in the US" and "poor kids should either have no access at all, or have to walk large distances to public libraries, only have access to worse materials and have no tutoring available". The latter simply isn't meritocracy, yet you keep arguing that it is, and keep arguing against DEI programs.

mystraline 2y ago

> In general the poor kids live in higher density areas and the affluent kids live in the suburbs. The poor kids also live rural. Remind me again, where there are lower costs, but also lower income, less opportunity, harder to get anywhere, less education? And also, who did most of rural vote for? In most situations, rural = poverty = trap. Our society is nowhere near prepared in addressing the rurality and poverty trap. But really, this whole dei being a proxy for this gender or that race issue is looking around the real problem. In the end, its all about access to 2 resources: money and time. The bourgeoisie have it, the proletariat do not. As long as there is a massive gulf between the 2, we'll argue this in different names and forms (civil rights, affirmative action, political correctness, DEI)