4 ms·
Your argument is basically - Group 1 is doing well - Group 2 is doing poorly, because the system works in favor of group 1 - We should NOT try to balance thi
by RHSeeger 1y ago
Your argument is basically
- Group 1 is doing well
- Group 2 is doing poorly, because the system works in favor of group 1
- We should NOT try to balance things (lift up group 2 at the cost of group 2) in the short term so that things are more balanced in the long term
- Because doing so would upset Group 1
See, the thing is... Group 2 is _already_ upset; and rightfully so. I'd rather see both groups of people somewhat upset then one group happy and the other _more_ upset. Honestly, that's pretty much a cliche description of what a compromise is.
- raxxorraxor 1y agoNo, that is not my argument and you don't understand the relationship dynamic. Group 1 would be justifiably upset because they aren't treated as equals to group 2. You are completely free to provide benefits for the poorest as well. If you see yourself in group 1, you are very free to take a step back. We both know you don't, you expect that from others. Neither "balance" nor "long term goals" are in any way defined, you just use random discrimination, which is of course negative between a bunch of negative ideas. You also draw lines between these group 1 + 2.