4 ms·

I think the point is to distinguish ‘political opinions that I am comfortable disagreeing with people about, and can still be friendly with people who strongly

I think the point is to distinguish ‘political opinions that I am comfortable disagreeing with people about, and can still be friendly with people who strongly disagree with me’ and ‘morally unacceptable opinions that I will neither listen to nor associate with anyone who hold them’. There are many political opinions that I strongly believe in that I am comfortable disagreeing with people on. I believe everyone has a right to health care, and that society should guarantee basic necessities for everyone. I even feel that belief is a morality based belief. However, I can accept people disagreeing with me, and can accept that there are some strong arguments against my belief, and that good people can disagree with my position. On the other hand, if someone believes that certain races should not have the same rights, or that women should be given less agency than men, I will not entertain that argument or accept that it is just a political dispute. That is a fundamental moral issue, and is beyond JUST politics.

foxglacier 7mo ago
[flagged]
- habinero 7mo ago
  That's not what affirmative action is. At least understand what it actually is before you go making up fanfic about it.
  - foxglacier 7mo ago
    Can you explain how it's not denying rights because of race? Here's some background to make it clear exactly what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...
- cortesoft 7mo ago
  Affirmative action and similar policies are examples of those sorts of political opinions that I can happily debate, and I definitely don't think I have the perfect answers for how best to obtain the goal of equality. As far as your particular question goes, I don't agree that believing that all races should have the same rights is inherently in conflict with the idea of affirmative action. In most implementations, there are no rights that are denied to anyone when affirmative action policies are implemented. The entire point and purpose is to counteract existing norms, institutions, and system structures that are actively denying rights to citizens in particular groups/races. For example, take the original affirmative action order (from which the phrase was coined) signed by JFK in 1961. The text stated, "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin" What rights are being denied if that is followed? The idea is that it is clear through observation that the criteria that was being used before was preferential to white Christian men, so they were instructed to proactively address that unfairness by changing their hiring process to attempt to eliminate those biases. How is that in any way denying rights to any group?
  - foxglacier 7mo ago
    That JFK quote is not what it means. It means denying access to limited places in education based on race. Do you mean those aren't rights so denying them doesn't fall within you definition of intolerable ideas? You don't need to explain what it's for because what what it's for doesn't change what it is. If I robbed somebody to use the money to cure cancer, it doesn't change the fact that I still robbed somebody.
    - cortesoft 7mo ago
      > That JFK quote is not what it means. That is literally where the term comes from. It isn't a quote, it was an executive order. That language is what it legally meant. > It means denying access to limited places in education based on race. Every person accepted is a denial to someone else. As you said, there are limited spaces. If you define it as a right to have a space at that school, then by definition you have to deny some people their rights, since you can't accept all of them. Affirmative action means you are supposed to factor in the existing disadvantages that minorities face when deciding between two candidates. It doesn't mean accepting a less qualified candidate, it means acknowledging that our previous methods for choosing between candidates was inherently discriminatory already, and in order to counteract that, we need to take 'affirmative action' to make things more fair. You can always argue about what criteria should be used to choose between two comparable candidates, there is no such thing as a perfectly 'objective' evaluation. Even if you chose to base everything on a test score, you still have to decide what goes on the test and how the questions are worded. There is no way to do that that is perfectly fair for everyone, even if we accepted the premise that test scores are an accurate and fair measure for choosing who to accept to a school. Why shouldn't the pervasive, clear, and systemic racism and discrimination that many minorities face be used as a factor when determining school acceptance? How is ignoring that reality 'more fair', and how is acknowledging and compensating for that reality a 'denial of rights' to anyone? Wouldn't it be a worse denial of rights to ignore the discrimination and racism, and making decisions as if the world wasn't the way it is?
      - foxglacier 6mo ago

foxglacier 7mo ago

[flagged]

habinero 7mo ago
That's not what affirmative action is. At least understand what it actually is before you go making up fanfic about it.
- foxglacier 7mo ago
  Can you explain how it's not denying rights because of race? Here's some background to make it clear exactly what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...
cortesoft 7mo ago
Affirmative action and similar policies are examples of those sorts of political opinions that I can happily debate, and I definitely don't think I have the perfect answers for how best to obtain the goal of equality. As far as your particular question goes, I don't agree that believing that all races should have the same rights is inherently in conflict with the idea of affirmative action. In most implementations, there are no rights that are denied to anyone when affirmative action policies are implemented. The entire point and purpose is to counteract existing norms, institutions, and system structures that are actively denying rights to citizens in particular groups/races. For example, take the original affirmative action order (from which the phrase was coined) signed by JFK in 1961. The text stated, "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin" What rights are being denied if that is followed? The idea is that it is clear through observation that the criteria that was being used before was preferential to white Christian men, so they were instructed to proactively address that unfairness by changing their hiring process to attempt to eliminate those biases. How is that in any way denying rights to any group?
- foxglacier 7mo ago
  That JFK quote is not what it means. It means denying access to limited places in education based on race. Do you mean those aren't rights so denying them doesn't fall within you definition of intolerable ideas? You don't need to explain what it's for because what what it's for doesn't change what it is. If I robbed somebody to use the money to cure cancer, it doesn't change the fact that I still robbed somebody.
  - cortesoft 7mo ago
    > That JFK quote is not what it means. That is literally where the term comes from. It isn't a quote, it was an executive order. That language is what it legally meant. > It means denying access to limited places in education based on race. Every person accepted is a denial to someone else. As you said, there are limited spaces. If you define it as a right to have a space at that school, then by definition you have to deny some people their rights, since you can't accept all of them. Affirmative action means you are supposed to factor in the existing disadvantages that minorities face when deciding between two candidates. It doesn't mean accepting a less qualified candidate, it means acknowledging that our previous methods for choosing between candidates was inherently discriminatory already, and in order to counteract that, we need to take 'affirmative action' to make things more fair. You can always argue about what criteria should be used to choose between two comparable candidates, there is no such thing as a perfectly 'objective' evaluation. Even if you chose to base everything on a test score, you still have to decide what goes on the test and how the questions are worded. There is no way to do that that is perfectly fair for everyone, even if we accepted the premise that test scores are an accurate and fair measure for choosing who to accept to a school. Why shouldn't the pervasive, clear, and systemic racism and discrimination that many minorities face be used as a factor when determining school acceptance? How is ignoring that reality 'more fair', and how is acknowledging and compensating for that reality a 'denial of rights' to anyone? Wouldn't it be a worse denial of rights to ignore the discrimination and racism, and making decisions as if the world wasn't the way it is?
    - foxglacier 6mo ago