Affirmative action: what do you think of it?

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not the least bit interested in building an annotated bibliography of studies for someone that isn't even remotely interested in being reflexive or learning from others.

Or maybe these studies do not exist, so you cannot back up your claim?

Your claim that I'm not interested in learning from others has no justification or merit.

Interestingly, I had no problem providing econometric studies in the progressive racism thread, such as studies that discussed the variation in human capital quality of different immigrant groups and how that implied that we should change immigration policy.

[Michael Hardner]

To my knowledge, all Somalians are recent refugees.

Ok, so then where are we with your question ? Are African refugees doing well enough that they would fail a means test - is that what you're asking ?

[Michael Hardner]

So if it's not our fault why do we have the responsibility to sacrifice to help them get ahead, even while agreeing with every measure they insist on to maintain their poor, unnuturing societies and cultures?

Who is "we" as in "our fault" ? What sacrifices do "you" have to make ? What measures are "they" insisting on ?

[Bob Macadoo]

The reason you cannot see the difference is because you are racist and are in denial (see progressive racism thread). That is why you have no problem with affirmative action.

I had no idea, thanks for clearing that up for me......silly me.....racist who would've thought.

Also, your claim that helping poor people of all races rather than poor people of visible minorities would cause us to go bankrupt is unjustified and makes no sense. Being poor or not isn't binary, it is a continuum. If you spend $1 million dollars that can only help 1000 poor people, why would you limit yourself to only help people of a certain race? If you chose the most needy regardless of race you would do more good.

Going belly up was hyperbole but there is a defined ration of benefit. Poor isn't binary but socioeconomic elevation can be. Statistical evidence has shown that you can elevate certain groups more cheaply and easily than others.

Separately if you don't think ethnocentric hiring habits exist (across all cultures) you are what did you call it....oh yeah in denial.

Maybe the interviews should instead ask questions that are relevant to the job and pick the candidate that is best for the job? Race and gender shouldn't be a factor.

When there are equal hiring habits and/or even homogeneous distribution of cultural bias in the management ranks. That might make it an even playing field to ignore gender/cultural background.

[Michael Hardner]

Strawman argument. I never said that we shouldn't have affirmative action because racism will disappear eventually.

Sorry - please go back to what I was quoting and explain it then.

Yeah, that is racism (at least when it applies to race). How much cognitive dissonance must you perform to convince yourself otherwise?

I don't think helping groups can be called 'racism'.

It depends how it is done. Skin cancer affects people from all races, but people with less melanin are at higher risk. If the campaign targets everyone but mentions that people with less melanin are at greater risk then it is fine. If the campaign says that it will only help white people who suffer from skin cancer (but not black people who suffer from skin cancer) then it is racist.

But it's spending more attention, more resources on one group - therefore racist based on the 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' ponderous definition of racism.

If so, giving seniors an income supplement is ageism. Helping any group oppresses the group you did not help etc etc.

[Argus]

Who is "we" as in "our fault" ? What sacrifices do "you" have to make ? What measures are "they" insisting on ?

Michael, I, like many others, really dislike the Socratic method of discussion, since it isn't really much of an exchange of ideas at all but merely a continuing effort on the part of one side to find weaknesses in the other sides's argument so he can exploit it.

The point I'm making is their problems are caused by the corrupted culture of their own communities, and they insist on maintaining those cultures. Why, then, must the taxpayer be responsible not only for supporting them but bend over backwards to give their community members advantages over those of the regular community?

[-1=e^ipi]

Statistical evidence has shown that you can elevate certain groups more cheaply and easily than others.

Please provide this statistical evidence.

Separately if you don't think ethnocentric hiring habits exist (across all cultures) you are what did you call it....oh yeah in denial.

Of course ethnocentric hiring habits exist. A good example is affirmative action.

When there are equal hiring habits and/or even homogeneous distribution of cultural bias in the management ranks. That might make it an even playing field to ignore gender/cultural background.

Homogeneous cultural bias distribution? Are you suggesting that the proportion of people in management of various cultures will be the same as the population? That will never happen and shouldn't. Cultures that encourage laziness will never result in better success than cultures that encourage work ethic.

I don't think helping groups can be called 'racism'.

If this group is a race, you are helping this group because of their race, and it is not in the context of helping prevent discrimination (but rather implement more discrimination) then it is racist.

But it's spending more attention, more resources on one group - therefore racist based on the 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' ponderous definition of racism.

This comment is unclear. The quotation that you have of me indicated 1 way in which skin cancer prevention could be done in a racist way and another in which it was not racist. Which are you referring to?

If so, giving seniors an income supplement is ageism. Helping any group oppresses the group you did not help etc etc.

Yes, that is ageism.

Edited November 24, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, I, like many others, really dislike the Socratic method of discussion, since it isn't really much of an exchange of ideas at all but merely a continuing effort on the part of one side to find weaknesses in the other sides's argument so he can exploit it.

Ok - let's do it this way then: you're not sacrificing much of anything at all, you're investing in social capital to hopefully alleviate a problem that we all face. And your complaints come out of academic nit-picking definitions of fairness that are academically correct at best.

If you want to make this as white people being persecuted, then you're making the issue divisive. This means you're taking the problem back into the past where we came from rather than looking at this as an issue that we all look at it together, to create a unified community.

The point I'm making is their problems are caused by the corrupted culture of their own communities,

I'd like to know: what specifically has corrupted the culture (your words) ? It seems to me we've said on this thread that slavery has nothing to do with it, so then what is it ?

Sorry for being so Socratic but it's a big mystery as to what you think is behind this problem. Not that I know either, but at least I'm not hinting at some cause like 'corrupted culture'; I would just like to devote some real resources to a problem and promote a unified community. I'm just asking for specifics here.

Why, then, must the taxpayer be responsible not only for supporting them but bend over backwards to give their community members advantages over those of the regular community?

I would use the term 'bend over backwards' if I were paying a significant amount of my income, or making a significant effort to devote resources to this.

As it is, we in Canada are paying fractions of fractions of our income to welfare programs that aren't working - we know this. But we're just cutting people a cheque and keeping them fed and housed, but we're not making an effort to address whatever the root cause may be. That would cost more to solve, of course, but it would be a new approach to the problem.

Just wishing that these groups wouldn't have problems is denial, IMO.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, that is ageism.

Seniors' benefits constitute ageism ? Ok, well I think we've arrived at our agree-to-disagree point.

Your points are all academic, and wonderfully useful to people who are self-satisfied, people who revel in academic perfection, people who have no empathy and especially people who would love to save a few hundred dollars in taxes per year.

[-1=e^ipi]

If you want to make this as white people being persecuted, then you're making the issue divisive. This means you're taking the problem back into the past where we came from rather than looking at this as an issue that we all look at it together, to create a unified community.

I'm confused what you mean by past? All humans are related to each other within 100,000 years or less (Europeans and East Asians are related within 30,000 years for example). Is this the past you were talking about?

Also, are you implying that disagreeing with affirmative action makes you divisive? Shouldn't the policy that separates people into races be called divisive?

Seniors' benefits constitute ageism ? Ok, well I think we've arrived at our agree-to-disagree point.

Yes, it is ageist to provide people with benefits just because of their age. However, that doesn't mean that some ageist policies are unjustified. Aging is a terrible 'disease' that affects the body's ability to replenish itself so people that suffer from aging often need help/assistance.

Slightly related, I think that most people would agree that speciesism is justified. We give more rights to humans than other animals (though I might argue that if neanderthals were still around that they should also have equal rights as humans).

[bleeding heart]

I had no idea, thanks for clearing that up for me......silly me.....racist who would've thought.

I didn't realize you were racist, either. I make the error of assessing such things based on what people say and do, I guess.....

[Michael Hardner]

I'm confused what you mean by past?

In the past, cultures were kept separate by social convention. This is just an extension of that viewpoint.

Also, are you implying that disagreeing with affirmative action makes you divisive?

No.

[Michael Hardner]

The reason you cannot see the difference is because you are racist ...

What about treating religions differently ? Is there a word for that ?

[-1=e^ipi]

I didn't realize you were racist, either. I make the error of assessing such things based on what people say and do, I guess.....

Then why do you oppose having hiring practices that assess people based on what they say and do rather and not on their race/gender?

In the past, cultures were kept separate by social convention. This is just an extension of that viewpoint.

Huh? In the past, cultures have always interacted and merged. The frequency of this was lower because it was more difficult for people to move from one place to another. I am confused by what you mean here. Can you give some examples?

What about treating religions differently ? Is there a word for that ?

Treating religions differently makes sense as different religions are different.

But do you mean religious discrimination? There is no word in the English language for this that I am aware of, so maybe you should use religious discrimination?

[Michael Hardner]

Huh? In the past, cultures have always interacted and merged. The frequency of this was lower because it was more difficult for people to move from one place to another. I am confused by what you mean here. Can you give some examples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

Treating religions differently makes sense as different religions are different.

Aren't different races different though ?

[bleeding heart]

Then why do you oppose having hiring practices that assess people based on what they say and do rather and not on their race/gender?

I think affirmative action is a highly dubious idea, personally. I think I'm just less promiscuous with the "racist" label than you are.

[Michael Hardner]

I think affirmative action is a highly dubious idea, personally. I think I'm just less promiscuous with the "racist" label than you are.

I hasten to point out: Affirmative Action in hiring is only one type of application of the idea.

[-1=e^ipi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

I do not understand how this link is a reply to my question. Culture != Race and you still have yet to clarify your statement. What do you mean by cultures were kept separate by social convention in the past?

I think affirmative action is a highly dubious idea, personally. I think I'm just less promiscuous with the "racist" label than you are.

I think you might be confusing racism with racial supremacism. Affirmative action is racist but it isn't racially supremacist.

[Michael Hardner]

I do not understand how this link is a reply to my question. Culture != Race and you still have yet to clarify your statement. What do you mean by cultures were kept separate by social convention in the past?

Keeping races apart and keeping cultures apart both. Basically, I'm saying there was less mixing of races and peoples.

[Michael Hardner]

Also, unprintable name, you didn't answer my question: aren't races different too ? Back to my question about you suggesting treating religions different is somehow ok but races is not ?

[TimG]

Also, unprintable name

Just call him Euler. Edited November 24, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Ah... right. That's the famous equation that includes Euler's number, i, Pi, 1 and 0...

[-1=e^ipi]

Keeping races apart and keeping cultures apart both. Basically, I'm saying there was less mixing of races and peoples.

There was less mixing of races and peoples in the past yes. Because in the past airplanes didn't exist and it took years to travel a distance that it now takes hours. I don't get what that has to do with separate but equal? Who is advocating separating the races or cultures? Your statements remain unclear.

Also, unprintable name

it's a simple mathematical identity. Is it that hard to type? Your username has more characters and takes longer to type.

aren't races different too ? Back to my question about you suggesting treating religions different is somehow ok but races is not ?

Races are different, religions are different, cultures are different. If they were not different how could we recognize them? What is your point?

And your question asking me about treating religions and races differently is unclear. Are we talking about treating the individual humans who belong to these races / religions differently or treating the religions / races themselves differently? I can understand how one can treat religions differently on the theological level, but treating races themselves differently (not the individual) does make sense to me. I cannot understand how one could 'treat' races, except maybe in the context in an academic study about DNA sequencing and the past migrations of humans.

[-1=e^ipi]

Ah... right. That's the famous equation that includes Euler's number, i, Pi, 1 and 0...

There is no zero in my name...

[Michael Hardner]

There is no zero in my name...

Add 1 to both sides of the equation... that's how I was taught it.