5 ms·
Maybe I'm leaning too much on the 'benefit of the doubt' side, but I parsed the prior post to mean that all those things existed, but they weren't considered pr
by AimHere 14y ago
Maybe I'm leaning too much on the 'benefit of the doubt' side, but I parsed the prior post to mean that all those things existed, but they weren't considered problems by, say, white people, or people in power, prior to the 1960s.
The alternative is that some (presumably intelligent) poster on HN stating something completely at odds with the facts, and perhaps even informally suggesting that affirmative action was likely to have caused black people to live in poor, squalid, crime-filled ghettoes.
- bdunbar 14y ago"even informally suggesting that affirmative action was likely to have caused black people to live in poor, squalid, crime-filled ghettoes." That is what I am suggesting.
- tjic 14y ago> completely at odds with the facts Asserted without evidence. The argument makes perfect sense to me. What part of it do you think is false?
- _delirium 14y agoIsn't the person making a very strong causal claim the one in need of evidence? If someone's claiming that affirmative action caused black poverty, then I would expect some good data to back up that claim. Merely asserting it is not an "argument".
- bdunbar 14y agoWhy not put it back on the poster who asserted without evidence that affirmative action will cure "gang violence, intense poverty, substance abuse, neglect, and trauma"? I will allow that it could. But we've had this deal in place for fifty years. If you've got a program running, and the problems keep getting worse .. maybe it's time to check one's assumptions. At any rate - I'll go grubbing around for the facts. Later tonight. Now I've got lunch to eat and work to be done. I've got a tax bill to pay.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]