3 ms·

First of all, it should noted that institutional racism and oppression exists and is executed today against people of color, esp. black folks, in the US. Theref

First of all, it should noted that institutional racism and oppression exists and is executed today against people of color, esp. black folks, in the US. Therefore, any examination of policies that seek to address race imbalances need to be considered in this context. Second, crime and race are related in a major way, esp. in regards to institutional systems that keep black folks economically depressed and include them as prison population component of the industrial-prison-complex the US currently runs. I can appreciate you want to abstract these thoughts out, but that is a very difficult exercise. Instead, it is much easier to talk about the actual reality minorities in the US face in regards to political and social systems and how those systems affect their existence. Such systems and policies that continue to keep economic opportunity and education out of the hands of people of color need to be addressed, and a race related policy like affirmative action is just one such tool to address those problems. > I doubt you believe that all 2^(6 billion) subsets of humanity are worthy of moral consideration, however. So how do you determine which subsets of humanity are worthy of moral consideration? All members of the human race deserve moral and ethical treatment and consideration. However, many different groups of people in the US are not treated in such a way, both on personal levels and systemically. As a society, different approaches and tools must be employed to correct that mistreatment, and yes that means the most disadvantaged and screwed over people will need tools that empower them and help them to no longer be considered a second- or third-class status in society.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
I can appreciate you want to abstract these thoughts out, but that is a very difficult exercise. The fact is, the post I argued against was implicitly assuming that certain subsets of humanity are morally entitled to harm certain individuals, based on acts done by other individuals to other members of the same subset. Until you can explain to me why your grouping of humanity carries moral validity, I can't see any reason to take such arguments seriously, particularly when the exact same arguments lead to ridiculous results when they are applied to slightly different groupings of humanity. I'm beginning to think that many proponents of AA haven't really thought things through.
- king_jester 14y ago
  I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Are you saying that you feel policies like affirmative action harm some people? If so, what kind of harm are you talking about? Ultimately no group of people is entitled to harm others, but it helps to be a bit more specific when talking about the flaws of existing or proposed policy.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    The harm is that more qualified people are passed over.
    - king_jester 14y ago
      This is a bit of a misconception that I hear a lot. Affirmative action policies generally fall into one of a few categories, but most policies usually either take race or gender into account for 1) equally qualified candidates (scores and qualifications are the same are almost exactly the same) or 2) qualified candidates where one candidate may perform slightly worse than another (say a student that has a few dozen fewer points on an SAT score compared to another). Affirmative action policies in which an unqualified candidate be selected over a qualified candidate are very rare, if not outright illegal in many places. Keep in mind the limitations of calling an individual qualified or not. In some scenarios, the metrics of qualification do not match the goal of the organization looking to hire or admit a candidate, or the metrics fail to measure other factors that are relevant to a given job or a seat for a student. Generally speaking, affirmative action recognizes these shortcomings, esp. as they originate from systemic problems in society that keep certain groups excluded or in minimal participation in such jobs and schools. Further, most of the issues that affect those that do not get additional consideration due to affirmative action come from outside of affirmative action policies: economic inequality, reduced access to funds to attend school, outsourcing and economic downturns, increasing job automation, the loss of some kinds of consuming manufacturing jobs, de-unionization efforts, etc. Suffice it to say affirmative action policies are useful and are not the overriding problem in keeping people out of work or unable to continue their education. Rather, affirmative action policies are a kind of band aid policy that can be ended when larger social inequalities are reduced or fixed entirely.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

I can appreciate you want to abstract these thoughts out, but that is a very difficult exercise. The fact is, the post I argued against was implicitly assuming that certain subsets of humanity are morally entitled to harm certain individuals, based on acts done by other individuals to other members of the same subset. Until you can explain to me why your grouping of humanity carries moral validity, I can't see any reason to take such arguments seriously, particularly when the exact same arguments lead to ridiculous results when they are applied to slightly different groupings of humanity. I'm beginning to think that many proponents of AA haven't really thought things through.

king_jester 14y ago
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Are you saying that you feel policies like affirmative action harm some people? If so, what kind of harm are you talking about? Ultimately no group of people is entitled to harm others, but it helps to be a bit more specific when talking about the flaws of existing or proposed policy.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  The harm is that more qualified people are passed over.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    This is a bit of a misconception that I hear a lot. Affirmative action policies generally fall into one of a few categories, but most policies usually either take race or gender into account for 1) equally qualified candidates (scores and qualifications are the same are almost exactly the same) or 2) qualified candidates where one candidate may perform slightly worse than another (say a student that has a few dozen fewer points on an SAT score compared to another). Affirmative action policies in which an unqualified candidate be selected over a qualified candidate are very rare, if not outright illegal in many places. Keep in mind the limitations of calling an individual qualified or not. In some scenarios, the metrics of qualification do not match the goal of the organization looking to hire or admit a candidate, or the metrics fail to measure other factors that are relevant to a given job or a seat for a student. Generally speaking, affirmative action recognizes these shortcomings, esp. as they originate from systemic problems in society that keep certain groups excluded or in minimal participation in such jobs and schools. Further, most of the issues that affect those that do not get additional consideration due to affirmative action come from outside of affirmative action policies: economic inequality, reduced access to funds to attend school, outsourcing and economic downturns, increasing job automation, the loss of some kinds of consuming manufacturing jobs, de-unionization efforts, etc. Suffice it to say affirmative action policies are useful and are not the overriding problem in keeping people out of work or unable to continue their education. Rather, affirmative action policies are a kind of band aid policy that can be ended when larger social inequalities are reduced or fixed entirely.