Jump to content

US Politics: Deep State Solution


all swedes are racist

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, mormont said:

But there's copious evidence that it does. When that changes, get back to us. In the meantime, that closes the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

No doubt, but there is still a difference between individuals being discriminated against by other individuals, and discrimination encoded into law. Also, two wrongs do not make a right, and IMO it's not the right way to combat discrimination in our societies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Einheri said:

No doubt, but there is still a difference between individuals being discriminated against by other individuals, and discrimination encoded into law. Also, two wrongs do not make a right, and IMO it's not the right way to combat discrimination in our societies.

 

What do you suggest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Einheri said:

No. It’s your achievements/merits/talents that define you in a meritocracy. Noting else.

I think I have at least two problems here. 1) Is the notion that decisions about hiring, promotions, or school admissions can always be truly objective. And 2) that one's "merit" is completely divorced from their social/economic background. I believe neither are exactly true.

You know, it's not like I believe somebody should get into Harvard if they had a 2.0 grade point average and scored 900 on their SATs. But, you know, if the same person did fairly very well in both those areas, I do think it's appropriate to consider their race, gender, and other social/economic background factors.

I seriously doubt that white males (or some other dominant group) are always being truly objective when making decisions about who gets hired, promoted, or admitted to school.

The problem here is that the anti-affirmative action crowd, seem to believe that the decisions makers always act with some kind of hyper-rationality. I think that is a very questionable assumption.

Also, the various metrics you use to estimate somebody's "merit" may not always tell the whole story. Using a football analogy, you might see some guy that looks really good on paper, like he's got a great  40 yard dash time, a good vertical leap, and a great bench press, yet he's just not as good as somebody that does a little worse in all those areas. Those metrics can't always measure intangibles.

Now take some kid from the South Side of Chicago or the inner of Detroit. Say he has done pretty well in school and on his SATs, but not as well as some white kid from an upper class suburb. Do grade point averages or SAT scores tell the whole story here? I submit they don't.

The upshot here is don't think race, gender, or social/economic backgrounds should be the only factors to consider, but I think its appropriate to consider them as a factor, when it comes to who gets hired, promoted, and admitted to school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, James Arryn said:

What do you suggest?

Well, the source of the problem is that too many people hold preconceived notions about others based on generalizations, stereotypes, racism etc., so in order stop discrimination we have to somehow make these people realize why this is wrong. It may sound a bit optimistic, but I have faith that if people learn about it in schools, and elsewhere, it will work itself out eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Well, the source of the problem is that too many people hold preconceived notions about others based on generalizations, stereotypes, racism etc., so in order stop discrimination we have to somehow make these people realize why this is wrong. It may sound a bit optimistic, but I have faith that if people learn about it in schools, and elsewhere, it will work itself out eventually.

But in the meanwhile you are content with unchecked traditional prejudices making the lives of minorities relatively miserable?

 

edit: in real life, I mean.

 

Edit 2: this to consider, too. Almost everything points to the fact that exposure is the strongest deterrent to those preconceived notions you mention. For example, Brexit voters almost invariably were stronger supporters of Leave in regions least populated by European immigrants, and vice versa. Would that not suggest that regulated mingling, however artificial in the short term, would be a long term boon to true meritocratic standards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Einheri said:

No doubt, but there is still a difference between individuals being discriminated against by other individuals, and discrimination encoded into law. Also, two wrongs do not make a right, and IMO it's not the right way to combat discrimination in our societies.

 

I'm sorry, but you are totally wrong here. Maybe it's because you live in Norway, where the population is more homogenous, and where your society addressed male/female issues a long time ago. You may not realize this, but Scandinavian countries were mocked in North America for decades for their progressive actions.

Pro-active measures had to be taken here because the gaps between what men and women and between what the majority versus minority populations were paid were so enormous. The gaps are still there, but have been narrowed. The issue of underrepresented minorities pretty well across the board in many jobs had to be addressed as well. Voluntary measures simply did not work.

I got a really great job in the early 90s with a huge multinational at a pay rate that I thought was wonderful. The company was in the middle of complying with equal pay legislation. I was very surprised when I received a 20% pay raise a few months later. My boss told me it was because of an outstanding job I had done on a major transaction that occurred right after I joined the company. The HR guys laughed their guts out when I mentioned it a year later. No, they said, it's because when he hired you he low-balled you so much, in comparison to the men who were hired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Well, the source of the problem is that too many people hold preconceived notions about others based on generalizations, stereotypes, racism etc., so in order stop discrimination we have to somehow make these people realize why this is wrong. It may sound a bit optimistic, but I have faith that if people learn about it in schools, and elsewhere, it will work itself out eventually.

But it hasn't so far, and it's had decades to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think I have at least two problems here. 1) Is the notion that decisions about hiring, promotions, or school admissions can always be truly objective. And 2) that one's "merit" is completely divorced from their social/economic background. I believe neither are exactly true.

You know, it's not like I believe somebody should get into Harvard if they had a 2.0 grade point average and scored 900 on their SATs. But, you know, if the same person did fairly very well in both those areas, I do think it's appropriate to consider their race, gender, and other social/economic background factors.

I seriously doubt that white males (or some other dominant group) are always being truly objective when making decisions about who gets hired, promoted, or admitted to school.

The problem here is that the anti-affirmative action crowd, seem to believe that the decisions makers always act with some kind of hyper-rationality. I think that is a very questionable assumption.

Also, the various metrics you use to estimate somebody's "merit" may not always tell the whole story. Using a football analogy, you might see some guy that looks really good on paper, like he's got a great  40 yard dash time, a good vertical leap, and a great bench press, yet he's just not as good as somebody that does a little worse in all those areas. Those metrics can't always measure intangibles.

Now take some kid from the South Side of Chicago or the inner of Detroit. Say he has done pretty well in school and on his SATs, but not as well as some white kid from an upper class suburb. Do grade point averages or SAT scores tell the whole story here? I submit they don't.

The upshot here is don't think race, gender, or social/economic backgrounds should be the only factors to consider, but I think its appropriate to consider them as a factor, when it comes to who gets hired, promoted, and admitted to school.

I understand what you're saying, and you do make a good point that these test do not always paint the best picture, but we have to measure abilities/talent somehow, and I just can't find it in me to agree that race, gender, or social/economic backgrounds should be taken into consideration. The mere thought of this sickens me.

Just now, James Arryn said:

But in the meanwhile you are content with unchecked traditional prejudices making the lives of minorities relatively miserable?

Of course I'm not content with it, but I don't think that punishing a large group of people over the actions of some of the members of their group is the right way to deal with it either (in fact, it might just make the relations worse). It's not an easy battle, I'll grant, but it's a battle we'll have to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Einheri said:

 

Of course I'm not content with it, but I don't think that punishing a large group of people over the actions of some of the members of their group is the right way to deal with it either (in fact, it might just make the relations worse). It's not an easy battle, I'll grant, but it's a battle we'll have to win.

But you are, in effect, content with it. Your battle plan is to let things work themselves out. That's almost the definition of contentment. You are possibly not overjoyed with the negative effects of your non-plan, but you're satisfied that it's preferential to 'punishing' others.

Now, honest question...do you truly believe that the 'punishment' comes in any way, shape or form near to the 'punishment' that has/will be served to minorities if things are left to find their own course? If you do not, then aren't you taking an awfully academic position on the real life cost to human beings in the real world? If you do, I'd appreciate any substantiation.

 

edit: to be clear, I'll repeat that I agree on paper that a.a. by definition promotes discrimination. If anyone can come up with an actual battle plan that will combat traditional discrimination w/o being discriminatory, i will be %100 on board. But letting things work themselves out is absolutely not that battle plan...it's relying on the same human nature that created the prejudices in the first place to do a back flip for no discernible reason.

Meanwhile, real people pay real prices for it every day. Are you content to let thieves and rapists figure out how to modify their behaviour on their own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Einheri said:

I understand what you're saying, and you do make a good point that these test do not always paint the best picture, but we have to measure abilities/talent somehow, and I just can't find it in me to agree that race, gender, or social/economic backgrounds should be taken into consideration. The mere thought of this sickens me.

Of course I'm not content with it, but I don't think that punishing a large group of people over the actions of some of the members of their group is the right way to deal with it either (in fact, it might just make the relations worse). It's not an easy battle, I'll grant, but it's a battle we'll have to win.

No one is being punished must because poor little white men are having to share the pie.  What you are trying to argue is sickening.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

if the deep state Obama intel chiefs that illegally leaked to torpedo Flynn end up installing John Bolton at NSC, that will be sweet karma

I'm sure chicken hawks, like say Ted Nugent, will be happy over this. My question is though, when the shootin starts, will Nugent join up for some fightin, or will he crap his pants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I'm sorry, but you are totally wrong here. Maybe it's because you live in Norway, where the population is more homogenous, and where your society addressed male/female issues a long time ago. You may not realize this, but Scandinavian countries were mocked in North America for decades for their progressive actions.

 

Oh dear, Norway really is way too equal to understand anything about equality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, James Arryn said:

But you are, in effect, content with it. Your battle plan is to let things work themselves out. That's almost the definition of contentment. You are possibly not overjoyed with the negative effects of your non-plan, but you're satisfied that it's preferential to 'punishing' others.

Now, honest question...do you truly believe that the 'punishment' comes in any way, shape or form near to the 'punishment' that has/will be served to minorities if things are left to find their own course? If you do not, then aren't you taking an awfully academic position on the real life cost to human beings in the real world? If you do, I'd appreciate any substantiation.

I'm not saying we should do nothing. I'm saying that we'll have to hammer into these people's heads why their attitudes are wrong, and punish those who are found guilty of breaking the law by discriminating against minorities (or anyone else for that matter). It's the best I can think of without resorting to actions which goes against my morality, and I feel the same way when it comes to other issues (f.e. punishing all Muslims over the actions of a few extremists).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O Shyte -- He's had a very cordial meeting with Rubio.  They agree on everything about Cuba.  O, shyte.
 

The only thing is, Sessions, among others, have big donors in their states that have lots of skin in this game in terms of agricultural produce and equipment (the Hinterland! Jobs! Rural! Not Cities!) sales to Cuba and products such as -- get this! charcoal! artisnal charcoal! -- from Cuba.  And lots of folks even in Florida will be pissed if they are again no longer allowed to visit their families in Cuba or send them money.

And any moment another deranged meltdown can happen -- the only thing anybody knows for certain is that the deranged meltdowns will always be happening.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Einheri said:

No. It’s your achievements/merits/talents that define you in a meritocracy. Noting else.

 

I think the mistake you're making is in assuming that without things like AA, the world works as a meritocracy.   That's not the way it works, though.  It's far from a meritocracy, and that's exactly the problem.   Even with identical or nearly identical qualifications, the wrong gender, or race, or other identity factor makes it far less likely one will get the job (not to mention the same pay).  And it doesn't "just work out."  Everyone doesn't start out at the same starting line.  Some start out ahead of it, while others yards behind.

The way AA works isn't about punishing the dominant class.   It's simply about not giving them automatic preference and priority at the expense of others any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Einheri said:

I'm not saying we should do nothing. I'm saying that we'll have to hammer into these people's heads why their attitudes are wrong, and punish those who are found guilty of breaking the law by discriminating against minorities (or anyone else for that matter). It's the best I can think of without resorting to actions which goes against my morality, and I feel the same way when it comes to other issues (f.e. punishing all Muslims over the actions of a few extremists).

How can anyone be found guilty of discriminating against minorities if there's no rubric? You're going to rely on people going on record as saying 'I don't hire black people because they're black!'...?

That's kind of the point of a.a. You set proportional standards whereby you can then see where people are being discriminatory. Without those standards there would be no realistic way to address it, however much 'hammering' is done on behalf of impotent abstract ideals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...