The Rosa Parks analogy just meant to show that racial discrimination can exist apart from racism.
Except Schrodinger is trying to say that because the Rosa Parks example is racially discriminatory, but not racist, so is AA. This doesn't follow, because the Rosa Parks example is not racist because skin color directly impacts your ability to do the job. Whereas AA affects you ability to get accepted to a school for welding, and the color of your skin does not impact your ability to weld properly.
The Rosa Parks example is a horrible ridiculous example.
Yes, if Affirmative Action is going to do its job it must consider race. Yet, to consider race for jobs or schools where skin color has no relationship with ability is racist.
No, its racially discriminatory. Its not racist because it addresses a real problem (poverty et al in the black population) where as a racist program would address a false issue such as "mixing of the races".
No he didn't. The race of an actress directly impacts the quality of their portrayal of the character of Rosa Parks. The race of a medical school aplicant does not have any bearing as their ability to become a doctor.
You cut out the part where I said that the race of the candidate impacts their ability to increase diversity in the work place.
To extend the analogy, what about casting for extras?
If I'm casting a scene that's supposed to take place in NY and I notice that all of the extras are white, and I know that NY isn't 100% white in real life, would it be wrong to give minority extras an extra edge?
The color of the actor's skin does not affect their ability to stand in the middle of a subway station. But would it be wrong to say, "Look, I need at least a few minorities there, in order to represent the diversity of NYC."
Yes, if Affirmative Action is going to do its job it must consider race. Yet, to consider race for jobs or schools where skin color has no relationship with ability is racist.
No, its racially discriminatory. Its not racist because it addresses a real problem (poverty et al in the black population) where as a racist program would address a false issue such as "mixing of the races".
This is really quite basic. If you have two identical applicants and you give the spot to one over the other, based on the color of their skin, you are being racist. This is the exact situation which Affirmative Action is meant to correct for. We all agree that that is a racist situation. Well, Affirmative Action takes two identical university applicants, same GPA, same test score, and gives the spot to the black student. That is still racism. Making a decision about who gets the nod based not on who is the better applicant, but on their skin color.
Sure I did, but if you like I can repeat this very simple concept that you refuse to acknowledge. To consider race in relation to school acceptance or hiring is racist and wrong. Affirmative Action does this. So Affirmative Action is racist and wrong.
You're not actually making an argument here. You haven't actually explained why considering race in relation to school acceptance is wrong. You're just making an assertion.
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Please explain how Affirmative Action falls under this definition.
However, in a case where race directly affects your ability to accomplish something, it is not racist to factor that in.
We want to accomplish racial diversity.
How exactly is the concept of race irrelevant to the goal of racial diversity?
You keep asserting that AA is racist because it doesn't accomplish a goal, while ignoring the goal in question.
No he didn't. The race of an actress directly impacts the quality of their portrayal of the character of Rosa Parks. The race of a medical school aplicant does not have any bearing as their ability to become a doctor.
You cut out the part where I said that the race of the candidate impacts their ability to increase diversity in the work place.
To extend the analogy, what about casting for extras?
If I'm casting a scene that's supposed to take place in NY and I notice that all of the extras are white, and I know that NY isn't 100% white in real life, would it be wrong to give minority extras an extra edge?
The color of the actor's skin does not affect their ability to stand in the middle of a subway station. But would it be wrong to say, "Look, I need at least a few minorities there, in order to represent the diversity of NYC."
Of course this wouldn't be racist you silly goose. The race of those extras still impacts their ability to accurately portray New York city.
But it isn't the job of an employer to increase diversity in the workplace. It is the job of an employer to fairly hire the best person for the job, regardless of their skin color, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Giving extra consideration to someone because of their skin color is racist, unless their skin color directly impacts thee job.
Sure I did, but if you like I can repeat this very simple concept that you refuse to acknowledge. To consider race in relation to school acceptance or hiring is racist and wrong. Affirmative Action does this. So Affirmative Action is racist and wrong.
You're not actually making an argument here. You haven't actually explained why considering race in relation to school acceptance is wrong. You're just making an assertion.
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Please explain how Affirmative Action falls under this definition.
However, in a case where race directly affects your ability to accomplish something, it is not racist to factor that in.
We want to accomplish racial diversity.
How exactly is the concept of race irrelevant to the goal of racial diversity?
You keep asserting that AA is racist because it doesn't accomplish a goal, while ignoring the goal in question.
No, I'm saying that race is a protected class in the United States, and it is considered discriminatory and illegal to factor it in when accepting students to a university or hiring someone.
If I run a corporation and make it a policy not to hire black people that's racist. Whether I think they are capable or not, it is still racist.
Are you actually going to try to make the case that that isn't racist, or that I would be allowed to do that?
No, I'm saying that race is a protected class in the United States, and it is considered discriminatory and illegal to factor it in when accepting students to a university or hiring someone.
Unless you have a valid reason to do so, and what we've been trying to show you is that there is.
No, I'm saying that race is a protected class in the United States, and it is considered discriminatory and illegal to factor it in when accepting students to a university or hiring someone.
Unless you have a valid reason to do so, and what we've been trying to show you is that there is.
Oh, I know there is. I'm not offended by the idea that Affirmative Action exists. I'm offended by Schrodinger's assertion that opposing Affirmative Action is racist.
Of course this wouldn't be racist you silly goose. The race of those extras still impacts their ability to accurately portray New York city.
But it isn't the job of an employer to increase diversity in the workplace. It is the job of an employer to fairly hire the best person for the job, regardless of their skin color, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Giving extra consideration to someone because of their skin color is racist, unless their skin color directly impacts thee job.
The goal of the government is to offer representation among the citizenry. AA only applies to government sponsored programs, or companies with government contracts. Ergo, the government is fully within it's power to insure that minorities are represented when government money is at stake.
Moreover, the NY film director isn't under any obligation to represent NY accurately. I'm pretty sure that New York isn't currently haunted by ghosts, but that doesn't make Ivan Reitman a bad director. Accurately representing racial diversity is the personal choice of the director, just like it's the personal choice of the employer.
Is there anything inherently wrong with promoting racial diversity if the employer chooses to do it?
No, I'm saying that race is a protected class in the United States, and it is considered discriminatory and illegal to factor it in when accepting students to a university or hiring someone.
If I run a corporation and make it a policy not to hire black people that's racist. Whether I think they are capable or not, it is still racist.
Are you actually going to try to make the case that that isn't racist, or that I would be allowed to do that?
Oh, I know there is. I'm not offended by the idea that Affirmative Action exists. I'm offended by Schrodinger's assertion that opposing Affirmative Action is racist.
Except you just did the exact same thing.
You complain that my analogy to casting calls, because it is not literally the same thing as AA.
Then you immediately turn around and compare AA to a big sign that says "Black People Need Not Apply."
Of course this wouldn't be racist you silly goose. The race of those extras still impacts their ability to accurately portray New York city.
But it isn't the job of an employer to increase diversity in the workplace. It is the job of an employer to fairly hire the best person for the job, regardless of their skin color, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Giving extra consideration to someone because of their skin color is racist, unless their skin color directly impacts thee job.
The goal of the government is to offer representation among the citizenry. AA only applies to government sponsored programs, or companies with government contracts. Ergo, the government is fully within it's power to insure that minorities are represented when government money is at stake.
Moreover, the NY film director isn't under any obligation to represent NY accurately. I'm pretty sure that New York isn't currently haunted by ghosts, but that doesn't make Ivan Reitman a bad director. Accurately representing racial diversity is the personal choice of the director, just like it's the personal choice of the employer.
Is there anything inherently wrong with promoting racial diversity if the employer chooses to do it?
The director is not obligated to, but his choice to consider race in an attempt to is perfectly acceptable.
And it is the governments job to follow the law and not discriminate based on race, just as it is he job of all employers.
No, I'm saying that race is a protected class in the United States, and it is considered discriminatory and illegal to factor it in when accepting students to a university or hiring someone.
If I run a corporation and make it a policy not to hire black people that's racist. Whether I think they are capable or not, it is still racist.
Are you actually going to try to make the case that that isn't racist, or that I would be allowed to do that?
Oh, I know there is. I'm not offended by the idea that Affirmative Action exists. I'm offended by Schrodinger's assertion that opposing Affirmative Action is racist.
Except you just did the exact same thing.
You complain that my analogy to casting calls, because it is not literally the same thing as AA.
Then you immediately turn around and compare AA to a big sign that says "Black People Need Not Apply."
Again, it's a double standard.
No, I complain about your casting call analogy because it is a situation where race does in fact have a direct relationship to he job at hand.
My analogy is based on showing that AA can be racist without espousing racial superiority, just like my example is racist without espousing racial superiority.
BTW, I'm curious on Nucker's stance on handicap spots in parking lots. Consider:
1) Handicap spots discriminate against non-handicap people.
2) Handicap spots not only give preference to handicap people, but they actually have assigned slots. Which is analogous to the quota system that has already been ruled unconstitutional in AA. Moreover, you will often see scenarios where most of the handicap spots are empty, while the rest of the spot are completely full.
3) Handicap spots create inequality among drivers.
4) Handicap spots create tension. Mainly from non-handicap people who wish they could park there.
5) Handicap spots do not solve for the actual disease. They merely address the symptoms/
6) Solving for paralysis and other disabilities would be greatly preferable. In fact, given a choice between a cure for paralysis and continued access to a handicap spot, I can't think of a single person who would choose the latter.
Those are all of Nucker's objections in AA.
With all that in mind, wouldn't we be better off getting rid of handicap spots, and focus on curing the underlying disease? The fact that I don't have a cure for paralysis is irrelevant. We should not be wasting our time on the symptoms.
Sure I did, but if you like I can repeat this very simple concept that you refuse to acknowledge. To consider race in relation to school acceptance or hiring is racist and wrong. Affirmative Action does this. So Affirmative Action is racist and wrong.
You're not actually making an argument here. You haven't actually explained why considering race in relation to school acceptance is wrong. You're just making an assertion.
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Please explain how Affirmative Action falls under this definition.
However, in a case where race directly affects your ability to accomplish something, it is not racist to factor that in.
We want to accomplish racial diversity.
How exactly is the concept of race irrelevant to the goal of racial diversity?
You keep asserting that AA is racist because it doesn't accomplish a goal, while ignoring the goal in question.
No, I'm saying that race is a protected class in the United States, and it is considered discriminatory and illegal to factor it in when accepting students to a university or hiring someone.
If I run a corporation and make it a policy not to hire black people that's racist. Whether I think they are capable or not, it is still racist.
Are you actually going to try to make the case that that isn't racist, or that I would be allowed to do that?
The director is not obligated to, but his choice to consider race in an attempt to is perfectly acceptable.
And it is the governments job to follow the law and not discriminate based on race, just as it is he job of all employers.
So your argument is that AA is against current law? Wow. Because I know for a fact that AA has been challenged in the SCOTUS on several occasions, and I am absolutely shocked that no one has pointed this out.
Seriously. You're now resorting on making a legal argument with no legal basis.
No, I complain about your casting call analogy because it is a situation where race does in fact have a direct relationship to he job at hand.
Part of the job is the impact you will have on the work place. i.e., if I'm an accountant and I decide to come in naked for the job interview and insist that I will be naked in my cubicle, it has no impact on how I do my job. But I'm guessing that the employer will still fire me, because of the negative effect that I have on the work place.
My analogy is based on showing that AA can be racist without espousing racial superiority, just like my example is racist without espousing racial superiority.
So you're saying that a business that proclaims "Black people need not apply" doesn't espouse the racial superiority of white people?
WTF?
And now, we're back to the "Jim Crow laws aren't racist" argument.
No. What I keep saying is, "Just because we don't have a cure for racism, that doesn't justify accepting that AA is the best possible solution and ignoring the fact that AA has negative consequences." Next time you want to quote something I've said, actually quote something I've said. Look! I even put it in quotation marks for you!
If you don't have a better solution at hand, then by definition, AA is the best solution available. The existence of negative consequences doesn't change this.
Saying that AA is the best solution available is sitting on AA. It is not looking for progress, it is being satisified with the current results, giving ourselves a pat on the back, and letting the people who are unfairly affected by AA because of the color of their skin go by the wayside. Acknowledging the existence of negative consequences is CRUCIAL to making any kind of progress--by implying someone who objects to AA as a solution as a racist, by ignoring those negative consequences, you are hindering progress.
It's a form of racial discrimination. A form of racial discrimination that partially corrects one kind of racial inequality while in many individual cases creating a different kind of racial inequality--the people who get doors shut in their faces because all other things being equal they were not favored by the racial discrimination of AA.
Everything you said just now? Yeah, that could just as easily apply to casting Rosa Parks as a black woman. Which isn't to say that casting for Rosa Parks is exactly the same as AA. What it does shows is that your refutation isn't substantial on it's own. If you want to criticize AA, you have to do more than simply show that it racially discriminates. You also have to show that it does so in a way that is actually wrong.
If other people's objections to your flawed Rosa Parks scenario haven't been enough to convince you that it has nothing to do with AA, then your own assertion should.
If I want to criticize AA, all I need to do is understand a basic fact--AA gives advantage to one group and so disadvantages another group based on an uncontrollable factor. It is unfair, and while the net consequences may be on the plus side, that doesn't mean it's a policy that we should be satisfied with.
You could argue that in some ways it even hinders people who have without the assistance of AA achieved in society. There will be people who look at their achievements and think, "The only reason you have done so well is because you are (x minority)."
The people who think that will think that regardless of whether or not AA actually exist.
Really? All of them? Every man, woman, and child who has never really come into contact with a racial situation before who is then disadvantaged because of AA--those people were all going to be upset about black people anyway? I'm sure.
Should we help people who don't have access to condoms? Students never took safe sex education? Absolutely. Should we try and eliminate HIV? Absolutely. But what we should not do is settle on medications for AIDS because it partially corrects the symptoms of the real problem.
If this is really what you think my argument was, then you have missed the point completely. In this scenario? My point would be that just because treatments and medications exist, we shouldn't be satisfied. We should be looking for the cure. But you just missed it.
And for the record I'll reiterate that I support Affirmative Action, but hate the idea that opposition to it can only be racism.
There are some people who are naive and believe that racism no longer exists, and that AA therefore agitates the problem. I'm willing to concede that those people aren't racist, just naive. In much that same way that the idiots trying to sell me on Amway aren't necessarily trying to scam me out of my money, but simply fail to grasp the underlying principles of a pyramid scheme.
However, that doesn't mean that there isn't racism involved. The problem is, most racism is aversive racism. Which means that the person might be in complete denial over it.
For instance, AA only applies in cases where candidates are statistically equal in terms of qualification. Yet a common critique of AA is that it allows "unqualified" minorities to get into college, and that it makes "victims" out of white people. Again, both candidates were equally qualified. Why is the critic assuming that the black candidate was unqualified, but fails to make the same assumption for the white candidate?
Simply put, it is the underlying belief that white people are superior, and the disbelief that the two candidates could have been equal. That belief, in itself, is racist.
So yeah, opposing AA isn't necessarily racist on the grounds of "I hate black people, and I want them all to suffer!" But a lot of the most common arguments against AA reveal racist assumptions.
Saying that AA is the best solution available is sitting on AA. It is not looking for progress, it is being satisified with the current results, giving ourselves a pat on the back, and letting the people who are unfairly affected by AA because of the color of their skin go by the wayside.
Handicap spots unfairly affect people who aren't handicap. They also fail to cure paralysis. Therefore, handicap spots are morally indefensible. Just because I don't have a cute for paralysis doesn't mean that we should keep having them.
Acknowledging the existence of negative consequences is CRUCIAL to making any kind of progress--by implying someone who objects to AA as a solution as a racist, by ignoring those negative consequences, you are hindering progress.
And you're implying that the people who promote AA are racist, by ignoring the positive consequences. How are you any better?
If other people's objections to your flawed Rosa Parks scenario haven't been enough to convince you that it has nothing to do with AA, then your own assertion should.
So you whine and whine that people compare casting Rosa Parks to AA, because it is not literally the same thing.
But you have absolutely no problem comparing AA to laws preventing interracial marriage. In fact, you whine when no one addresses these comparisons directly.
In other words, you're a hypocrite.
If I want to criticize AA, all I need to do is understand a basic fact--AA gives advantage to one group and so disadvantages another group based on an uncontrollable factor. It is unfair, and while the net consequences may be on the plus side, that doesn't mean it's a policy that we should be satisfied with.
So you're against wheelchair ramps?
Really? All of them? Every man, woman, and child who has never really come into contact with a racial situation before who is then disadvantaged because of AA--those people were all going to be upset about black people anyway? I'm sure.
If they never encountered a racial situation before, then how can you honestly say with absolute certainty that they were disadvantaged because of AA?
You're trying to have it both ways.
You're a hypocrite.
It's like saying that handicap spots are unjust, because they punish people who in no way benefit from the lack of paralysis.
If this is really what you think my argument was, then you have missed the point completely. In this scenario? My point would be that just because treatments and medications exist, we shouldn't be satisfied.
I want you to point to who on the pro-AA side says that AA is the end all solution and that nothing else needs to be done to addressed the problem of racism.
Saying that AA is the best solution available is sitting on AA. It is not looking for progress, it is being satisified with the current results, giving ourselves a pat on the back, and letting the people who are unfairly affected by AA because of the color of their skin go by the wayside.
Handicap spots unfairly affect people who aren't handicap. They also fail to cure paralysis. Therefore, handicap spots are morally indefensible. Just because I don't have a cute for paralysis doesn't mean that we should keep having them.
Handicap spots have nothing to do with racism or racial discrimination. This is a bad analogy.
Acknowledging the existence of negative consequences is CRUCIAL to making any kind of progress--by implying someone who objects to AA as a solution as a racist, by ignoring those negative consequences, you are hindering progress.
And you're implying that the people who promote AA are racist, by ignoring the positive consequences. How are you any better?
Let me make this very clear: people who promote AA are not necessarily racist. They are supporting a program of racial discrimination which has both positive and negative consequences. If they don't like the fact or refuse to acknowledge the fact that AA produces negative consequences, maybe they need to re-evaluate their reasons for supporting it.
If other people's objections to your flawed Rosa Parks scenario haven't been enough to convince you that it has nothing to do with AA, then your own assertion should.
So you whine and whine that people compare casting Rosa Parks to AA, because it is not literally the same thing.
But you have absolutely no problem comparing AA to laws preventing interracial marriage. In fact, you whine when no one addresses these comparisons directly.
In other words, you're a hypocrite.
I point out that comparing a casting for Rosa Parks to AA is a bad analogy because it's a bad analogy. Very bad. As in, it does not make sense to use it and run with it and believe you've proven your point because they cannot be reasonably compared.
If I want to criticize AA, all I need to do is understand a basic fact--AA gives advantage to one group and so disadvantages another group based on an uncontrollable factor. It is unfair, and while the net consequences may be on the plus side, that doesn't mean it's a policy that we should be satisfied with.
So you're against wheelchair ramps?
No, I'm not against wheelchair ramps. This is really, really stupid.
Really? All of them? Every man, woman, and child who has never really come into contact with a racial situation before who is then disadvantaged because of AA--those people were all going to be upset about black people anyway? I'm sure.
If they never encountered a racial situation before, then how can you honestly say with absolute certainty that they were disadvantaged because of AA?
You're trying to have it both ways.
You're a hypocrite.
It's like saying that handicap spots are unjust, because they punish people who in no way benefit from the lack of paralysis.
Again with the bad analogy.
With absolute certainty? No. But if you think that means it's an impossible, unlikely scenario, you're kidding yourself.
If this is really what you think my argument was, then you have missed the point completely. In this scenario? My point would be that just because treatments and medications exist, we shouldn't be satisfied.
I want you to point to who on the pro-AA side says that AA is the end all solution and that nothing else needs to be done to addressed the problem of racism.
You and everyone who tries to shut down conversation about AA being an unsatisfactory solution. That is an implied admission that AA should not be questioned, and is hence the end all solution. If you're not actually saying what you seem to be implying, then come out and say it.
Handicap spots have nothing to do with racism or racial discrimination. This is a bad analogy.
I don't think you understand what an analogy actual is, or the proper way to critique one you disagree with. Your refutation is "I disagree with your analogy, because it is not literally the same thing." Of course not, because if it were literally the same thing, it would no longer be an analogy. It would be an axiom. The purpose of an analogy is not to compare to things that are exactly alike. It's to compare two things that are different, but which share a common property, so that the understanding of one thing can transfer towards understanding of another.
In order to critique an analogy, you have to do more than simply show that two things are not exactly alike. You have to show that they are not alike in a way that affect the common property that both things are said to have.
Handicap stalls aren't a form of racial discrimination, but they are an example of discrimination and inequality in general. They aren't a form of racism, but the entire point of my argument is to show that neither is AA.
Let me make this very clear: people who promote AA are not necessarily racist. They are supporting a program of racial discrimination which has both positive and negative consequences. If they don't like the fact or refuse to acknowledge the fact that AA produces negative consequences, maybe they need to re-evaluate their reasons for supporting it.
Ending AA also has negative consequences. What's your point?
I point out that comparing a casting for Rosa Parks to AA is a bad analogy because it's a bad analogy. Very bad. As in, it does not make sense to use it and run with it and believe you've proven your point because they cannot be reasonably compared.
Dude, you praised an analogy comparing between a program designed to increase the probability of racial diversity to a law that targeted all individuals and completely banned the practice of interracial marriage. Why is your analogy better than mine?
You're trying to say that anti-miscegenation and AA are similar, and that since anti-miscegenation are unjust, AA must be unjust as well. I can critique your analogy by pointing out anti-miscegenation laws are unjust because they motivated by the idea of racial purity and racial superiority, and therefore falls under the presented definition of racism. And we can all agree that anything that falls under that definition of racism would be unjust. OTOH, AA does not fall under the definition of racism. Ergo, the analogy falls. Moreover, your analogy also falls because you are trying to compare the private act of marriage with government hiring or admissions process. And because anti-miscegenation create an outright ban on people with a different skin color, even if that's the only candidate who you would have chosen as your personal spouse. Where as AA merely gives preference in cases where both candidates are already being considered, and you are forced to chose between one or the other.
Meanwhile, your critique of my Rosa Parks analogy is that AA is not literally the same thing as a casting call. So does that mean that AA is literally the same thing as an anti-miscegenation law? Because you seem to find that particular analogy to be completely legit.
No, I'm not against wheelchair ramps. This is really, really stupid.
Well I'm pointing to the absurdities of your logic, so of course it's going to look stupid.
You and everyone who tries to shut down conversation about AA being an unsatisfactory solution. That is an implied admission that AA should not be questioned, and is hence the end all solution. If you're not actually saying what you seem to be implying, then come out and say it.
Is defending the existence of handicap slots the same thing as saying that handicap slots are the end all solution for handicap people?
I think that people with handicap people should be allowed to park in designated spots. I wish that we could find a way to cure paralysis so that we didn't need handicap spots at all, but for now, this solution will have to do. I do not pretend that handicap slots are the end all solution, and people are more than welcome to question their use. However, I also think that anyone who insists that we should get rid of handicap slots entirely and focus on the problem of curing paralysis, without actually presenting a method for curing paralysis, is being counter productive and proposing a system that is bad for handicap people.
I think that people with minorities should be have access to affirmative action. I wish that we could find a way to cure racism so that we didn't need AA at all, but for now, this solution will have to do. I do not pretend that AA are the end all solution, and people are more than welcome to question its use. However, I also think that anyone who insists that we should get rid of AA entirely and focus on the problem of curing racism, without actually presenting a method for curing racism, is being counter productive and proposing a system that is bad for minorities.
I think that people with minorities should be have access to affirmative action. I wish that we could find a way to cure racism so that we didn't need AA at all, but for now, this solution will have to do. I do not pretend that AA are the end all solution, and people are more than welcome to question its use. However, I also think that anyone who insists that we should get rid of AA entirely and focus on the problem of curing racism, without actually presenting a method for curing racism, is being counter productive and proposing a system that is bad for minorities.
Well-fucking-done! FINALLY, some solid statements we can agree on! The rest of that last post isn't worth addressing, but at least I could pull this out of you.
Now, with THAT said--how can the existing structure of AA be made better?
Nucker, I don't think you have any idea how to critique an analogy. It's not enough to just shout "Your analogy is bad, my analogy is awesome!" All you're telling us is that you, personally think that you're right. And that's not really helpful in a discussion, because we already knew that. In order to critique an analogy, you need to follow the guidelines. But don't take my word for it. I'll make it easy on you.
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Examples:
1. Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
2. Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.
Both analogies make comparisons to AA, but with opposite values for property p. You praise of the analogy that AA is comparable to anti-miscegenation and says that both things are morally unjust. You ridicule the analogy that comparable to the Rosa Parks cast list and says that both things are morally neutral. Explain your work. Why do you favor the first analogy over the second? Is it because the first analogy is a more accurate representation, or is it because the first analogy confirms your pre-existing biases?
Here is how you critique an analogy, by showing how the two things are different in a way that affects property p:
MM says that AA is similar to anti-miscegenation, in the sense that both consider race and are therefore morally unjust (P). I point out that anti-miscegenation isn't unjust because it considers race, but because it is racist. I say this, because it falls under the definition of racism. AA does not fall under the definition of racism. Ergo, the property that makes anti-miscegenation unjust does not apply to AA. The analogy is invalid.
Can you do something similar with the Rosa Parks analogy?
I state that AA is similar to the Rosa Parks cast list, in the sense that both consider race but are still morally neutral. You disagree. You agree that one of these things is morally neutral, but continue to insist that the other thing is morally unjust. Unfortunately, you haven't actually explained the difference.
You're not praising MM's analogy because his comparison is sound. You're not rejecting my analogy because the comparison is bad. You're judging both analogies based solely on whether you agree with the conclusion. You already made up your mind that AA is morally unjust. Therefore, any analogy that says "AA is morally unjust" is a good analogy. Any analogy that says "AA is morally neutral" is a bad analogy.
If you think that I'm wrong, then show, don't tell. Show me that AA still falls under the definition of racism, and then MM's analogy will be valid. Show me how AA falls under the definition of racism in a way that the Rosa Parks example does not, and my analogy is invalid.
But merely stating, "Your analogy sucks, my analogy is awesome!" will get us nowhere.
I think that people with minorities should be have access to affirmative action. I wish that we could find a way to cure racism so that we didn't need AA at all, but for now, this solution will have to do. I do not pretend that AA are the end all solution, and people are more than welcome to question its use. However, I also think that anyone who insists that we should get rid of AA entirely and focus on the problem of curing racism, without actually presenting a method for curing racism, is being counter productive and proposing a system that is bad for minorities.
That set of statements is more productive than those last 10-12 pages. They identify the problems with AA, they identify the benefits of AA, and they leave room for progressive discussion on how the existing framework of AA can be made better.
I don't really care if you don't think I understand how an analogy works. What I hope you understand is that all of the pointless Debate Club bullshit that's been going back and forth for the last two days has been less useful than that one paragraph you probably typed up in a matter of a few minutes.
That portion I just said would be the equivalent of an evolutionist who "concedes" that he isn't a Satan worshiping heathen. You're acting amazed when I acknowledge that AA isn't perfect, when no one was making this claim in the first place. The fact that you seem to see this as this amazing breakthrough, rather than a basic assumption, shows that you're a bit out of your depth here.
And this is a debate forum. So yeah, I use debate skills. Sue me.
You are correct. Since I've gotten you to make a basic assertion that other people actually agree with, I'm clearly out of my depth. I'll go back to watching now. If you want to continue stroking your debate skills, you go right ahead and do that.
There are a number of suggestions in your post that are not feasable under the current laws of the USA. In addition to that, allowing that type of control by the government would just lead to worse situations than they are currently experiencing.
You cannot make poverty go away by making it HARDER to get assistance out of poverty. That is the whole fucking reason that we made these social safety nets.
And the more you cut support, the more crime goes up, because they do not have any fucking alternatives. And it costs more to increase funding to police to reduce the crime rate again than it does to just give them some fucking welfare checks, in addition to reducing the burdens on the courts, and removing the need to rehabilitate and get ex-cons jobs.
And none of your post even resembles why AA is currently in place in the USA. It doesnt really give African Americans an advantage over non-African Americans. It does give African Americans an advantage over their situation if AA was not in place at all however.
A giant problem with what TheNomodicCircle is saying is that it overlooks the biases floating over everything. Which is a concept that's been basically beaten to death already, but let's see if I can boil it down.
Some ethnic minorities are poor because of institutional racism. This leads to poor, uneducated children. The poor, uneducated children grow up and try to enter the workforce. The bias is still there, keeping them from getting jobs; they are now now poor, uneducated adults who will have poor, uneducated children, and this perpetuates the cycle.
See where I'm going with this? Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action policies are there to create a break in the cycle of institutional racism.
I understand that some 'non-minorities' might get a little upset at the idea that a brown person might get a job they don't deserve when there's a perfectly qualified caucasion missing out; however, rest assured, AA has never done a damned thing for me. Does that help anybody sleep easier, knowing that somewhere, somebody is making sure black people aren't getting jobs they're qualified for?
A giant problem with what TheNomodicCircle is saying is that it overlooks the biases floating over everything. Which is a concept that's been basically beaten to death already, but let's see if I can boil it down.
Some ethnic minorities are poor because of institutional racism. This leads to poor, uneducated children. The poor, uneducated children grow up and try to enter the workforce. The bias is still there, keeping them from getting jobs; they are now now poor, uneducated adults who will have poor, uneducated children, and this perpetuates the cycle.
See where I'm going with this? Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action policies are there to create a break in the cycle of institutional racism.
I understand that some 'non-minorities' might get a little upset at the idea that a brown person might get a job they don't deserve when there's a perfectly qualified caucasion missing out; however, rest assured, AA has never done a damned thing for me. Does that help anybody sleep easier, knowing that somewhere, somebody is making sure black people aren't getting jobs they're qualified for?
Actually yes. You see people suck. Some people are racist, xenophobic assholes. However this is really not a problem the government can solve. The government does not have the power to make people stop being assholes. Nor really should it. Racial relations have been improving pretty much steadily. Are we where we would like to be? No. However we are at a place where trying to legislate racial harmony in my opinion is probably more damaging to racial harmony than anything else.
Do poor uneducated children need help? Yes, regardless of color. Yes we could be doing much more to help our poor uneducated masses out. However, and this largely is another rant, we would rather subsidize their shitty quality of life through programs like welfare and food stamps that in some cases penalize them for trying to better themselves. Are welfare and food stamp programs a good thing? Yes, yes they are. However the third program we need to offer is on that educates and helps them get out of their current conditions.
Anecdotal data forthcoming, multiple friends of mine have had serious issues with welfare. One went on assistance until he could find a job, and was told he qualified for 3 months of assistance. After a month and a half he had found work and no longer needed assistance. In trying to cancel it he was told that if he canceled it he would have to pay back the month and a half of assistance he had already received. Since he had no way of paying it back, and taking care of himself his only option was to take assistance he did not need. Or the friend of mine who went on welfare, got a job, lost the job, and had to reapply and was directly asked "are you going to stay on it this time?"
Welfare has become an institution, where people are encouraged to remain on it. Which then further propagates to these poor uneducated masses that have the option of collecting a check, or working a job they qualify for 40 hours a week for about the same amount of money. That is a more serious problem than AA honestly.
Does a black man from the middle class, with a good education really need preferential treatment over a poor white kid from the ghetto who crawled his way out with some lucky scholarships and a ton of hard work? Not really. However we do not have an effective way of decided who is, and who is not more deserving of a job. We can toss out statistics about who is, and who is no getting fucked over, however at the end of the day the reality is we lack the ability to dispense help where and how it is needed most. The best answer we have come up with is codify into law racism, and hope to god this horrible solution produces the best intended results we want. We do not even have metric where by it should go away.
I propose we stop devoting energy into trying to legislate people into not being assholes, and start doing everything we can to educate, and provide marketable job skills to America's poor.
The problem that we really have, and refuse to address is that there are some poor, uneducated masses we can do nothing with. We have nothing to offer them but a monthly bribe to keep them from having to resort to crime to live. For the rest we should be doing everything possible to transition them off of government assistance, instead of the current system that encourages people to stay on it.
I don't support AA. While I'm in Canada and I don't know if anything is like it here, I don't see the reason for it in the first place.
African Americans are poor because they got terrible schools? Well the government should step in and give them new schools. Cancel all welfare and give people sustainable jobs. If they fail out of these jobs then thats their own fault. Instead of relying on the government to support you and your 10 babies you had before you hit 18, have governments enfore sexual education classes and tell them at if they get pregnant, then take care of it on your own, no welfare checks for you. Crack down on crime, drugs and murder. Clean up the ghettos. Doing this will give African Americans no chance to cry agian how they are looked down upon. If they don't work with what the government offers then tough luck, no matter how smart you are, if you don't follow the rules you get nothing.
University or College education is not a right. I believe that the world needs janitors, farmers and other jobs. Open technical schools. Have them enrole in it and provide their first jobs. If they fail for reasons that are related to the work then send them back to do something else. If they fail for drugs, tell them tough luck, they had their chance.
If they want to go into University then have them work hard like the others and make it on merrit. Open new Universities, support a better educational acceptance model that gives an equal chance and that its.
At least that my view on how African Americans can be given a fair and equal chance. If they fail then its on them.
For the record: I'm an Immgrant, not a white person. I worked hard for where I got to and am working hard.
Your entire post reminds me of the summation of the republican health care plan: "Don't get sick."
I don't support AA. While I'm in Canada and I don't know if anything is like it here, I don't see the reason for it in the first place.
African Americans are poor because they got terrible schools? Well the government should step in and give them new schools. Cancel all welfare and give people sustainable jobs. If they fail out of these jobs then thats their own fault. Instead of relying on the government to support you and your 10 babies you had before you hit 18, have governments enfore sexual education classes and tell them at if they get pregnant, then take care of it on your own, no welfare checks for you. Crack down on crime, drugs and murder. Clean up the ghettos. Doing this will give African Americans no chance to cry agian how they are looked down upon. If they don't work with what the government offers then tough luck, no matter how smart you are, if you don't follow the rules you get nothing.
University or College education is not a right. I believe that the world needs janitors, farmers and other jobs. Open technical schools. Have them enrole in it and provide their first jobs. If they fail for reasons that are related to the work then send them back to do something else. If they fail for drugs, tell them tough luck, they had their chance.
If they want to go into University then have them work hard like the others and make it on merrit. Open new Universities, support a better educational acceptance model that gives an equal chance and that its.
At least that my view on how African Americans can be given a fair and equal chance. If they fail then its on them.
For the record: I'm an Immgrant, not a white person. I worked hard for where I got to and am working hard.
Your entire post reminds me of the summation of the republican health care plan: "Don't get sick."
I'm consistently amazed (and chagrined) that people keep seriously arguing that AA should be race neutral, when it's pretty goddamned clear that being non-white is it's own burden independent of economic status. Implementing AA for economic status alone doesn't fix the problem of systemic racism, and arguing for it to replace traditional AA calls into question your desire to mitigate the effects of systemic racism.
I'm consistently amazed (and chagrined) that people keep seriously arguing that AA should be race neutral, when it's pretty goddamned clear that being non-white is it's own burden independent of economic status. Implementing AA for economic status alone doesn't fix the problem of systemic racism, and arguing for it to replace traditional AA calls into question your desire to mitigate the effects of systemic racism.
Thank You! This is the entire point. This right here.
Noone who supports AA is against social safety nets or economic AA. The choice isn't between economic AA and racial AA, its between discrimination + AA or just discrimination alone
and NomadicCircle's post is as full of fail as this post is full of lime. Just completely 100% awful.
I don't support AA. While I'm in Canada and I don't know if anything is like it here, I don't see the reason for it in the first place.
African Americans are poor because they got terrible schools? Well the government should step in and give them new schools. Cancel all welfare and give people sustainable jobs. If they fail out of these jobs then thats their own fault. Instead of relying on the government to support you and your 10 babies you had before you hit 18, have governments enfore sexual education classes and tell them at if they get pregnant, then take care of it on your own, no welfare checks for you. Crack down on crime, drugs and murder. Clean up the ghettos. Doing this will give African Americans no chance to cry agian how they are looked down upon. If they don't work with what the government offers then tough luck, no matter how smart you are, if you don't follow the rules you get nothing.
University or College education is not a right. I believe that the world needs janitors, farmers and other jobs. Open technical schools. Have them enrole in it and provide their first jobs. If they fail for reasons that are related to the work then send them back to do something else. If they fail for drugs, tell them tough luck, they had their chance.
If they want to go into University then have them work hard like the others and make it on merrit. Open new Universities, support a better educational acceptance model that gives an equal chance and that its.
At least that my view on how African Americans can be given a fair and equal chance. If they fail then its on them.
For the record: I'm an Immgrant, not a white person. I worked hard for where I got to and am working hard.
While we're at it, let's see what else we can hand wave away.
I'm consistently amazed (and chagrined) that people keep seriously arguing that AA should be race neutral, when it's pretty goddamned clear that being non-white is it's own burden independent of economic status. Implementing AA for economic status alone doesn't fix the problem of systemic racism, and arguing for it to replace traditional AA calls into question your desire to mitigate the effects of systemic racism.
I'm a little unclear on the extent of systemic racism when it is uncoupled from economic background.
To what extent do the members of black households wherein both parents have masters degrees experience systemic racism in admission to jobs and schools?
I mean, schrodinger's defense of AA a few pages back leaned heavily on the idea of a gap in wealth, as opposed to income, being the problem that AA is meant to address. Well, what of it? An AA of wealth would also be race neutral.
That's more just to address the pro-AA side than you in particular wtm. You don't have to argue Shrodinger's part.
African Americans are poor because they got terrible schools? Well the government should step in and give them new schools. Cancel all welfare and give people sustainable jobs. If they fail out of these jobs then thats their own fault. Instead of relying on the government to support you and your 10 babies you had before you hit 18, have governments enfore sexual education classes and tell them at if they get pregnant, then take care of it on your own, no welfare checks for you. Crack down on crime, drugs and murder. Clean up the ghettos. Doing this will give African Americans no chance to cry agian how they are looked down upon. If they don't work with what the government offers then tough luck, no matter how smart you are, if you don't follow the rules you get nothing.
What a remarkably accurate depiction of all black people.
I'm consistently amazed (and chagrined) that people keep seriously arguing that AA should be race neutral, when it's pretty goddamned clear that being non-white is it's own burden independent of economic status. Implementing AA for economic status alone doesn't fix the problem of systemic racism, and arguing for it to replace traditional AA calls into question your desire to mitigate the effects of systemic racism.
I'm a little unclear on the extent of systemic racism when it is uncoupled from economic background.
To what extent do the members of black households wherein both parents have masters degrees experience systemic racism in admission to jobs and schools?
I mean, schrodinger's defense of AA a few pages back leaned heavily on the idea of a gap in wealth, as opposed to income, being the problem that AA is meant to address. Well, what of it? An AA of wealth would also be race neutral.
That's more just to address the pro-AA side than you in particular wtm. You don't have to argue Shrodinger's part.
That's a good question, and I can't say that I have data on it. The studies so far seem to focus on black people in general without respect to their economic and social class. The point I was trying to make, though, was that systemic racism doesn't necessarily disappear when you get money and an education. IIRC, on all levels of society black people still make less on average than their white counterparts. We also are less represented in executive and managerial positions relative to our percentage of the population.
I'm in favor of policies to help the economically disadvantaged, but I really dislike it when people try to make it out that economic disadvantage = racial disadvantage, therefore addressing the former addresses the latter. It's just not true.
IIRC, on all levels of society black people still make less on average than their white counterparts. We also are less represented in executive and managerial positions relative to our percentage of the population.
I'm in favor of policies to help the economically disadvantaged, but I really dislike it when people try to make it out that economic disadvantage = racial disadvantage, therefore addressing the former addresses the latter. It's just not true.
Re: making less - I seem to recall a similar problem coming up in discussions regarding women. It seems they are as a group less aggressive in asking for raises. Which is not to say that is exactly what is going on, but rather that it's a simple statistic to be drawing a broad causal inference from.
Re: lower managerial representation - seems like it would be a direct correlation with attending college in lower percetages.
It's not that I think there isn't systemic racism in some situations, but I'm not sure that it is as blunt a problem as you make out, or that as blunt a thing as AA is really the most helpful approach.
Posts
Except Schrodinger is trying to say that because the Rosa Parks example is racially discriminatory, but not racist, so is AA. This doesn't follow, because the Rosa Parks example is not racist because skin color directly impacts your ability to do the job. Whereas AA affects you ability to get accepted to a school for welding, and the color of your skin does not impact your ability to weld properly.
The Rosa Parks example is a horrible ridiculous example.
--LeVar Burton
No, its racially discriminatory. Its not racist because it addresses a real problem (poverty et al in the black population) where as a racist program would address a false issue such as "mixing of the races".
You cut out the part where I said that the race of the candidate impacts their ability to increase diversity in the work place.
To extend the analogy, what about casting for extras?
If I'm casting a scene that's supposed to take place in NY and I notice that all of the extras are white, and I know that NY isn't 100% white in real life, would it be wrong to give minority extras an extra edge?
The color of the actor's skin does not affect their ability to stand in the middle of a subway station. But would it be wrong to say, "Look, I need at least a few minorities there, in order to represent the diversity of NYC."
This is really quite basic. If you have two identical applicants and you give the spot to one over the other, based on the color of their skin, you are being racist. This is the exact situation which Affirmative Action is meant to correct for. We all agree that that is a racist situation. Well, Affirmative Action takes two identical university applicants, same GPA, same test score, and gives the spot to the black student. That is still racism. Making a decision about who gets the nod based not on who is the better applicant, but on their skin color.
--LeVar Burton
You're not actually making an argument here. You haven't actually explained why considering race in relation to school acceptance is wrong. You're just making an assertion.
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Please explain how Affirmative Action falls under this definition.
We want to accomplish racial diversity.
How exactly is the concept of race irrelevant to the goal of racial diversity?
You keep asserting that AA is racist because it doesn't accomplish a goal, while ignoring the goal in question.
Of course this wouldn't be racist you silly goose. The race of those extras still impacts their ability to accurately portray New York city.
But it isn't the job of an employer to increase diversity in the workplace. It is the job of an employer to fairly hire the best person for the job, regardless of their skin color, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Giving extra consideration to someone because of their skin color is racist, unless their skin color directly impacts thee job.
--LeVar Burton
No, I'm saying that race is a protected class in the United States, and it is considered discriminatory and illegal to factor it in when accepting students to a university or hiring someone.
If I run a corporation and make it a policy not to hire black people that's racist. Whether I think they are capable or not, it is still racist.
Are you actually going to try to make the case that that isn't racist, or that I would be allowed to do that?
--LeVar Burton
Unless you have a valid reason to do so, and what we've been trying to show you is that there is.
Oh, I know there is. I'm not offended by the idea that Affirmative Action exists. I'm offended by Schrodinger's assertion that opposing Affirmative Action is racist.
--LeVar Burton
Moreover, the NY film director isn't under any obligation to represent NY accurately. I'm pretty sure that New York isn't currently haunted by ghosts, but that doesn't make Ivan Reitman a bad director. Accurately representing racial diversity is the personal choice of the director, just like it's the personal choice of the employer.
Is there anything inherently wrong with promoting racial diversity if the employer chooses to do it?
Except you just did the exact same thing.
You complain that my analogy to casting calls, because it is not literally the same thing as AA.
Then you immediately turn around and compare AA to a big sign that says "Black People Need Not Apply."
Again, it's a double standard.
The director is not obligated to, but his choice to consider race in an attempt to is perfectly acceptable.
And it is the governments job to follow the law and not discriminate based on race, just as it is he job of all employers.
--LeVar Burton
No, I complain about your casting call analogy because it is a situation where race does in fact have a direct relationship to he job at hand.
My analogy is based on showing that AA can be racist without espousing racial superiority, just like my example is racist without espousing racial superiority.
--LeVar Burton
1) Handicap spots discriminate against non-handicap people.
2) Handicap spots not only give preference to handicap people, but they actually have assigned slots. Which is analogous to the quota system that has already been ruled unconstitutional in AA. Moreover, you will often see scenarios where most of the handicap spots are empty, while the rest of the spot are completely full.
3) Handicap spots create inequality among drivers.
4) Handicap spots create tension. Mainly from non-handicap people who wish they could park there.
5) Handicap spots do not solve for the actual disease. They merely address the symptoms/
6) Solving for paralysis and other disabilities would be greatly preferable. In fact, given a choice between a cure for paralysis and continued access to a handicap spot, I can't think of a single person who would choose the latter.
Those are all of Nucker's objections in AA.
With all that in mind, wouldn't we be better off getting rid of handicap spots, and focus on curing the underlying disease? The fact that I don't have a cure for paralysis is irrelevant. We should not be wasting our time on the symptoms.
So, in your world, mens rea doesn't exist.
So your argument is that AA is against current law? Wow. Because I know for a fact that AA has been challenged in the SCOTUS on several occasions, and I am absolutely shocked that no one has pointed this out.
Seriously. You're now resorting on making a legal argument with no legal basis.
Part of the job is the impact you will have on the work place. i.e., if I'm an accountant and I decide to come in naked for the job interview and insist that I will be naked in my cubicle, it has no impact on how I do my job. But I'm guessing that the employer will still fire me, because of the negative effect that I have on the work place.
So you're saying that a business that proclaims "Black people need not apply" doesn't espouse the racial superiority of white people?
WTF?
And now, we're back to the "Jim Crow laws aren't racist" argument.
Alright, as much more fun as I would have in talking to a more interesting person about this, I've gotta go, but I'm sure I'll be back later.
And for the record I'll reiterate that I support Affirmative Action, but hate the idea that opposition to it can only be racism.
--LeVar Burton
Saying that AA is the best solution available is sitting on AA. It is not looking for progress, it is being satisified with the current results, giving ourselves a pat on the back, and letting the people who are unfairly affected by AA because of the color of their skin go by the wayside. Acknowledging the existence of negative consequences is CRUCIAL to making any kind of progress--by implying someone who objects to AA as a solution as a racist, by ignoring those negative consequences, you are hindering progress.
If other people's objections to your flawed Rosa Parks scenario haven't been enough to convince you that it has nothing to do with AA, then your own assertion should.
If I want to criticize AA, all I need to do is understand a basic fact--AA gives advantage to one group and so disadvantages another group based on an uncontrollable factor. It is unfair, and while the net consequences may be on the plus side, that doesn't mean it's a policy that we should be satisfied with.
Really? All of them? Every man, woman, and child who has never really come into contact with a racial situation before who is then disadvantaged because of AA--those people were all going to be upset about black people anyway? I'm sure.
If this is really what you think my argument was, then you have missed the point completely. In this scenario? My point would be that just because treatments and medications exist, we shouldn't be satisfied. We should be looking for the cure. But you just missed it.
There are some people who are naive and believe that racism no longer exists, and that AA therefore agitates the problem. I'm willing to concede that those people aren't racist, just naive. In much that same way that the idiots trying to sell me on Amway aren't necessarily trying to scam me out of my money, but simply fail to grasp the underlying principles of a pyramid scheme.
However, that doesn't mean that there isn't racism involved. The problem is, most racism is aversive racism. Which means that the person might be in complete denial over it.
For instance, AA only applies in cases where candidates are statistically equal in terms of qualification. Yet a common critique of AA is that it allows "unqualified" minorities to get into college, and that it makes "victims" out of white people. Again, both candidates were equally qualified. Why is the critic assuming that the black candidate was unqualified, but fails to make the same assumption for the white candidate?
Simply put, it is the underlying belief that white people are superior, and the disbelief that the two candidates could have been equal. That belief, in itself, is racist.
So yeah, opposing AA isn't necessarily racist on the grounds of "I hate black people, and I want them all to suffer!" But a lot of the most common arguments against AA reveal racist assumptions.
Handicap spots unfairly affect people who aren't handicap. They also fail to cure paralysis. Therefore, handicap spots are morally indefensible. Just because I don't have a cute for paralysis doesn't mean that we should keep having them.
And you're implying that the people who promote AA are racist, by ignoring the positive consequences. How are you any better?
So you whine and whine that people compare casting Rosa Parks to AA, because it is not literally the same thing.
But you have absolutely no problem comparing AA to laws preventing interracial marriage. In fact, you whine when no one addresses these comparisons directly.
In other words, you're a hypocrite.
So you're against wheelchair ramps?
If they never encountered a racial situation before, then how can you honestly say with absolute certainty that they were disadvantaged because of AA?
You're trying to have it both ways.
You're a hypocrite.
It's like saying that handicap spots are unjust, because they punish people who in no way benefit from the lack of paralysis.
I want you to point to who on the pro-AA side says that AA is the end all solution and that nothing else needs to be done to addressed the problem of racism.
Handicap spots have nothing to do with racism or racial discrimination. This is a bad analogy.
Let me make this very clear: people who promote AA are not necessarily racist. They are supporting a program of racial discrimination which has both positive and negative consequences. If they don't like the fact or refuse to acknowledge the fact that AA produces negative consequences, maybe they need to re-evaluate their reasons for supporting it.
I point out that comparing a casting for Rosa Parks to AA is a bad analogy because it's a bad analogy. Very bad. As in, it does not make sense to use it and run with it and believe you've proven your point because they cannot be reasonably compared.
No, I'm not against wheelchair ramps. This is really, really stupid.
Again with the bad analogy.
With absolute certainty? No. But if you think that means it's an impossible, unlikely scenario, you're kidding yourself.
You and everyone who tries to shut down conversation about AA being an unsatisfactory solution. That is an implied admission that AA should not be questioned, and is hence the end all solution. If you're not actually saying what you seem to be implying, then come out and say it.
I don't think you understand what an analogy actual is, or the proper way to critique one you disagree with. Your refutation is "I disagree with your analogy, because it is not literally the same thing." Of course not, because if it were literally the same thing, it would no longer be an analogy. It would be an axiom. The purpose of an analogy is not to compare to things that are exactly alike. It's to compare two things that are different, but which share a common property, so that the understanding of one thing can transfer towards understanding of another.
In order to critique an analogy, you have to do more than simply show that two things are not exactly alike. You have to show that they are not alike in a way that affect the common property that both things are said to have.
Handicap stalls aren't a form of racial discrimination, but they are an example of discrimination and inequality in general. They aren't a form of racism, but the entire point of my argument is to show that neither is AA.
Ending AA also has negative consequences. What's your point?
Dude, you praised an analogy comparing between a program designed to increase the probability of racial diversity to a law that targeted all individuals and completely banned the practice of interracial marriage. Why is your analogy better than mine?
You're trying to say that anti-miscegenation and AA are similar, and that since anti-miscegenation are unjust, AA must be unjust as well. I can critique your analogy by pointing out anti-miscegenation laws are unjust because they motivated by the idea of racial purity and racial superiority, and therefore falls under the presented definition of racism. And we can all agree that anything that falls under that definition of racism would be unjust. OTOH, AA does not fall under the definition of racism. Ergo, the analogy falls. Moreover, your analogy also falls because you are trying to compare the private act of marriage with government hiring or admissions process. And because anti-miscegenation create an outright ban on people with a different skin color, even if that's the only candidate who you would have chosen as your personal spouse. Where as AA merely gives preference in cases where both candidates are already being considered, and you are forced to chose between one or the other.
Meanwhile, your critique of my Rosa Parks analogy is that AA is not literally the same thing as a casting call. So does that mean that AA is literally the same thing as an anti-miscegenation law? Because you seem to find that particular analogy to be completely legit.
Well I'm pointing to the absurdities of your logic, so of course it's going to look stupid.
Is defending the existence of handicap slots the same thing as saying that handicap slots are the end all solution for handicap people?
I think that people with handicap people should be allowed to park in designated spots. I wish that we could find a way to cure paralysis so that we didn't need handicap spots at all, but for now, this solution will have to do. I do not pretend that handicap slots are the end all solution, and people are more than welcome to question their use. However, I also think that anyone who insists that we should get rid of handicap slots entirely and focus on the problem of curing paralysis, without actually presenting a method for curing paralysis, is being counter productive and proposing a system that is bad for handicap people.
I think that people with minorities should be have access to affirmative action. I wish that we could find a way to cure racism so that we didn't need AA at all, but for now, this solution will have to do. I do not pretend that AA are the end all solution, and people are more than welcome to question its use. However, I also think that anyone who insists that we should get rid of AA entirely and focus on the problem of curing racism, without actually presenting a method for curing racism, is being counter productive and proposing a system that is bad for minorities.
Well-fucking-done! FINALLY, some solid statements we can agree on! The rest of that last post isn't worth addressing, but at least I could pull this out of you.
Now, with THAT said--how can the existing structure of AA be made better?
Both analogies make comparisons to AA, but with opposite values for property p. You praise of the analogy that AA is comparable to anti-miscegenation and says that both things are morally unjust. You ridicule the analogy that comparable to the Rosa Parks cast list and says that both things are morally neutral. Explain your work. Why do you favor the first analogy over the second? Is it because the first analogy is a more accurate representation, or is it because the first analogy confirms your pre-existing biases?
Here is how you critique an analogy, by showing how the two things are different in a way that affects property p:
MM says that AA is similar to anti-miscegenation, in the sense that both consider race and are therefore morally unjust (P). I point out that anti-miscegenation isn't unjust because it considers race, but because it is racist. I say this, because it falls under the definition of racism. AA does not fall under the definition of racism. Ergo, the property that makes anti-miscegenation unjust does not apply to AA. The analogy is invalid.
Can you do something similar with the Rosa Parks analogy?
I state that AA is similar to the Rosa Parks cast list, in the sense that both consider race but are still morally neutral. You disagree. You agree that one of these things is morally neutral, but continue to insist that the other thing is morally unjust. Unfortunately, you haven't actually explained the difference.
You're not praising MM's analogy because his comparison is sound. You're not rejecting my analogy because the comparison is bad. You're judging both analogies based solely on whether you agree with the conclusion. You already made up your mind that AA is morally unjust. Therefore, any analogy that says "AA is morally unjust" is a good analogy. Any analogy that says "AA is morally neutral" is a bad analogy.
If you think that I'm wrong, then show, don't tell. Show me that AA still falls under the definition of racism, and then MM's analogy will be valid. Show me how AA falls under the definition of racism in a way that the Rosa Parks example does not, and my analogy is invalid.
But merely stating, "Your analogy sucks, my analogy is awesome!" will get us nowhere.
How productive have they been? Really, how productive?
This set of statements:
That set of statements is more productive than those last 10-12 pages. They identify the problems with AA, they identify the benefits of AA, and they leave room for progressive discussion on how the existing framework of AA can be made better.
I don't really care if you don't think I understand how an analogy works. What I hope you understand is that all of the pointless Debate Club bullshit that's been going back and forth for the last two days has been less useful than that one paragraph you probably typed up in a matter of a few minutes.
And this is a debate forum. So yeah, I use debate skills. Sue me.
You cannot make poverty go away by making it HARDER to get assistance out of poverty. That is the whole fucking reason that we made these social safety nets.
And the more you cut support, the more crime goes up, because they do not have any fucking alternatives. And it costs more to increase funding to police to reduce the crime rate again than it does to just give them some fucking welfare checks, in addition to reducing the burdens on the courts, and removing the need to rehabilitate and get ex-cons jobs.
And none of your post even resembles why AA is currently in place in the USA. It doesnt really give African Americans an advantage over non-African Americans. It does give African Americans an advantage over their situation if AA was not in place at all however.
MWO: Adamski
Some ethnic minorities are poor because of institutional racism. This leads to poor, uneducated children. The poor, uneducated children grow up and try to enter the workforce. The bias is still there, keeping them from getting jobs; they are now now poor, uneducated adults who will have poor, uneducated children, and this perpetuates the cycle.
See where I'm going with this? Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action policies are there to create a break in the cycle of institutional racism.
I understand that some 'non-minorities' might get a little upset at the idea that a brown person might get a job they don't deserve when there's a perfectly qualified caucasion missing out; however, rest assured, AA has never done a damned thing for me. Does that help anybody sleep easier, knowing that somewhere, somebody is making sure black people aren't getting jobs they're qualified for?
Actually yes. You see people suck. Some people are racist, xenophobic assholes. However this is really not a problem the government can solve. The government does not have the power to make people stop being assholes. Nor really should it. Racial relations have been improving pretty much steadily. Are we where we would like to be? No. However we are at a place where trying to legislate racial harmony in my opinion is probably more damaging to racial harmony than anything else.
Do poor uneducated children need help? Yes, regardless of color. Yes we could be doing much more to help our poor uneducated masses out. However, and this largely is another rant, we would rather subsidize their shitty quality of life through programs like welfare and food stamps that in some cases penalize them for trying to better themselves. Are welfare and food stamp programs a good thing? Yes, yes they are. However the third program we need to offer is on that educates and helps them get out of their current conditions.
Anecdotal data forthcoming, multiple friends of mine have had serious issues with welfare. One went on assistance until he could find a job, and was told he qualified for 3 months of assistance. After a month and a half he had found work and no longer needed assistance. In trying to cancel it he was told that if he canceled it he would have to pay back the month and a half of assistance he had already received. Since he had no way of paying it back, and taking care of himself his only option was to take assistance he did not need. Or the friend of mine who went on welfare, got a job, lost the job, and had to reapply and was directly asked "are you going to stay on it this time?"
Welfare has become an institution, where people are encouraged to remain on it. Which then further propagates to these poor uneducated masses that have the option of collecting a check, or working a job they qualify for 40 hours a week for about the same amount of money. That is a more serious problem than AA honestly.
Does a black man from the middle class, with a good education really need preferential treatment over a poor white kid from the ghetto who crawled his way out with some lucky scholarships and a ton of hard work? Not really. However we do not have an effective way of decided who is, and who is not more deserving of a job. We can toss out statistics about who is, and who is no getting fucked over, however at the end of the day the reality is we lack the ability to dispense help where and how it is needed most. The best answer we have come up with is codify into law racism, and hope to god this horrible solution produces the best intended results we want. We do not even have metric where by it should go away.
I propose we stop devoting energy into trying to legislate people into not being assholes, and start doing everything we can to educate, and provide marketable job skills to America's poor.
The problem that we really have, and refuse to address is that there are some poor, uneducated masses we can do nothing with. We have nothing to offer them but a monthly bribe to keep them from having to resort to crime to live. For the rest we should be doing everything possible to transition them off of government assistance, instead of the current system that encourages people to stay on it.
Your entire post reminds me of the summation of the republican health care plan: "Don't get sick."
Except, you know, completely serious.
Basically what you said, Schrodinger
Thank You! This is the entire point. This right here.
Noone who supports AA is against social safety nets or economic AA. The choice isn't between economic AA and racial AA, its between discrimination + AA or just discrimination alone
and NomadicCircle's post is as full of fail as this post is full of lime. Just completely 100% awful.
While we're at it, let's see what else we can hand wave away.
I'm a little unclear on the extent of systemic racism when it is uncoupled from economic background.
To what extent do the members of black households wherein both parents have masters degrees experience systemic racism in admission to jobs and schools?
I mean, schrodinger's defense of AA a few pages back leaned heavily on the idea of a gap in wealth, as opposed to income, being the problem that AA is meant to address. Well, what of it? An AA of wealth would also be race neutral.
That's more just to address the pro-AA side than you in particular wtm. You don't have to argue Shrodinger's part.
What a remarkably accurate depiction of all black people.
My God man.
Check yourself.
That's a good question, and I can't say that I have data on it. The studies so far seem to focus on black people in general without respect to their economic and social class. The point I was trying to make, though, was that systemic racism doesn't necessarily disappear when you get money and an education. IIRC, on all levels of society black people still make less on average than their white counterparts. We also are less represented in executive and managerial positions relative to our percentage of the population.
I'm in favor of policies to help the economically disadvantaged, but I really dislike it when people try to make it out that economic disadvantage = racial disadvantage, therefore addressing the former addresses the latter. It's just not true.
Re: making less - I seem to recall a similar problem coming up in discussions regarding women. It seems they are as a group less aggressive in asking for raises. Which is not to say that is exactly what is going on, but rather that it's a simple statistic to be drawing a broad causal inference from.
Re: lower managerial representation - seems like it would be a direct correlation with attending college in lower percetages.
It's not that I think there isn't systemic racism in some situations, but I'm not sure that it is as blunt a problem as you make out, or that as blunt a thing as AA is really the most helpful approach.