Positive Discrimination

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:34 pm UTC

What are peoples views on positive discrimination? I know it's a touchy issue in the U.S. already, and increasingly becoming one in Britain.

Personally, I strongly oppose it. 'Colour Blindness', 'Gender Blindness' and so on would be a far fairer way. It is unfortunate that many people are still suffering from past negetive discrimination, but that unbalance would correct itself given time, and over correcting the problem through positive discrimination would cause a swing the other way, then a reactionary right wing negetive discrimination movement would come about, then back to positive, so on so on.

(Sorry if creating a topic before posting is a horrible faux pas.)

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Indon » Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:38 pm UTC

I feel that the primary form of positive discrimination should be socioeconomic in nature.

After compensating for this, at least in the US, I think need for other forms of positive discrimination should be minimal at worst.

Edit: And I think non-socioeconomic positive discrimination accomplishes little. So instead of a rich, well-educated white male getting a job, a rich, well-educated black woman gets it - that's not something that's helping the part of our society that needs help.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
jamingrit
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:46 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby jamingrit » Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:45 pm UTC

Western society at large is still biased towards white males (I am one). But many small groups with the west are also biased against them. People will think what they want, and I have no intention of making people like other cultures and races. All the same, any effort to promote multiculturalism and tolerance is awesome, in my opinion. My idea is that if you have a message to send, than send it.

Personally, I just prefer to judge people on their merits rather than colour or creed. But you can't rely on your gut when you're setting a policy for a large organization or company. You don't know for sure (or you know for sure that it isn't the case) that the people working affected by such policies are a good judge of character or if they are biased by colour or creed or gender.

Hypothetical example; If you are in a human resources position or something, and a certain percentage of new hires are required to be ethnic minorities(some companies actually do this), then you will sometimes have to give up hiring a better qualified non-minority. But on the other hand, you would also sometimes need to give special attention to a person from an ethnic minority who might have otherwise been overlooked, because you've already hired all the white males. To the company, it may sometimes benefit and sometimes won't. But it is a good step forward, because the more ethnic minorities that benefit from you positive bias, the less you need that positive bias in the future, since companies that follow such policy help shape society. The golden rule, for me, means "Respect and understand others as you would have them respect and understand you", which seems a lot more meaningful than "Do unto others..."

I think many people who are against this sort of thing are doing it as a knee-jerk reaction. When a government sponsored group or activist group tells you "Treat minorities better!", then people go "wait, you can't tell me what to think!". Some of these activist groups, unfortunately do preach it as a "You ought to do this as an individual" sort of message. The good groups are the ones that say "We're not telling you what to think, we're just telling you what WE feel". The only time you effectively say "you ought to" is when you're setting policy for a company or club or something, as in the example above.

The gender-blindness/colour-blindness thing is kind of lame. Because, as I said before "Merits over colour/creed", but you ought to be able to understand the "rules" that other people follow, and respect their boundaries and boundaries that come with whatever background they're from. Vulgarity around a christian is usually disrespectful. Any touching of a Muslim person of the opposite sex is very disrespectful. Cracking wise to any ethnic group about whatever group they're from is usually pretty disrespectful, (At least until you get a better idea of what their personal boundaries are). This is why I like to change the golden rule from "Do unto" to "Respect and understand". The Do Unto version has too much of that "You're special, just like everyone else" connotation to it. If you take the time to actually learn about other cultures and backgrounds, instead of just blanket-labeling humanity, you can find some amazing things, including what makes us similar and what makes us different.

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:58 pm UTC

When I said colour-blindness is the best, I did not mean that someone should simply ignore another's culture. I was refering to, when filling out forms, job applications etc, there should be no 'Male/Female', or 'Ethnicity' box to tick- this would discourage a box ticking culture among corporations, where a black female disabled person ticks three boxes! Yay! It would also encourage the judging of people on their merits- something (though I am a white male and do not know) would prevent any minority feeling used or patronised. There is no possible way of being colour/gender blind in person- unfortunately we all have a subconscious prejudice, however small. I just think that any positive discrimination is simply unfair in the other direction, and will produce this 'knee-jerk reaction', and will not solve but create problems- the very existence of this topic preovides sufficient proof of that.

User avatar
jamingrit
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:46 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby jamingrit » Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:11 pm UTC

Well, that makes more sense, at least for companies not in the hypothetical situation described. But then again, wouldn't it be good to get that information, at least for the sake of statistics?

And I agree with the knee jerk reaction bit, some people will always have them even if you describe your own stance in reasonable terms. And it is a little bit unfair, but at the same time biases will exist whether any authority says they ought to or not, for the same reason people will have knee-jerk reactions without trying to be thoughtful. It wouldn't be called positive bias (or 'positive discrimination') if it were fair. Just by definition it is not fair. In my opinion it's still more fair than pretending there is no bias.

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:32 pm UTC

I have a real situation which complies to your hypothetical situation- the police force in Britain must by law be representative of the area it protects, despite other restrictions which make it very impractical. I understand the intention- people in an area would I'm sure much rather be protected by a police force which represents them as an ethnic group or as a woman. However, having, for example, half the police force be women is not practical- there is also a restriction on height- people MUST be a certain height (not sure what, but i know it's above average) to join the force. Women are, on average, shorter than men, which makes things difficult for the police force. So, the police force often overlooks things like this, and even deliberately and knowingly goes for a worse candidate in order to tick a box. This is an impractical situation, as some groups are simply less suited to certain jobs- this is not me being racist of prejudice, its just a fact, demonstrated by the above scenario, which is also demonstrative of the impractical and just bad solution to the difference in wealth distribution created by past wrongs.

PS- the only people discussing this topic are white males- other input please

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby BattleMoose » Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:36 pm UTC

The only positive discrimination that I support is if the person actually has a physical/mental disability, amputee, blind, cerebral palsy. And I would only ever support it if it was slight/minor. Perhaps even as an incentive basis, maybe like, the company would pay the employee 70% of the going rate for the position and government sponsors the additional 30%. Would just be a different way of administering social welfare.

These people are part of society and are able to contribute to society, but usually not as well or able to, or maybe able to but unable to get a job because of the societal view of inability. Could help allow these people to become contributing members of society.

I think positive discrimination on perfectly able individuals is just so morally and ethically wrong and causes more harm than the problem its trying to solve.

A very significant reason, that I, as a South African graduated mechanical engineer am considering emigration is the discrimination I face in the work place, this hurts the country. I made a poll on a South African based forum, the demographic is mostly white/male, wide range of ages, school kids to 30-40 y/o, tho mostly teenagers or twentysomethings. A huge number are considering leaving or have already left, for the country this is a huge issue, granted there are other very strong if not stronger reasons to leave, discrimination is still a big issue.

The rational behind this discrimination is to help the previously disadvantaged into a middle class position. If I am competing for a job against a non-white person, mechanical engineer, how disadvantaged is a tertiary educated engineer? Why does he/she need help from government policy? I have a great deal of bad things to say about discrimination of this type, and have personal experience, advice from lecturers and the experiences from my friends parents and friends when looking for jobs which back up and support the view I have. :-(

As far as minorities, go, and tell help them infiltrate the workplace and avoid discrimination, at least there are some arguments I can buy. Like, exposing mainstream society to such minorities so they can see they aren't bad and hopefully serve to avoid discrimination in the future?

It should also be recognized that there are potentially good reasons why a company would only want to employ, for example, hard line Christians, allows the company to have a very strong religious focus, can organize religious related company events, company sponsored bible studies? Or a company get away to help commune with god. In such an environment these activities could be hugely beneficial, for individual and company moral, and forming a company identity. Is this an immoral or unethical way of doing business, should government policy eliminate this as a possibility?

I appreciate this would lead towards a lack of exposure to other cultures/minorities and the unpleasantness that could stem from that, are there however not other ways tolerance can be brought into society? Thought?

Similarly it could be beneficial for a Chinese restaurant operating in London would only want to employ Chinese staff, all being able to communicate effectively in Chinese is clearly beneficial. Just worth noting I think.

TL:DR

Positive Discrimination for disabled persons, good if minor.
Positive Discrimination for able bodied individuals, bad.

EDIT: Theres actually a clause in our Labour Law, that states that Affirmative Action (Read positive discrimination for black people) is not considered discrimination. South Africa

a thing
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:18 pm UTC
Location: Chicago

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby a thing » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:36 pm UTC

brindlb wrote:There is no possible way of being colour/gender blind in person- unfortunately we all have a subconscious prejudice, however small. I just think that any positive discrimination is simply unfair in the other direction, and will produce this 'knee-jerk reaction', and will not solve but create problems- the very existence of this topic preovides sufficient proof of that.


We can personally acknowledge this subconscious reflex and overcome it by investigating actual merit and personality. This not only applies to race or gender, but anyone who is stereotyped.

I know this will not occur in close-minded people committed to bigotry, but if more people tried this it could have a positive effect.
Disclaimer: My posts may change (dramatically) within the first 15 minutes they're posted.

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:41 pm UTC

Of course most of us do try to investigate actal merit and personality, but I think it i naive of anyone not to acknowledge that any assesment of someone different to themselves will be tainted, if only slightly, by prejudice. Of course, most of are always trying to disregard this prejudice, but it will always, unfortunately, be there- it is part of human nature to be wary and distrusting of anything different. Colour/Gender blindness and the like should be attempted in person, and will hopefully have some effect, but will inevitably fail in some respects.

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Quixotess » Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:30 am UTC

brindlb wrote:Of course most of us do try to investigate actal merit and personality, but I think it i naive of anyone not to acknowledge that any assesment of someone different to themselves will be tainted, if only slightly, by prejudice. Of course, most of are always trying to disregard this prejudice, but it will always, unfortunately, be there- it is part of human nature to be wary and distrusting of anything different. Colour/Gender blindness and the like should be attempted in person, and will hopefully have some effect, but will inevitably fail in some respects.

That first sentence is very insightful. Jobs are rarely given on merits alone, with or without "positive discrimination." How many times have I heard people say that it's easier to train someone to do the job than to train them to "get along with people" or "have the right attitude"? These things are not objective however much we may wish they are.

How many times do you think we've had a minority canditate and a non-minority candidate up for the same job, and the interviewer says "Yes, yes, he's better educated, but there's just something about Ted that I like."? Or what about how many more women made it into top orchestras after they instituted blind auditions? The men's negative preconceptions of women changed how they heard their music. This is huge. And you think that's over with? That the problem was limited to professional musicians? That because the audition problem is mostly solved, highly qualified minorites aren't passed over for a thousand other benefits because of the ingrained prejudices of those in power?

Anyway, yeah, I just find all this outrage and publicity over "positive discrimination" to be extremely ironic and blown entirely out of proportion when compared to the problem of what I suppose must be called "negative discrimination."

There's one non-whitemale opinion for you.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

tantalum
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:28 pm UTC
Location: cambridge, MA

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby tantalum » Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:44 am UTC

Asians are a minority, but there isn't even a slightest hint of affirmative action for asians - if anything, (colleges) are disfavoring asians. Minorities who think that it's the government/society's "duty" to help them when they're in trouble are simply leeches on society (of course, this is assuming that there's no discrimination. I fully agree that negative discrimination still exists in society. We can do our best to get rid of systemic discrimination, but I believe that discrimination/stereotyping is part of human nature).
On the other hand, the government does owe a positive discrimination to disabled veterans (for example the GI bill provides government support for veterans looking for a college education). In the same vein, people who are disabled in the course of their life should be assisted by the government, but only to the extent that they have contributed to society (kind of like social security payoffs?) Hopefully technology will soon advance to the point where we can screen out disabled babies with down's, etc. I also think it's generally a good idea to keep the mentally handicapped away from the real world.

User avatar
superglucose
hermaj's new favourite
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 am UTC
Location: Domain of Azura
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby superglucose » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:55 am UTC

jamingrit wrote:Well, that makes more sense, at least for companies not in the hypothetical situation described. But then again, wouldn't it be good to get that information, at least for the sake of statistics?


Er... why? What's the purpose for collecting those statistics? Might as well take the statistical average of how many apples a week your employees eat for how relevant it is, imo.
Image

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:13 am UTC

Anyway, yeah, I just find all this outrage and publicity over "positive discrimination" to be extremely ironic and blown entirely out of proportion when compared to the problem of what I suppose must be called "negative discrimination."


Obviously negetive discrimination has been tackled in the past, and is now as eradicated as it is likely to become in my opinion- there will always be a far right, and there will always be a subconsciousness, but now positive discrimination is arising, and is a big problem- now and in its potential. To me it is clear colour blindness is the way forward (as much as is possible).

I'd like to know the view from someone from the U.S. in terms of affirmative action- paying the sons/grandsons/great-grandsons of slaves compensation etc. To me it seems like sons/grandsons/great-grandsons paying for the crimes of their fathers/grandfathers/great-grandfathers.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Indon » Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:42 pm UTC

brindlb wrote:Obviously negetive discrimination has been tackled in the past, and is now as eradicated as it is likely to become in my opinion- there will always be a far right, and there will always be a subconsciousness, but now positive discrimination is arising, and is a big problem- now and in its potential. To me it is clear colour blindness is the way forward (as much as is possible).

Please clarify the problem you believe positive discrimination is causing, and precisely what kind of positive discrimination is causing it.

brindlb wrote:I'd like to know the view from someone from the U.S. in terms of affirmative action- paying the sons/grandsons/great-grandsons of slaves compensation etc. To me it seems like sons/grandsons/great-grandsons paying for the crimes of their fathers/grandfathers/great-grandfathers.


This is a view that some indeed hold - I, however, do not.

This 'sins of the father' sort of view is one that is built upon a worldview that has a society as no more than a group of individuals. In such an individualist worldview, none are obliged in the least to aid the whole because they are only coincidentally a part of such a whole. This is the worldview that wants prison to be punishment and revenge, and holds that if a person can't buck the system and change their own socioeconomic status, then they don't 'deserve' a better status.

But there is another way of viewing the situation - the worldview that views a group of individuals as a society. This represents a more collectivist mindset than individualist, in terms of what we want our society to be able to accomplish. In this more collectivist mindset, individuals are lauded for their ability to contribute to the whole, rather than simply attain individual success. This is the worldview that would have prison be corrective, and our legal system be preventative in nature, and holds that everyone should be given as great a chance as possible to make their way in the world - which most definitely entails giving the people who don't have much of a chance, that chance.

US government (and culture, really, but that's off-topic) is an odd mixture of these two, wildly different views - I suspect it is this way because there are aspects of society in which one paradigm simply produces superior results for the society.

So for the individualist, affirmative action may seem a punishment against him for something he did not personally do, to unfairly enrich people he cares nothing about.

But for the collectivist, affirmative action (ideally - I think my first post in this thread about sums up how I think the implementation of affirmative action in the US should change to actually accomplish this) is the correction of an existing problem in society (that some people are born with greater opportunity than others), and everyone who can help to correct the problem is obliged to do so.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:54 pm UTC

Indon- you are making false assumptions of my view of the world here. I am much more the collectivist than the individualist- I consider myself to be a leftie.

To clarify the problem positive discrimination is causing (I hope you read all of my posts but evidently not), I believe it carries with it a risk of swinging the balance the other way, ie creating bias against white males- something BattleMoose says is already happening in South Africa (and i have a fresh example, just hold on). This would create a far right within all races- a growth in Nazism, things like the Black Panther Movement, etc, which i think we can all agree would be bad. Other than that, I don't believ it will ever fix the problem- [blank]-blindness is a much better solution- the closest to fair we can get. The kind of positive discrimination that is causing it is all positive discrimination, but specifically job placements and the like. My example- I am a christian (N.B.-not a fundamentalist or an evangelist), and the church I belong to is Britain wide- there are congregations of this church throughout Britain. In North London, 40% of it's congregation is black, but they are underrepresented. To tackle this local problem, the General Assembly announced that each Synod (area) MUST send one black representative to the General assembly- a national solution. There are relatively few black people in Scotland, and even fewer qualified to go (only 1, who incidentally opposed the motion on the grounds that it was patronising and meant she would have to go every meeting across Britain), so it would in fact misrepresent our Synod. This is a problem.

In terms of affirmative action- it's just another example of positive discrimination. Far better, in my opinion, to slowly correct the inequality between minorities (not just blacks, may I add) and whites, than risk over correcting and creating a knee jerk growth in far-rightism (word? not a word?)

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Indon » Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:21 pm UTC

brindlb wrote:To clarify the problem positive discrimination is causing (I hope you read all of my posts but evidently not), I believe it carries with it a risk of swinging the balance the other way, ie creating bias against white males- something BattleMoose says is already happening in South Africa (and i have a fresh example, just hold on).

Let me get this straight: you think that a government policy has the power to shift an entire culture's views on race.

I think that's ridiculous. That's why I asked for clarification.

Your example of South Africa? One in which strong racial tension has long existed. If you want to claim that 'positive discrimination' has aggravated it, by all means, prove it. But you would first have to demonstrate a correlation (because as I noted, South Africa is not a stranger to racial tension) exists, let alone a causal link.

brindlb wrote:In terms of affirmative action- it's just another example of positive discrimination. Far better, in my opinion, to slowly correct the inequality between minorities (not just blacks, may I add) and whites, than risk over correcting and creating a knee jerk growth in far-rightism (word? not a word?)


It wouldn't be efficient to have multiple generations of people who simply aren't getting a reasonable opportunity to contribute to society, in terms of merit (Unless you would care to argue that statement). So what makes it better (especially from the collectivist point of view you claim to have)?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:41 pm UTC

The ammount you can misunderstand me is ridiculous- perhaps it is deliberate- where did I, in this entire thread, mention or imply that government policy has the power to 'shift an entire culture's veiw on race', and frankly, how is that relevant?

In South Africa, racial tension has existed for a long time. I never denied it, but now that tension is being partially fuelled by positive discrimination (although it is not a country without negetive discrimination)- and is actually a good casing point for my argument- the continual over-corection of racial inequality in South Africa has been partially fueling the tension there for a long time. Apart from my opinion, the only South African to post in this thread has demonstrated for me that the positive discrimination is fueling tension there, by virtue of him posting and complaining about it. If you want 'proof', perhaps PM DangerMoose?

It wouldn't be efficient to have multiple generations of people who simply aren't getting a reasonable opportunity to contribute to society, in terms of merit (Unless you would care to argue that statement).


I would care to argue that statement, thank you. The best,(or 'most efficient') way to give minorities a reasonable opportunity to contribute to society, in terms of merit, not race, is to eradicate ALL discrimination- [blank]-blindness, this means (for clarification) that any judgement would be as much based on merit as is possible (read above for clarification). Positive discrimination would cloud jusgement just as much as negetive discrimination.

So what makes it better (especially from the collectivist point of view you claim to have)?


Better than what? What do mean mean by collectivist? When did I mae any claim to such a view? (clarification please)

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Indon » Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:03 pm UTC

brindlb wrote:The ammount you can misunderstand me is ridiculous- perhaps it is deliberate- where did I, in this entire thread, mention or imply that government policy has the power to 'shift an entire culture's veiw on race', and frankly, how is that relevant?

Okay, so you aren't talking about things such as Affirmative Action policies, then? Well, let's talk about cultural positive discrimination, then. How precisely do you get 'positive discrimination' to change a culture if the positive discrimination is already a result of that culture?

brindlb wrote:Apart from my opinion, the only South African to post in this thread has demonstrated for me that the positive discrimination is fueling tension there, by virtue of him posting and complaining about it. If you want 'proof', perhaps PM DangerMoose?

Alternate suggestion: This forum is called Serious Business. You want to be taken Serious, you get to Business.

brindlb wrote:I would care to argue that statement, thank you. The best,(or 'most efficient') way to give minorities a reasonable opportunity to contribute to society, in terms of merit, not race, is to eradicate ALL discrimination- [blank]-blindness, this means (for clarification) that any judgement would be as much based on merit as is possible (read above for clarification). Positive discrimination would cloud jusgement just as much as negetive discrimination.

Okay, let me describe for you a scenario in your perfectly blind world:

We have two individuals in this scenario: Tom, who was born quite well-off to well-off parents, and Joe, who was born in a trailer with a neighbor midwifing because Joe's mother lives 20 miles from a hospital and has no health insurance to cover anything they might charge her anyway.

Tom goes to a fine private school and graduates with average honors. Joe goes to a poor-quality public school and, while working a job to support his family, still manages to graduate.

Who is more likely to go to a better college, on the basis of pure merit? Your omni-blindness won't remove "I went to Affluence Academy" or "I went to Shithole High" from a college application, now will it? Similarly, "Has a degree from Youcantaffordthisprivate University" is going to look better than "4.0 GPA Graduate of Community Night School". And that's going to carry over into job opportunity, and ultimately financial status, which is going to inevitably have an impact on the futures of Tom and Joe's children, in turn. And so on.

Yes, that is technically a system choosing based on merit. But it is not a system that affords opportunity.

Will this system of 'merit' eventually iron socioeconomic classes out? Perhaps - given an infinite amount of time. Perhaps, if we get lucky and every one of Joe's decendants are immensely more capable than Tom's decendants are, Joe's bloodline can close the gap in two or three generations, as little as 50 or so years. It's a shame these apparent supergeniuses would have to turn their talents towards just being able to give their children a fair run at life rather than curing cancer or something.

brindlb wrote:Better than what? What do mean mean by collectivist? When did I mae any claim to such a view? (clarification please)


brindlb wrote:Indon- you are making false assumptions of my view of the world here. I am much more the collectivist than the individualist- I consider myself to be a leftie.


If you don't get what I say, why are you commenting on it?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

First, your scenario. You apparantly do not get what I say. Allow me to clarify. Lets assume that the students took standardised national exams, for example SAT's, A levels, whatever. In -blindness, the only information that any college would get would be these results, and maybe any extra-curricular volunteer work they did or something. No race, no information on which school they went to, or their gender, etc This would equal as pure an assesment of merit as possible.

Second, the first point you made. I don't want Affirmative Action or Positive Discrimination to change anything- I don't want it to exist.

Third, the second...bit. I don't understand what you mean- maybe a funny pun? Clarify please.

Fourth. Sorry. Just assumed by collectivist you meant left. Obviously I was wrong, and I would ask you to kindly clarify what you mean by collectivist- do you mean communist? Because in true communism, -blindness would be the policy.

Have you read all the posts in the thread? It's not a very big one, so please do before posting again. If you have already, sorry for my incorrect assumption.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby BattleMoose » Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:26 pm UTC

Indon wrote:Okay, let me describe for you a scenario in your perfectly blind world:

We have two individuals in this scenario: Tom, who was born quite well-off to well-off parents, and Joe, who was born in a trailer with a neighbor midwifing because Joe's mother lives 20 miles from a hospital and has no health insurance to cover anything they might charge her anyway.

Tom goes to a fine private school and graduates with average honors. Joe goes to a poor-quality public school and, while working a job to support his family, still manages to graduate.

Who is more likely to go to a better college, on the basis of pure merit? Your omni-blindness won't remove "I went to Affluence Academy" or "I went to Shithole High" from a college application, now will it? Similarly, "Has a degree from Youcantaffordthisprivate University" is going to look better than "4.0 GPA Graduate of Community Night School". And that's going to carry over into job opportunity, and ultimately financial status, which is going to inevitably have an impact on the futures of Tom and Joe's children, in turn. And so on.

Yes, that is technically a system choosing based on merit. But it is not a system that affords opportunity.


I am completely okay with that system. Is it fair, well no, but then life has never been fair and using discrimination as a blunt tool to try and fix it, causes more problems and also fails to solve the one that it is trying to. Lower class families are quite capable of giving their children a decent education, if they viewed it as a priority, not having a dozen children also helps. Also bursaries and scholarships exist for a reason.

A tertiary education is also not a prerequisite for financial success.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Indon » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:43 am UTC

brindlb wrote:First, your scenario. You apparantly do not get what I say. Allow me to clarify. Lets assume that the students took standardised national exams, for example SAT's, A levels, whatever. In -blindness, the only information that any college would get would be these results, and maybe any extra-curricular volunteer work they did or something. No race, no information on which school they went to, or their gender, etc This would equal as pure an assesment of merit as possible.

Well, unless you were to assume that quality of schooling has no impact upon quality of education, then higher-quality schooling is going to produce people who qualify for better colleges, purely on that basis. Correct?

brindlb wrote:Second, the first point you made. I don't want Affirmative Action or Positive Discrimination to change anything- I don't want it to exist.

You're trying to argue that it's changing something, though, by existing. In fact, that's a rather significant point in your argument.

brindlb wrote:Third, the second...bit. I don't understand what you mean- maybe a funny pun? Clarify please.

If you don't support your points, nobody will care what they are. Also, nobody will take you seriously if you tell the people you're debating against to collect support for your arguments - that's what you should do, if you're going to talk about them.

brindlb wrote:Fourth. Sorry. Just assumed by collectivist you meant left. Obviously I was wrong, and I would ask you to kindly clarify what you mean by collectivist- do you mean communist? Because in true communism, -blindness would be the policy.


I detailed earlier what distinguished an individualist from a collectivist and gave examples as to how this would shape their views on various social functions. Might you specify where you're having trouble?

BattleMoose wrote:I am completely okay with that system. Is it fair, well no, but then life has never been fair and using discrimination as a blunt tool to try and fix it, causes more problems and also fails to solve the one that it is trying to.

Precisely what problems do discriminatory policies cause? Are you claiming that policies such as affirmative action generate racial tension, or what?

And why does it fail to solve the problem it sets out to solve?

BattleMoose wrote:Lower class families are quite capable of giving their children a decent education, if they viewed it as a priority, not having a dozen children also helps. Also bursaries and scholarships exist for a reason.

A tertiary education is also not a prerequisite for financial success.


This not only does not remotely address my point, it seems you're basically saying, "Well, they're poor, sucks to be them, and also it's kinda their fault."
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
jmorgan3
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:22 am UTC
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby jmorgan3 » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:53 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:A tertiary education is also not a prerequisite for financial success.

I concur. Also, the university that one attends becomes vastly less important than job performance after your first job. Hard work and determination can overcome the difference between a community college+two finishing years at a cheap state university education and a top tier university education within one lifetime, or less.
This signature is Y2K compliant.
Last updated 6/29/108

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:00 am UTC

Well, unless you were to assume that quality of schooling has no impact upon quality of education, then higher-quality schooling is going to produce people who qualify for better colleges, purely on that basis. Correct?


Well, once we solve the problem of discrimination, that is another issue to adress. However, circumstances such as scholarships and bursaries etc would eventually balance out difference in the demographics in different quality schools. Unfortunately, we live in capitalist countries, and so different quality schooling is inevitable- a problem that cannot be solved.

Precisely what problems do discriminatory policies cause? Are you claiming that policies such as affirmative action generate racial tension, or what?

And why does it fail to solve the problem it sets out to solve



I believe we have made the claim that these policies generate racial tension several times. Aside from BattleMoose speaking from experience, this discussion is evidence enough that it creates tension, but not racial tension in the traditional sense.
It fails to solve the problem because, as I said before, I believe it will make it worse- a little positive discrimination will widen the gap between races and genders- not only in a socioeconomic sense, but in the sense that it will create tension aswell- demonstrated above to your satisfaction I hope.

If you don't support your points, nobody will care what they are. Also, nobody will take you seriously if you tell the people you're debating against to collect support for your arguments - that's what you should do, if you're going to talk about them.


I am supporting my arguments just fine. I am not asking you to do that for me, I am asking you to tell me what you mean. However, it is irrelevant to the argument, as I'm sure your comment was

I do not agree with the idea that a good education does not make a person more succesful- it definately does. However that problem cannot be addressed by anything other than socialism, and even then state schools would produce a different quality of education depending on the teachers, and the students who attend them. So, that problem cannot be addressed, but the best way to try it is through -blindness. Education effects effectiveness at a job. The government should not force an employer to employ a worse candidate simply becuase they went to a worse school- they can if they want, but it should not be a requirement. Not an ideal world, but there you go.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Indon » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:12 am UTC

brindlb wrote:Well, once we solve the problem of discrimination, that is another issue to adress. However, circumstances such as scholarships and bursaries etc would eventually balance out difference in the demographics in different quality schools. Unfortunately, we live in capitalist countries, and so different quality schooling is inevitable- a problem that cannot be solved.

If you're targeting opportunities towards a group of people, you're discriminating towards them. You're just describing a form of discrimination based directly on socioeconomic factors.

brindlb wrote:I believe we have made the claim that these policies generate racial tension several times. Aside from BattleMoose speaking from experience, this discussion is evidence enough that it creates tension, but not racial tension in the traditional sense.

You have successfully demonstrated that positive discrimination causes internet discussion.

brindlb wrote:It fails to solve the problem because, as I said before, I believe it will make it worse- a little positive discrimination will widen the gap between races and genders- not only in a socioeconomic sense, but in the sense that it will create tension aswell- demonstrated above to your satisfaction I hope.

Isn't positive discrimination employed only when there is a gap to close between such things? Also, is your position that internet discussion is an undesirable level of strife?

If you'd like to instead support a statement like you made here:

brindlb wrote:This would create a far right within all races- a growth in Nazism, things like the Black Panther Movement, etc, which i think we can all agree would be bad.


You're going to need a bit more than, "the topic gets discussed on the internet." I might suggest posting, say, crime statistics that clearly demonstrate a correlation with specific instances of positive discrimination policies being implemented.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Belial » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:14 am UTC

I believe we have made the claim that these policies generate racial tension several times.


And you've been asked to prove it several times.

For one thing, the reasons people *say* they're upset don't necessarily have anything to do with why they're actually upset or how angry they actually are. To wit, if there is racial tension already present, any given real occurence ("positive discrimination") may be seized upon as a justification, but that isn't proof that it's the actual cause for that tension or actually affecting it in anything more than a nominal way.

You'd also have to offer something more than "because I said so" on how negative discrimination is "As fixed as it's going to get".
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:23 am UTC

I have said earlier about subconsciousness blah blah, and someone else gave the casing point of blind auditions for orchestras generation more female members. That is, I hope, enough evidence.
Positive discrimination generates tension, because I am annoyed. Because I say so. The tension in this thread is surely evidence? And how the discussion of positive discrimination is a contentious issue wherever it is discusssed, becuase people are annoyed about it. The example I gave earlier of the General Assembly is evidence. It is not always one ace against another. The main opposition, as you may read above (not sure if I said it) was a black woman.

I am going, you'll have to wait for my response to your response till tommorrow.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Belial » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:26 am UTC

Stop using this "a minority agrees with me that we shouldn't help minorities, therefore I am right" point. It's right up there with "I can't be a racist, my best friend is black". It doesn't mean anything.

And no, the fact that *you're* annoyed isn't evidence that this policy creates widespread tension or creates more problems than it solves.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Quixotess » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:43 am UTC

brindlb wrote:I have said earlier about subconsciousness blah blah, and someone else gave the casing point of blind auditions for orchestras generation more female members.

Er...the point of my example there was that those auditions (the non-blind ones) were run by musicians who genuinely thought that they were only hearing the music. That when they watched someone play, the only factor in their hiring decisions was what they heard, and of course that wasn't even close to true. Or they might have consciously thought "well, women just don't have the lung power to play the trombone," and then they saw a woman playing, and thought that they heard confirmation of their viewpoint. Look, a woman, and wouldn't you guess? I can hear her playing badly.

So when people say that the problem is "fixed," I'm going to have to say bullshit, because no one was ever aware of the existence of the problem before, either. I'm sure HR would like to think that they're hiring based on merit alone, but it's simply impossible when you've been raised in a society with such deeply ingrained prejudices.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Belial » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:22 am UTC

Quite. Basically, in order to institute total color-blindness, you'd have to abolish the job interview as a thing. Good luck with that.

And that's on top of the other issues.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
protocoach
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:44 am UTC
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby protocoach » Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:10 am UTC

brindlb wrote:
Anyway, yeah, I just find all this outrage and publicity over "positive discrimination" to be extremely ironic and blown entirely out of proportion when compared to the problem of what I suppose must be called "negative discrimination."


Obviously negetive discrimination has been tackled in the past, and is now as eradicated as it is likely to become in my opinion- there will always be a far right, and there will always be a subconsciousness, but now positive discrimination is arising, and is a big problem- now and in its potential. To me it is clear colour blindness is the way forward (as much as is possible).

Christ, I hope not. If this is as far as we can go toward eradicating racism, we're screwed.

brindlb wrote:I'd like to know the view from someone from the U.S. in terms of affirmative action- paying the sons/grandsons/great-grandsons of slaves compensation etc. To me it seems like sons/grandsons/great-grandsons paying for the crimes of their fathers/grandfathers/great-grandfathers.

Well, for starters, affirmative action and slavery compensation are two very different things. Personally, I'm against compensation. The ones who should pay it would be largely unable to do so, given that the South has the highest poverty levels in the country. However, I'm all for affirmative action. I was fortunate enough to be born a white male in a fairly affluent household and I've never really wanted for anything in my life. I didn't have to get an after-school job; I didn't have to put food on the table at age 16. I've been in private schooling my entire life. (Woo Catholic schools!) If life is a 100 meter foot race, I started at the 20 meter mark, and I'm not alone. Most of the people I know have life tracks roughly paralleling that, and that is a direct consequence of our ancestors coming to America as free people.

People who grow up in inner city homes or deep country homes don't get to start at the 20. They start 10 meters behind the starting line. Guys who had to work at age 13, or take care of brothers and sisters, and who couldn't do the extracurriculars or put in the time for the homework every day, those guys start way back, and if they're a minority or female, it's even harder. The kicker is that it isn't their fault; they've been behind the eight ball for two hundred years.

Ideally, affirmative action should be about getting those people to the same starting point and then letting merit decide who's the best. The problem with trying to argue that with the current system we can let merit sort it out is those starting points. It doesn't matter if you're the fastest man in the world; if I'm even somewhat competent, I'll win the race.
If I were a Viking god, I don't think I would fall for that.
But if I were a Viking, that's exactly what I would do.

How can you study geometry and not believe in a God?
A God of perfect points and planes,
Surrounded by arch-angels and right angles

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby BattleMoose » Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:47 am UTC

Indon wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:I am completely okay with that system. Is it fair, well no, but then life has never been fair and using discrimination as a blunt tool to try and fix it, causes more problems and also fails to solve the one that it is trying to.

Precisely what problems do discriminatory policies cause? Are you claiming that policies such as affirmative action generate racial tension, or what?

And why does it fail to solve the problem it sets out to solve?


Allow me to quote myself, for you appear to miss what I have already posted.

BattleMoose wrote:A very significant reason, that I, as a South African graduated mechanical engineer am considering emigration is the discrimination I face in the work place, this hurts the country. I made a poll on a South African based forum, the demographic is mostly white/male, wide range of ages, school kids to 30-40 y/o, tho mostly teenagers or twentysomethings. A huge number are considering leaving or have already left, for the country this is a huge issue, granted there are other very strong if not stronger reasons to leave, discrimination is still a big issue.

The rational behind this discrimination is to help the previously disadvantaged into a middle class position. If I am competing for a job against a non-white person, mechanical engineer, how disadvantaged is a tertiary educated engineer? Why does he/she need help from government policy? I have a great deal of bad things to say about discrimination of this type, and have personal experience, advice from lecturers and the experiences from my friends parents and friends when looking for jobs which back up and support the view I have. :-(


Additionally there are a huge number of examples within South Africa where people are employed and promoted to positions which they are not capable of performing and are only promoted based on their skin colour. In the organisation in which I know work, I cannot get promoted into management, based on my colour, I know this, this has been made clear to me. This could be a case of positive discrimination just gone wrong, but it is seriously effecting the South African economy as it is encouraging high levels of emmigration of skilled individuals who do not want to be descriminated against.

Indon wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Lower class families are quite capable of giving their children a decent education, if they viewed it as a priority, not having a dozen children also helps. Also bursaries and scholarships exist for a reason.

A tertiary education is also not a prerequisite for financial success.


This not only does not remotely address my point, it seems you're basically saying, "Well, they're poor, sucks to be them, and also it's kinda their fault."


Dude, I honestly think you are actively trying to misunderstand people. The point is, life is not fair, accept it, deal with it, and make out of life what you want of it. Being born poor does not mean you will always be poor and so will your children, we can thank capitalism for that. Point is, poor people can rise from lower class to upper class, it is possible, its within their power abilities. Thumbs up to my father for being one of them and being able to easily give me a tertiary education.

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Quixotess » Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:35 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Dude, I honestly think you are actively trying to misunderstand people. The point is, life is not fair, accept it, deal with it, and make out of life what you want of it. Being born poor does not mean you will always be poor and so will your children, we can thank capitalism for that. Point is, poor people can rise from lower class to upper class, it is possible, its within their power abilities. Thumbs up to my father for being one of them and being able to easily give me a tertiary education.

I don't agree. That is, true, life isn't fair, but it's not like we can't work to fix some of the unfairness we see--whatever isn't caused by luck, but by people. Why should anyone "accept" that they might be passed over for a job because of their gender? Why should anyone "just deal with" the fact that they are paid less because of their race? Telling someone that life is what they make of it is pretty offensive when you're talking to someone who is actively discriminated against by their society.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby BattleMoose » Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:49 am UTC

Quixotess wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Dude, I honestly think you are actively trying to misunderstand people. The point is, life is not fair, accept it, deal with it, and make out of life what you want of it. Being born poor does not mean you will always be poor and so will your children, we can thank capitalism for that. Point is, poor people can rise from lower class to upper class, it is possible, its within their power abilities. Thumbs up to my father for being one of them and being able to easily give me a tertiary education.

I don't agree. That is, true, life isn't fair, but it's not like we can't work to fix some of the unfairness we see--whatever isn't caused by luck, but by people. Why should anyone "accept" that they might be passed over for a job because of their gender? Why should anyone "just deal with" the fact that they are paid less because of their race? Telling someone that life is what they make of it is pretty offensive when you're talking to someone who is actively discriminated against by their society.


We might be talking past each other here. I abhor discrimination, of all types, the only type that I could approve of, as I have mentioned before, would be positive disrimination for physcial/mentally disabled individuals.

Why should anyone "accept" that they might be passed over for a job because of their gender? Why should anyone "just deal with" the fact that they are paid less because of their race?


Incidentally this is exactly what I have to deal with, in South Africa, I have to deal or get out, currently working on getting out mind you, but there it is. Although I assume you were refering to the general discrimination of racial minorities and women in the workplace, which I also think is wrong.

If there was any chance that government policy regarding positive discrimination in the workplace could "fix" the problem, I would support it. Its such a blunt instrument, I really feel it will cause a great deal more problems than it would solve.

I acknowledge the problem, I agree with you, its sucky and I would like to see it fixed.

We just disagree on the solution.

User avatar
AngrySquirrel
Hellish Sex Goddess
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:26 am UTC
Location: The Northpole

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby AngrySquirrel » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:05 pm UTC

Positive discrimination is insulting imho.
It's like saying: "You might not be good enough for what we need you to do, but because we are such nice people (and the goverment tells us to) we are going to give you the job anyway, even if we can find someone who is better qualified than you. Really, we don't really think you have what it takes to do this job, but we are going to be nice and show some charity".

And I do understand the arguements for positive discrimination. I see how they fit with how it is, especially the scenario Indon described earlier in this thread made perfect sense, but I don't see how positive discrimination is making anything any better. Even if you get a better job than you otherwise would, and with it more money to wave around, you will still be "different" and "not one of us".
It is quite clear that something needs to be done about the discrimination issue, but, I think, positive discrimination is not the right way to go.
There is not much difference between saying:
"You don't get this job only because you are black" and "You get this job only because you are black"

However, as to what might actually help on this issue I have no idea.
Putting the fist into pacifist.

they/them/theirs

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:36 pm UTC

I think that if you're going to have a discussion of race that is couched in terms of colorblindness, you should be aware of criticisms of that framework.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blin ... _blindness

Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals." I think that that is a fundamental truth that should be addressed by social policy. In a school, we don't set every kid the same assignment. Kids in different years, and kids with differing talents, are treated very differently. Likewise, if an institution chooses to set aside a space as being women only, that isn't some great boon offered to women, its a recognition that the other space is male dominated and to some extent unsafe for women.

Consider that in America it has been many years since the end of slavery and some decades since civil rights laws were passed, and that there is still a pronounced socio-economic disparity between African-Americans and European-Americans. For all that time there has been a capitalist system in operation. If it was going to level out inequalities, don't you think it would have done so by now? Given that it hasn't, maybe it needs a little help. For all that it causes some percieved problems for you brindlb, surely it does work against the existing social power imbalances.

You posit that it may create a feeling of resentment in racial groups. But surely, working with people who are different might also foster mutual understanding and respect.

I think that affirmative action is well worth whatever inconvenience it causes to some subset of the populace.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:00 pm UTC

To sum up my position...

The Problem: Inequality between demographics such as gender and race in terms of their socioeconomic status

Negetive Discrimination: Bad (obviously) because of Nazism, The KKK, the BNP, general Fascism, etc. It is eradicated as it is ever likely to become, due to our subconscious distrust of things different, and our deeply ingrained social prejudices, which unfortunately we all have, however small. Also, there will always be a group of fools who elong to the far right. Fortunately they are now likely to be a small minority all the time.

Positive Discrimination: Bad because it creates tension- minorities often feel patronised and insulted, majorities often feel cheated. It is likely to overcorrect the problem, and possibly put the far right back on the political table as a mainstream point of view.

[fill in the gap]-blindness: Good. It is a long terms solution and will take time- possibly a generation or two, but is a safe and surefire way of correcting the problem. Them job interveiw need not be eradicted- people will inevitably see the person they emply (unless it's an internet business or something), so total -blindness is impossible (in my opinion)

perhaps everyone could sum up their position as above?

jestingrabbit- If -blindness was truly implemented and enforced, unlike now, for example blind interviews to at least give minorities a job- if prejudice prevents them from holding it down for as long as if they were a majority, the equal treatment of unequals would turn into the equal treatment of equals, at least as equal as possible considering different levels of education in capitalism (but the inequality would have no correlation to race or gender).
When I have said tension (or racial tension) I did not actally mean tension between races- I do not resent minorities for positive discrimination, I resent those who implemented it. It creates tension, not necesarily racial in nature. -blindness would encourage more mutual understanding and respect than discrimination, as there would be no bitterness- first and lasting impression wold be made solely on merit, and majorities would not be forced to employ or interact with minorities- if they did or did not it would be based on their personality and merit. People would become indifferent, not forcibly pleased, about muslim woman wearing the face thing (no disrespect intended- can't remember what it is called), and the like.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Belial » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:08 pm UTC

AngrySquirrel wrote:Positive discrimination is insulting imho.
It's like saying: "You might not be good enough for what we need you to do, but because we are such nice people (and the goverment tells us to) we are going to give you the job anyway, even if we can find someone who is better qualified than you. Really, we don't really think you have what it takes to do this job, but we are going to be nice and show some charity".


Straw-policy. There's nothing saying you have to hire underqualified people. In fact, I can't think of any hiring situation, especially in a job market like we've got in america, where you regularly have to choose between a single, qualified candidate and an unqualified one.

In most cases, it comes down to race or gender or whatever being a tie-breaker between two or more similarly qualified candidates.

brindlb wrote:When I have said tension (or racial tension) I did not actally mean tension between races- I do not resent minorities for positive discrimination, I resent those who implemented it. It creates tension, not necesarily racial in nature.


Oh. Then who cares? I don't think "this is a bad policy because it makes me angry at the government" is a particularly compelling argument.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
brindlb
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:00 pm UTC

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby brindlb » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:17 pm UTC

I don't think "this is a bad policy because it makes me angry at the government" is a particularly compelling argument.


Why not? And that is not my main argument. Many minorities feel patronised and insulted by positive discrimination (I have provided a casing point or two above, and the other two ant-discrimination people in this thread are minorities in their countries. It also makes majorities feel cheated (though evidently not all of the majority) out of something because they are a majority.

Straw-policy. There's nothing saying you have to hire underqualified people. In fact, I can't think of any hiring situation, especially in a job market like we've got in america, where you regularly have to choose between a single, qualified candidate and an unqualified one.


Perhaps in the US, but here in Britain, worse candidates are being given a job based on race, such as the situation with the Police, provided above.

Also note- I am not American, so cannot comment with much or any authority on the situation in the US, just my experience here in Britain.

User avatar
protocoach
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:44 am UTC
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby protocoach » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:18 pm UTC

brindlb wrote:To sum up my position...

The Problem: Inequality between demographics such as gender and race in terms of their socioeconomic status

Negetive Discrimination: Bad (obviously) because of Nazism, The KKK, the BNP, general Fascism, etc. It is eradicated as it is ever likely to become, due to our subconscious distrust of things different, and our deeply ingrained social prejudices, which unfortunately we all have, however small. Also, there will always be a group of fools who elong to the far right. Fortunately they are now likely to be a small minority all the time.

Positive Discrimination: Bad because it creates tension- minorities often feel patronised and insulted, majorities often feel cheated. It is likely to overcorrect the problem, and possibly put the far right back on the political table as a mainstream point of view.

[fill in the gap]-blindness: Good. It is a long terms solution and will take time- possibly a generation or two, but is a safe and surefire way of correcting the problem. Them job interveiw need not be eradicted- people will inevitably see the person they emply (unless it's an internet business or something), so total -blindness is impossible (in my opinion)

perhaps everyone could sum up their position as above?

jestingrabbit- If -blindness was truly implemented and enforced, unlike now, for example blind interviews to at least give minorities a job- if prejudice prevents them from holding it down for as long as if they were a majority, the equal treatment of unequals would turn into the equal treatment of equals, at least as equal as possible considering different levels of education in capitalism (but the inequality would have no correlation to race or gender).
When I have said tension (or racial tension) I did not actally mean tension between races- I do not resent minorities for positive discrimination, I resent those who implemented it. It creates tension, not necesarily racial in nature. -blindness would encourage more mutual understanding and respect than discrimination, as there would be no bitterness- first and lasting impression wold be made solely on merit, and majorities would not be forced to employ or interact with minorities- if they did or did not it would be based on their personality and merit. People would become indifferent, not forcibly pleased, about muslim woman wearing the face thing (no disrespect intended- can't remember what it is called), and the like.

Aside from the fact that you still aren't addressing the points brought up by Indon, jestingrabbit, and myself regarding trying to pretend that people who are inherently inequal are actually equals, there are massive logistical problems with your ideas that you aren't going into.

Let's just look at interviews, for one. Somehow, you're going to mandate that every business use indistinguishable designations for candidates for jobs, so no one is judged by their name? And the interviews will be conducted somehow simultaneously in-person, to evaluate the person's personal ability and other visual judgments, and also in some form of separated meeting, so the candidate can not be judged by their voice or their skin color? That's completely impossible.

And you still haven't provided any backing for the "we've come as far as we possibly can on racism" line of thought. We've steadily made progress towards creating societies with less racism in them for the last couple decades. We've suddenly reached the end? There's no more? What are you basing that on?
If I were a Viking god, I don't think I would fall for that.
But if I were a Viking, that's exactly what I would do.

How can you study geometry and not believe in a God?
A God of perfect points and planes,
Surrounded by arch-angels and right angles

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Positive Discrimination

Postby Belial » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:31 pm UTC

Why not?


Because "this is a bad law because I'm angry about it" is redundant. You're obviously angry at it for a reason. That reason is your argument. Stating that it's also bad because you're angry because of that reason is just making one point look like two. It's padding.

Many minorities feel patronised and insulted by positive discrimination


Judging by your examples, a handful of members of minorities ( most of whom were already affluent to some degree, and in publicly visible positions where approving of such a simultaneously self-beneficial and unpopular policy would be political suicide) claim to feel patronized. Which is a damn sight better than feeling oppressed.

Get me some data on how the people who actually need those jobs and aren't being scrutinized for having them feel.

It also makes majorities feel cheated (though evidently not all of the majority) out of something because they are a majority.


Having your privileges counteracted isn't being cheated. It only feels that way because you've had too much for too long and got to thinking that was normal.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests