US Politics: Deep State Solution

[Fragile Bird]

22 minutes ago, Savannah said:

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

Boy, you sure had a reading comprehension fail there.

[Einheri]

 

14 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

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!'...?

You can look into the qualifications of the individual who got the job, and then compare it with the one who was set aside.

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. 

Is that really correct though? I mean, these standards are set on a national basis, right? So, they may not reflect the demographic realities in all areas, and then there is the fact that we're all individuals with different interests and aspirations, which means that you can't immediately assume that a workplace is discriminating against group X just because there aren't many members of group X working there.

In any case, discrimination is just the symptom, not the source of the actual problem: people's attitudes towards people who are different from themselves, and if we do not deal with this problem, then I fear discrimination will never end as more and more people seem to be willing to elect politicians who are not as opposed to this as the previous generation (and this is something I think both you and me are genuinely concerned about).

[The guy from the Vale]

9 minutes ago, Einheri said:

You can look into the qualifications of the individual who got the job, and then compare it with the one who was set aside.

 

Is that really correct though? I mean, these standards are set on a national basis, right? So, they may not reflect the demographic realities in all areas, and then there is the fact that we're all individuals with different interests and aspirations, which means that you can't immediately assume that a workplace is discriminating against group X just because there aren't many members of group X working there.

In any case, discrimination is just the symptom, not the source of the actual problem: people's attitudes towards people who are different from themselves, and if we do not deal with this problem, then I fear discrimination will never end as more and more people seem to be willing to elect politicians who are not as opposed to this as the previous generation (and this is something I think both you and me are genuinely concerned about).

But how, then, do you deal with equivalent qualifications? If there are two very similar applicants for the same job, but the majority member gets that job disproportionately more often over the minority member, your method is applied while still creating unequal results. Why not ask that potential employers prefer the minority candidates (in case of similar enough qualifications, anyway) until some kind of minority representation quota is fulfilled?

[Einheri]

4 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

But how, then, do you deal with equivalent qualifications? If there are two very similar applicants for the same job, but the majority member gets that job disproportionately more often over the minority member, your method is applied while still creating unequal results. Why not ask that potential employers prefer the minority candidates (in case of similar enough qualifications, anyway) until some kind of minority representation quota is fulfilled?

There is a part of me that wants to say that it's a good idea, and there is a part of me that wants to say that I should stand by my ideals/belief in other people, and then there is a part of me that knows that these types of measures also serve to fuel the growing far right conservative/white nationalism movements, which is terrifying. Ultimately, I think we have to deal with this issue the hard way rather than the (seemingly) easy way.

[Fragile Bird]

I would point out that Norway passed legislation requiring that 40% of the board members of public companies be women. Because, obviously, there were no qualified women available in Norway before the legislation was passed. 

[The guy from the Vale]

13 minutes ago, Einheri said:

There is a part of me that wants to say that it's a good idea, and there is a part of me that wants to say that I should stand by my ideals/belief in other people, and then there is a part of me that knows that these types of measures also serve to fuel the growing far right conservative/white nationalism movements, which is terrifying. Ultimately, I think we have to deal with this issue the hard way rather than the (seemingly) easy way.

Those far right movements have existed before any such kind of equality was achieved. Or do you think Germany in the 1920es was a particularly egalitarian society? I'm not willing to surrender this issue to them just based on their feelings. Yes, it will lead to less of a fight, but some issues are worth fighting for, and I regard equality (along with liberty) to be the most prominent causes worth this fight.

[Einheri]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I would point out that Norway passed legislation requiring that 40% of the board members of public companies be women. Because, obviously, there were no qualified women available in Norway before the legislation was passed. 

Tbh I don't care if 10% are women or 90%, so long as it's the most qualified people who put in these positions. In this case, it seems like it worked out well enough though as lots of female board members are now even arguing in favor of removing this legislation, and they say they don't need this kind of help anymore.

[felice]

1 minute ago, Einheri said:

Tbh I don't care if 10% are women or 90%, so long as it's the most qualified people who put in these positions.

It isn't, though.

Quote

In this case, it seems like it worked out well enough though as lots of female board members are now even arguing in favor of removing this legislation, and they say they don't need this kind of help anymore.

So you're saying that affirmative action worked to reduce sexism in hiring practises rather than promoted an anti-feminist backlash?

[OldGimletEye]

21 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Tbh I don't care if 10% are women or 90%, so long as it's the most qualified people who put in these positions. In this case, it seems like it worked out well enough though as lots of female board members are now even arguing in favor of removing this legislation, and they say they don't need this kind of help anymore.

You know, though, if 90% of corporate board members are men, I'd say there is a very good reason to believe that the "the most qualified people" thing isn't really working out.

And this gets back to earlier point I was making: It probably isn't possible to be always purely objective on these matters. So, yeah, I'd say gender should be a factor in making these decisions.

[Martell Spy]

Mark Zuckerberg’s theory of human history
Can Facebook help humanity take its “next step”?

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/2/18/14653542/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-manifesto-sapiens

The Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ in Red States
“This isn’t a fad, it’s not going away, and there’s nothing coastal or elite about it.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/trump-resistance-liberal-tea-party-protest/517023/

 

Quote

He complained in particular that senior national security aides do not have access to the president -- and gave a detailed and embarrassing readout of Trump's call with Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/white-house-nsc-aide-craig-deare-dismissed-235175

White House dismisses NSC aide after harsh criticism of Trump

Official complained about the president at a closed-door think tank gathering.

 

 

[Einheri]

21 minutes ago, felice said:

It isn't, though.

So you're saying that affirmative action worked to reduce sexism in hiring practises rather than promoted an anti-feminist backlash?

I'm not sure how much sexism there actually was in the hiring practices as the number of female board members was already steadily growing, if slowly, but it definitely worked to rapidly speeden up the process, and there was also little anti feminist backlash at the time IIRC. 

Anyway, I admitted that I actually feel conflicted about this issue.  I can see that it can have some good consequences, but it's also clear to me that it's a form of discrimination and collectivistic in nature (I'm not much of a fan of dividing humans into groups, I prefer to look at them as individuals).

[OldGimletEye]

16 minutes ago, Einheri said:

 I can see that it can have some good consequences, but it's also clear to me that it's a form of discrimination and collectivistic in nature (I'm not much of a fan of dividing humans into groups, I prefer to look at them as individuals).

I too believe in looking at people as individuals, to a large extent.
But, anything taken to extreme, can become ridiculous or absurd. The fact is that there are specific issues that apply to certain classes of people, whether we divide them by race, gender, social class or whatever. And the fact of the matter is that particular classes of people have been the victims of discrimination or are not starting out on a level playing field.
 And I don't think we can just wish that away.
So yeah, evaluate people on their individual characteristics. But, let's not pretend that is the only thing that has to be done to give people a fair shot at life.

[Reny of Storms End]

32 minutes ago, Einheri said:

I'm not sure how much sexism there actually was in the hiring practices as the number of female board members was already steadily growing, if slowly, but it definitely worked to rapidly speeden up the process, and there was also little anti feminist backlash at the time IIRC. 

Anyway, I admitted that I actually feel conflicted about this issue.  I can see that it can have some good consequences, but it's also clear to me that it's a form of discrimination and collectivistic in nature (I'm not much of a fan of dividing humans into groups, I prefer to look at them as individuals).

I think the problem people are having is that you chose to come to argue for those who have perpetuated discrimination. It's obvious you don't discriminate, but that's not the point. Every post you write out ends up talking about how morally wrong it is to discriminate against anyone. Yet your only answer to how to solve it is let society work it out and somehow identify people who are being discriminatory and punish them for it. You offer no solution on how to discover if a company or person is being discriminatory in their hiring though. You offer no solution on how society will become non-discriminatory, besides vague hope that we can make it work. Instead you regret that those already privileged will possibly ever face discrimination. Almost like somehow it's okay to continue discriminating against certain groups because they are used to it, but don't you dare consider any measure to address this that could possibly end up discriminating against those who have never experienced it. It ends up looking like you care more for a group that's already well off, compared to the group that faces hardships on a regular basis. This may not be how you feel at all, but that's how it comes across to me. 

[Einheri]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I too believe in looking at people as individuals, to a large extent.
But, anything taken to extreme, can become ridiculous or absurd. The fact is that there are specific issues that apply to certain classes of people, whether we divide them by race, gender, social class or whatever. And the fact of the matter is that particular classes of people have been the victims of discrimination or are not starting out on a level playing field.
 And I don't think we can just wish that away.
So yeah, evaluate people on their individual characteristics. But, let's not pretend that is the only thing that has to be done to give people a fair shot at life.

Look I self identify as a social liberal. I vote Norwegian Labor Party, which is left of Bernie Sanders.  I'm in favor of the welfare state, and I believe that people, no matter who they are or where they come from, have a right to get free education, healthcare and assistance should they lose they're jobs or if they're unable to work for whatever reason, but when it comes to factors such as gender, skin color, sexual preference, religion etc. I get uncomfortable. I feel that this shouldn't be a big deal, and I don't like the notion that it's suddenly a goal in itself to ensure that "this amount of people should be represented here and this amount of people should be represented there". I dunno, but it feels like we're viewed as nothing else than numbers/statistics, and that our own individuality and choices matter less, like we're in a doll house where some authority moves us around at whim.

[MerenthaClone]

2 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Look I self identify as a social liberal. 

Who cares what you self-identify as?  Most people in the US don't self-identify as racists but they sure as fuck act like it.  

Maybe once we live in a true meritocracy your blathering about reverse discrimination will be worthwhile but until then your entire argument is predicated on the (false) assumption that we do live in an actual meritocracy.  

[OldGimletEye]

11 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Look I self identify as a social liberal. I vote Norwegian Labor Party, which is left of Bernie Sanders.  I'm in favor of the welfare state, and I believe that people, no matter who they are or where they come from, have a right to get free education, healthcare and assistance should they lose they're jobs or if they're unable to work for whatever reason, but when it comes to factors such as gender, skin color, sexual preference, religion etc. I get uncomfortable. I feel that this shouldn't be a big deal, and I don't like the notion that it's suddenly a goal in itself to ensure that "this amount of people should be represented here and this amount of people should be represented there". I dunno, but it feels like we're viewed as nothing else than numbers/statistics, and that our own individuality and choices matter less, like we're in a doll house where some authority moves us around at whim.

I too am a social liberal.
I have one foot in the garden of Eden of classical liberalism
But, only one foot.
One reason I'm a social liberal is because methodological individualism isn't enough.

[Einheri]

13 minutes ago, Reny of Storms End said:

I think the problem people are having is that you chose to come to argue for those who have perpetuated discrimination. It's obvious you don't discriminate, but that's not the point. Every post you write out ends up talking about how morally wrong it is to discriminate against anyone. Yet your only answer to how to solve it is let society work it out and somehow identify people who are being discriminatory and punish them for it. You offer no solution on how to discover if a company or person is being discriminatory in their hiring though. You offer no solution on how society will become non-discriminatory, besides vague hope that we can make it work. Instead you regret that those already privileged will possibly ever face discrimination. Almost like somehow it's okay to continue discriminating against certain groups because they are used to it, but don't you dare consider any measure to address this that could possibly end up discriminating against those who have never experienced it. It ends up looking like you care more for a group that's already well off, compared to the group that faces hardships on a regular basis. This may not be how you feel at all, but that's how it comes across to me. 

Dude, I never said it's okay to discriminate against anyone or that we shouldn't combat it (and it is a fight for heart and minds, believe me, there are forces on the rise who seek to reverse the current status). I just don't think that discrimination should be the answer to discrimination even if it has some positive consequences.

To emphasize my point, let's say we rounded up all the Nazis, Fascists, Islamist, Christian Fundamentalists, armed revolution type of Anarchists and Communists, murderers, pedophiles, rapists etc etc, and then had them all shot.

Would this benefit society? Well, yea, it probably  would IMO.

Would it be right of us to do it? IMO that's a no.

[Altherion]

3 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

Who cares what you self-identify as?  Most people in the US don't self-identify as racists but they sure as fuck act like it.  

People who want genuine economic change should care. Identity politics is a means of dividing people that should in theory have a coherent economic platform into groups that support politicians who are distinct from each other, but constantly act against the economic interests of their constituents.

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

People who want genuine economic change should care. Identity politics is a means of dividing people that should in theory have a coherent economic platform into groups that support politicians who are distinct from each other, but constantly act against the economic interests of their constituents.

You keep saying this. Has it ever occurred to you that the point of, for example, fighting racism is largely to actually fight racism rather than just some kind of power play by w/e version of 'elite' puppet masters you're decrying at the moment? Do you understand the contempt for the reality of racial/gender/etc. prejudice you reveal when you (constantly) marginalize it as a game power people play? And supposing it's all a game...and supposing racism is real...wouldn't it be an awesome move for racists to move their agenda by arguing that claims of racism are just political shadow puppetry?

 

[OldGimletEye]

28 minutes ago, Altherion said:

People who want genuine economic change should care. Identity politics is a means of dividing people that should in theory have a coherent economic platform into groups that support politicians who are distinct from each other, but constantly act against the economic interests of their constituents.

It seems to me what you want is brogressivism.
Look, I am all for making the economic system work better for everyone. But, you know, that can't just include white males only in this thing. It has to include everyone, or liberalism loses its ethical base. You can't just ignore real issues that are important to minorities or women.
You keep complaining about the left doing identity politics. What you seemingly fail to acknowledge is that the people that really excel at "identity politics" and use it effectively is the right.