Basically just got called racist for not supporting affirmative action

More Than Mortal · October 15, 2015, 10:44:58 PM

Was having a discussion with a couple of flatmates at like 4am that went from intersectional feminism to racism. I basically claimed institutional racism is not an issue in today's world, and the problem is in fact individual racism which can be a big problem when taken as aggregate. Even when I explicitly said I'm referring to institutional and systemic racism in my claims, the basic summary of my argument given by my flatmate was "So, you don't think racism exists".

What the fuck is happening to people's ability to reason?

challengerX · October 15, 2015, 10:46:17 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · October 15, 2015, 10:50:47 PM

Quote from: challengerX on October 15, 2015, 10:46:17 PM

The problem is you guys were discussing shit instead of getting high

I'd gotten high earlier.

Sorry, Verb.

eggsalad · October 15, 2015, 11:04:18 PM

I thought the tendency of individual biases held by those typical in leadership was the idea of institutional racism.
I don't support affirmative action at all, candidates are individuals, not statistics.

tfw not born to an upper-middleclass asian family to reap those scholarships

Anonymous (User Deleted) · October 15, 2015, 11:07:18 PM

"Automatic racism," for not supporting things like affirmative action, is why I can't stand liberals anymore.

Shit.

Arch Gnome · October 15, 2015, 11:07:42 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Luciana · October 15, 2015, 11:17:33 PM

Quote from: Arch Gnome on October 15, 2015, 11:07:42 PM

The horseshoe effect is truly a great thing

Yes it is

Arch Gnome · October 15, 2015, 11:20:50 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · October 15, 2015, 11:51:00 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · October 15, 2015, 11:57:18 PM

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 15, 2015, 11:51:00 PM

Meta please come to America where you belong

As if college in the US is any better. Although I do honestly feel more American than I do British.

Mmmmm Napalm · October 16, 2015, 12:15:12 AM

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 15, 2015, 11:57:18 PM

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 15, 2015, 11:51:00 PM
Meta please come to America where you belong
As if college in the US is any better. Although I do honestly feel more American than I do British.

Good man.

Tsirist · October 16, 2015, 12:30:54 AM

To be fair, Wikipedia's definition of racism: "Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges or rights among different racial groups."

If you're against affirmative action, you either don't understand how it works (ignorance) or you seek to perpetuate the status quo of inequality (racism). In my opinion.

Mmmmm Napalm · October 16, 2015, 12:33:03 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 12:30:54 AM

If you're against affirmative action, you either don't understand how it works (ignorance) or you seek to perpetuate the status quo of inequality (racism). In my opinion.

More Than Mortal · October 16, 2015, 12:34:15 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 12:30:54 AM

To be fair, Wikipedia's definition of racism: "Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges or rights among different racial groups."

If you're against affirmative action, you either don't understand how it works (ignorance) or you seek to perpetuate the status quo of inequality (racism). In my opinion.

So I suppose everything rests on intention, and the consequences of AA don't actually matter?

This, ignoring for the moment, that my opposition to AA is neither intended to justify or cause racial inequality. . .

Tsirist · October 16, 2015, 12:38:15 AM

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 16, 2015, 12:34:15 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 12:30:54 AM
To be fair, Wikipedia's definition of racism: "Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges or rights among different racial groups."

If you're against affirmative action, you either don't understand how it works (ignorance) or you seek to perpetuate the status quo of inequality (racism). In my opinion.
So I suppose everything rests on intention, and the consequences of AA don't actually matter?

This, ignoring for the moment, that my opposition to AA is neither intended to justify or cause racial inequality. . .

The consequences absolutely do matter, and I don't believe it is quite implemented properly or ideally right now. But conceptually it is sound, as far as I know.

More Than Mortal · October 16, 2015, 12:39:45 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 12:38:15 AM

But conceptually it is sound, as far as I know.

This just seems like a fancy way of saying "If only we could do it".

Yeah, fuck that. I'm talking about practical policy. I'm not going to make assumptions about the nature of governments to say "Well, as a concept". . .

Tsirist · October 16, 2015, 12:43:00 AM

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 16, 2015, 12:39:45 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 12:38:15 AM
But conceptually it is sound, as far as I know.
This just seems like a fancy way of saying "If only we could do it".

Yeah, fuck that. I'm talking about practical policy. I'm not going to make assumptions about the nature of governments to say "Well, as a concept". . .

Well shit, having a military complex that could compete with the Soviets' sure seemed like a good idea at the time. It worked out, at a cost (a cost that still grows today), just like affirmative action performs its function, at a cost. Neither are perfect, both are functional. You really have a problem with that?

More Than Mortal · October 16, 2015, 12:48:29 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 12:43:00 AM

You really have a problem with that?

Yes, because AA isn't fulfilling its intended function. . . We're getting the cost of implementation, and then the cost of the consequences of the policy's effects.

It should be clear I think this by now, given my insistence on consequences and practical policy.

Tsirist · October 16, 2015, 12:52:28 AM

Do you think it fails completely to perform its function (i.e. it doesn't benefit any single individual in the nation at all)? Of course we get some cost of implementation; even an ideal implementation would feature some cost. It also has some negative side effects due to poor implementation, like the mismatch effect. Personally, I think these costs are insufficient to warrant the dismantling of the program.

More Than Mortal · October 16, 2015, 12:58:43 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 12:52:28 AM

Personally, I think these costs are insufficient to warrant the dismantling of the program.

I think the evidence is heavy enough to one side so that its abolition is justified; look at Prop 209 in California which got rid of AA, with resulting benefits very noticeable across colleges. Following the abolition of AA, graduation rates rose 4.4pc and minority students also did better as subsequent matching processes were more efficient and (for some reason) colleges began investing more in their students.

And, of course, we're all aware of studies which show employers discriminating against resumes with black names identical to resumes with white names. But this isn't due to some overt racism (in most cases), but to stereotypical biases such as association with crime. Bearing in mind, these stereotypical biases are statistically justified at an aggregate level; the problem lies with things like the US's failing education system in inner cities which harms black children more, the decline of two-parent families among the black community (now occurring to working-class whites, too), the War on Drugs which unnecessarily harms black individuals and families disproportionately.

Numerous problems that have little to do with some actually racist (as in, intended to do racially-charged harm to a specific group) instituionalism, but the unintended consequences of either archaic or poor policies which impact how people view others.. The potential policy reponses (where appropriate) are not some form of AA, so you cannot justify it on these grounds either.

Tsirist · October 16, 2015, 01:08:25 AM

I feel like none of that addresses what I mean though. Again, I recognize what benefits there are in abolishing AA. But it comes at the cost of a program that DOES address the biases you mention. In the end, some costs to colleges and the majority is worth that, in my opinion. 4.4% is great but it's not bad enough (not high enough) to justify the change, in my opinion.

The other problems you list, like the War on Drugs and otherwise decrepit education system, feeds into this and should be more heavily focused on as well. But they don't discredit AA somehow.

People form negative views of other people because of the differences between them. Like you say, these differences are the results of archaic or poor policies. AA and other programs are meant to mitigate this by generating an uplifting effect at some other cost.

The only manner by which you can fairly assert that AA should be abolished depends on your personal value assessment of its costs and benefits, and depending on how you frame those costs and benefits, you could, technically, be racist. From what you say it sounds like you want to replace AA with something more effective though, with the same purpose in mind ultimately, which I think covers you well enough. I couldn't tell from your OP though.

More Than Mortal · October 16, 2015, 01:13:41 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 01:08:25 AM

in my opinion.

Irrelevant.

The empirical literature I've seen shows clear negative effects in most cases. My whole point is that, on balance, AA objectively does not achieve what it sets out to.

Luciana · October 16, 2015, 01:15:50 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 12:30:54 AM

To be fair, Wikipedia's definition of racism: "Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges or rights among different racial groups."

If you're against affirmative action, you either don't understand how it works (ignorance) or you seek to perpetuate the status quo of inequality (racism). In my opinion.

It's 2015, not 1969. Affirmative Action is literally lowering the bar for blacks because we're saying they're not as qualified as their white counterparts for that job.

Affirmative Action is saying they don't believe blacks are as capable as whites, so they lower the bar. Where as people against it arer people who are saying blacks have to try just as hard as whites for the jobs they want.

Could the former be any more condescending? What message does it send out to basically say blacks cannot be as smart or talented as whites? It's ironically more racist than you could think.

Tsirist · October 16, 2015, 01:17:30 AM

You haven't even demonstrated that though. All I've seen is opinion from you, and you claim to know the objective truth? What a joke. Cite some sources and make some real points if you're so convinced. To be honest, I'm no expert and stand to learn a lot if you could take the damn time to share what you know rather than expect people to just believe you. Even then, value judgments are inherently subjective, so I'm not sure what you're on about there regardless of your lack of substance.

I'm going to bed. You've got all night.

Tsirist · October 16, 2015, 01:22:43 AM

Quote from: Luciana on October 16, 2015, 01:15:50 AM

]It's 2015, not 1969. Affirmative Action is literally lowering the bar for blacks because we're saying they're not as qualified as their white counterparts for that job.

Affirmative Action is saying they don't believe blacks are as capable as whites, so they lower the bar. Where as people against it arer people who are saying blacks have to try just as hard as whites for the jobs they want.

Could the former be any more condescending? What message does it send out to basically say blacks cannot be as smart or talented as whites? It's ironically more racist than you could think.

I cited Wikipedia's definition of racism specifically for this reason. Does AA distinguish between the statistical capacity of the races in the current states? Absolutely. Does it do it for the purpose of increasing race inequality? No. Therefore, it is not racist by Wikipedia's definition, at least.

AA, at the bare minimum, takes the case of two equally-qualified candidates and grants favor to the one coming from a disadvantaged background. In fact, in this case it demonstrates a great faith in the minority to some extent, contrary to what you say, because it claims that despite the minority's disadvantage, they made it that far with as much success as the other candidate.

Of course, AA usually goes further than that and allows a configurable threshold determining what constitutes "sufficient achievement considering initial disadvantage" which in my view is completely reasonable and perfectly respectful to those who earn favor as a result. This is, of course, the origin of the mismatch effect, so it cannot be too extreme in its application, but it serves a purpose nonetheless.

Fuck guys I need to sleep.

Luciana · October 16, 2015, 01:23:00 AM

Quote

AA, at the bare minimum, takes the case of two equally-qualified candidates and grants favor to the one coming from a disadvantaged background

Only it doesn't. Afirmative Action has proven to push people to fill jobs they are less qualified for, or colleges as well. It doesn't matter what wikipedia's definition is about AA. Statistics tell an entirely different story and the effects of AA do more harm than good.

You just said you're no expert

I think you should cite sources for your point before you're so quick to counter mine and imply I'm wrong.

https://youtu.be/7VBAEJlR4pk?t=88

There is a simple video for you

More Than Mortal · October 16, 2015, 02:18:25 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 01:17:30 AM

and you claim to know the objective truth

No, I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth. I clearly said the empirical literature I HAVE SEEN empirically points to the failure of the policy. I'm not expecting you to believe me, I'm making sure you are clear on my position. I'm saying I think it's not fundamentally reducible to a sane value judgement because I have seen no evidence for net positive effects.

Fuck sake, man.

Mordo · October 16, 2015, 03:34:04 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 01:17:30 AM

You haven't even demonstrated that though. All I've seen is opinion from you, and you claim to know the objective truth? What a joke. Cite some sources and make some real points if you're so convinced. To be honest, I'm no expert and stand to learn a lot if you could take the damn time to share what you know rather than expect people to just believe you. Even then, value judgments are inherently subjective, so I'm not sure what you're on about there regardless of your lack of substance.

I'm going to bed. You've got all night.

Dude, you don't need really academic studies to demonstrate that AA at face value is simply just positive discrimination in favour of blacks. It's such a patently patronising outlook to have on minorities, and is only setting them up for failure by setting standards at such ridiculously low levels. If you genuinely believe all races are equal, then you should subscribe to the notion that they should not receive arbitrary privileges simply because of a demographic they belong to.

If you're still not convinced then Affirmative Action Around The World by economist Thomas Sowell is a fantastic academic paper debunking myriad myths surrounding AA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_Action_Around_the_World
http://www.economist.com/node/2765848

Tsirist · October 16, 2015, 12:16:07 PM

Quote from: Luciana on October 16, 2015, 01:23:00 AM

Quote
AA, at the bare minimum, takes the case of two equally-qualified candidates and grants favor to the one coming from a disadvantaged background
Only it doesn't. Afirmative Action has proven to push people to fill jobs they are less qualified for, or colleges as well. It doesn't matter what wikipedia's definition is about AA. Statistics tell an entirely different story and the effects of AA do more harm than good.

You just said you're no expert

I think you should cite sources for your point before you're so quick to counter mine and imply I'm wrong.

https://youtu.be/7VBAEJlR4pk?t=88

There is a simple video for you

God damn it's hard to get my point across. I don't disagree that they let less initially qualified candidates through; that is part of AA's current implementation and methodology. I said at the bare minimum it considers the case of two initially equal candidates; however, with a configurable threshold of acceptance in spite of disadvantage you can increase the beneficial effects of AA to the minority to some extent. Obviously you cannot admit a high school dropout to an ivy league school on the basis of their race if they do not have other qualifications to demonstrate their capability; that would have a clearly detrimental effect, and I have stated multiple times that such cases occur to some lesser degree in the system we have now. It's just a fact, and I recognize it just like you guys do.

Your post was not this quantitative argument though; qualitative arguments only require reason to debate. Outside sources only serve to better illustrate those arguments. I don't believe I have a source that will put it particularly better than I can and I don't really care to go look for one. There are no numbers involved here; you made claims about how you perceive the meaning of AA to minorities, and I refute them.

I said I was no expert in response to Meta. My initial post to Meta was based on the assumption that he disagrees with AA on principle, which is no longer his stated disagreement with it. Rather, he disagrees with one particular implementation of it. That is something I have trouble arguing against because I am not an expert. In your case, I do not need to be an expert to understand what AA is as a concept, what Wikipedia's definition of racism is (don't know why you think I referenced Wikipedia's definition of AA; I never did), and how an understanding of the intent of AA precludes any notion that AA somehow claims that minorities are inferior somehow.

The purpose of AA is to reduce racial inequality. On that basis alone it does not meet Wikipedia's definition of racism. You stated that it implied minorities are not as capable as the majority and therefore must be forcibly aided, but this is not its reason for recognizing racial inequalities that we have. It attributes those initial inequalities to past systematic inequalities and seeks to rectify them by conferring advantages such that, in the future, those inequalities may be absent.

Quote from: Luciana on October 16, 2015, 01:15:50 AM

Where as people against it arer people who are saying blacks have to try just as hard as whites for the jobs they want.

You are seriously missing the point of my argument if you think it's not racist to say that minorities are in the position they are in because they don't "try just as hard" as the majority does.

Tsirist · October 16, 2015, 12:18:49 PM

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 16, 2015, 02:18:25 AM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 01:17:30 AM
and you claim to know the objective truth
No, I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth. I clearly said the empirical literature I HAVE SEEN empirically points to the failure of the policy. I'm not expecting you to believe me, I'm making sure you are clear on my position. I'm saying I think it's not fundamentally reducible to a sane value judgement because I have seen no evidence for net positive effects.

Fuck sake, man.

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 16, 2015, 01:13:41 AM

AA objectively does not achieve what it sets out to.

See the part where you said "objectively" really threw me off. Again, I no longer fault you for what you believe and wouldn't call you a racist, so we're cool as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with you that AA should necessarily be abolished merely from what I know and what I believe, but I am not in a position to argue in the interest of changing your opinion there, so I will not.