6 ms·

How do you get from "more black people live in areas where there were more productive plantations" to "we need affirmative action"? (The answer is, you don't.)

by javert 14y ago

mikeash 14y ago
> (The answer is, you don't.) You do realize that putting words in other people's mouths like this pretty much destroys any chance of having a productive and useful conversation? What is the point of even asking a question that you're sure you already know the answer to?
- javert 14y ago
  I would be putting words in someone's mouth if I wrote, "You said X..." when they did not say X, but rather something that I think (rightly or wrongly) implies X. What I did is something different, but I agree that it's not obvious how this is conducive to productive and useful conversation. I know, it looks like I'm just trying to "score points." So, let me explain myself. This kind of dialogue actually is productive and useful. People reading my comment who were taken by a logical fallacy (including the person who wrote it) get to see that and learn something. The person who wrote my comment (me) gets to practice writing clearly and concisely, and will get instant feedback if there was a failure or mistake. (Either in exposition or logic - and I readily admit I make logical mistakes all the time.) As further evidence that what I said is useful, I submit that I have a double digit number of upvotes. I wish there had been a way to indicate I wasn't just being snarky/trying to score points, but it's hard to convey that online, short of saying "BTW, I'm not just being snarky here, I actually think this is important." Maybe I should have done that. I'm open to suggestions here.
  - loumf 14y ago
    You could have conveyed the non-snark by just omitting your parenthetical. Everything before that is totally valid, but the parenthetical invites the kind of reply that doesn't actually move the conversation in the way I think you intended. (Edit, adding): Also, when you use "", it's much better if you are actually quoting. If not, you are putting words in their mouth.
    - javert 14y ago
      Thanks. This is useful. It got me thinking. If I had just not put the parenthetical, it would make it look like I was "really asking" the question. That would treat the derivation in question as potentially legitimate (it's really not), and also invite serious but non-useful responses. So that leads me to conclude that I just shouldn't have phrased my point as a question in the first place. I could have just stated my point as a statement, not a question.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        That's pretty much what I was trying to say with, "What is the point of even asking a question that you're sure you already know the answer to?" I guess you were trying for a rhetorical question, but I think that requires either: 1. The answer to be obvious to everybody, both asker and audience. E.g. "Do we really want to destroy all life?" 2. The question to be a lead-in to a discussion or argument. E.g. "Is it better to have more blue cars available for consumers to buy? I think so, and here's why." You didn't do #2, so it looked like #1, but in context that's horribly dismissive.
- bfac112 14y ago
  Blah blah blah
- SilasX 14y ago
  I'm tired of people misusing the concept of a strawman (or other equivalent concepts). Just because someone pointed out something weird or bad about an argument doesn't make it a strawman. The OP comment was not misrepresented. He started from "black people historically lived in greater proportion where soil was good for cotton." He ended with "affirmative action is still needed". Yes, the OP said more than that, but those statements as given are correct.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    I don't know where you're getting any of this. My objection was to asking the question and then assuming that it could not be answered before even giving the other guy a chance to respond.
    - SilasX 14y ago
      That wasn't what he said, and the comment itself was a response to such an attempt, but whatever.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        That wasn't what he said? How do you figure? He asked a question of the other guy, then answered it rather abruptly in the next sentence.
Karunamon 14y ago
You started from the wrong conclusion. The proper way is "patterns ingrained tens, hundreds, thousands of years ago can show tangible effects even in 2012" to "the concept of affirmative action is sound".
- javert 14y ago
  That's effectively the same as what I stated. It's also still not a valid conclusion. For example, you haven't addressed whether it's worth trying to undo bad things that happened long ago with other injustices, as opposed to simply being just from here on out. For another example, you haven't addressed whether it actually works or not. (Those two examples actually are related, because theory and practice actually are related, but I digress :) )
  - shantanubala 14y ago
    > undo bad things that happened long ago with other injustices First, you are implying that affirmative action is unjust, which it is not. Affirmative action does not mean that an unqualified worker replaces a qualified worker because of race. Affirmative action means that equally qualified workers are then selected to be as representative of the population as possible. This has the added benefit of making sure civil servants (ie our government) are more accurately representing the dynamics of the population as a whole. Whether it actually works is a difficult question, and I've only done a little bit of reading on the issue (I have friends who are activists and explained the details to me, but I wasn't able to commit a lot of the specific details and studies to memory). A summary: it's complicated, there's pros and cons, but the pros can outweigh the cons depending on implementation. A quick Google search reveals a few interesting things. A study from Princeton indicated that ending affirmative action would result in a sharp decline in minority students, but it wouldn't actually raise the acceptance rate for non-minority students significantly. But there are also some studies that indicate the opposite (an analysis of law schools, for example, revealed that there would potentially be more black lawyers if affirmative action was not in place). As always, make the evaluation for yourself, but asking someone to validate affirmative action on HN is quite a task, isn't it? But to reframe the discussion a little bit: it's not a question of whether it's just or fair -- it's a question of whether it's an effective approach to inequality. The idea of "reverse racism" is baloney, and I can explain that opinion further if necessary.

How do you get from "more black people live in areas where there were more productive plantations" to "we need affirmative action"? (The answer is, you don't.)

by javert 14y ago

How do you get from "more black people live in areas where there were more productive plantations" to "we need affirmative action"? (The answer is, you don't.)

mikeash 14y ago

> (The answer is, you don't.) You do realize that putting words in other people's mouths like this pretty much destroys any chance of having a productive and useful conversation? What is the point of even asking a question that you're sure you already know the answer to?

javert 14y ago
I would be putting words in someone's mouth if I wrote, "You said X..." when they did not say X, but rather something that I think (rightly or wrongly) implies X. What I did is something different, but I agree that it's not obvious how this is conducive to productive and useful conversation. I know, it looks like I'm just trying to "score points." So, let me explain myself. This kind of dialogue actually is productive and useful. People reading my comment who were taken by a logical fallacy (including the person who wrote it) get to see that and learn something. The person who wrote my comment (me) gets to practice writing clearly and concisely, and will get instant feedback if there was a failure or mistake. (Either in exposition or logic - and I readily admit I make logical mistakes all the time.) As further evidence that what I said is useful, I submit that I have a double digit number of upvotes. I wish there had been a way to indicate I wasn't just being snarky/trying to score points, but it's hard to convey that online, short of saying "BTW, I'm not just being snarky here, I actually think this is important." Maybe I should have done that. I'm open to suggestions here.
- loumf 14y ago
  You could have conveyed the non-snark by just omitting your parenthetical. Everything before that is totally valid, but the parenthetical invites the kind of reply that doesn't actually move the conversation in the way I think you intended. (Edit, adding): Also, when you use "", it's much better if you are actually quoting. If not, you are putting words in their mouth.
  - javert 14y ago
    Thanks. This is useful. It got me thinking. If I had just not put the parenthetical, it would make it look like I was "really asking" the question. That would treat the derivation in question as potentially legitimate (it's really not), and also invite serious but non-useful responses. So that leads me to conclude that I just shouldn't have phrased my point as a question in the first place. I could have just stated my point as a statement, not a question.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      That's pretty much what I was trying to say with, "What is the point of even asking a question that you're sure you already know the answer to?" I guess you were trying for a rhetorical question, but I think that requires either: 1. The answer to be obvious to everybody, both asker and audience. E.g. "Do we really want to destroy all life?" 2. The question to be a lead-in to a discussion or argument. E.g. "Is it better to have more blue cars available for consumers to buy? I think so, and here's why." You didn't do #2, so it looked like #1, but in context that's horribly dismissive.
bfac112 14y ago
Blah blah blah
SilasX 14y ago
I'm tired of people misusing the concept of a strawman (or other equivalent concepts). Just because someone pointed out something weird or bad about an argument doesn't make it a strawman. The OP comment was not misrepresented. He started from "black people historically lived in greater proportion where soil was good for cotton." He ended with "affirmative action is still needed". Yes, the OP said more than that, but those statements as given are correct.
- mikeash 14y ago
  I don't know where you're getting any of this. My objection was to asking the question and then assuming that it could not be answered before even giving the other guy a chance to respond.
  - SilasX 14y ago
    That wasn't what he said, and the comment itself was a response to such an attempt, but whatever.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      That wasn't what he said? How do you figure? He asked a question of the other guy, then answered it rather abruptly in the next sentence.

Karunamon 14y ago

You started from the wrong conclusion. The proper way is "patterns ingrained tens, hundreds, thousands of years ago can show tangible effects even in 2012" to "the concept of affirmative action is sound".

javert 14y ago
That's effectively the same as what I stated. It's also still not a valid conclusion. For example, you haven't addressed whether it's worth trying to undo bad things that happened long ago with other injustices, as opposed to simply being just from here on out. For another example, you haven't addressed whether it actually works or not. (Those two examples actually are related, because theory and practice actually are related, but I digress :) )
- shantanubala 14y ago
  > undo bad things that happened long ago with other injustices First, you are implying that affirmative action is unjust, which it is not. Affirmative action does not mean that an unqualified worker replaces a qualified worker because of race. Affirmative action means that equally qualified workers are then selected to be as representative of the population as possible. This has the added benefit of making sure civil servants (ie our government) are more accurately representing the dynamics of the population as a whole. Whether it actually works is a difficult question, and I've only done a little bit of reading on the issue (I have friends who are activists and explained the details to me, but I wasn't able to commit a lot of the specific details and studies to memory). A summary: it's complicated, there's pros and cons, but the pros can outweigh the cons depending on implementation. A quick Google search reveals a few interesting things. A study from Princeton indicated that ending affirmative action would result in a sharp decline in minority students, but it wouldn't actually raise the acceptance rate for non-minority students significantly. But there are also some studies that indicate the opposite (an analysis of law schools, for example, revealed that there would potentially be more black lawyers if affirmative action was not in place). As always, make the evaluation for yourself, but asking someone to validate affirmative action on HN is quite a task, isn't it? But to reframe the discussion a little bit: it's not a question of whether it's just or fair -- it's a question of whether it's an effective approach to inequality. The idea of "reverse racism" is baloney, and I can explain that opinion further if necessary.