Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Positive Discrimination/Action
    • Is Positive Discrimination/Action a just response to past indecencies? Is it acceptable to apologies for what your ancestors did by giving descendants benefits? Is it okay to outright give someone extra marks on a university application because of their life choices?

      Something I find interesting:

      [espoiler=What is Positive Action?]
      What is Positive Action?
      The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) consolidates and replaces most of the previous
      discrimination legislation for England, Scotland and Wales. The Act covers
      discrimination because of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil
      partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual
      orientation. These categories are known in the Act as ‘protected characteristics’.
      An important purpose of the Act is to unify the legislation outlawing discrimination
      against people with different protected characteristics, where this is appropriate.
      Previously Positive Action measures were provided for under the Race Relations Act
      1976, Sections 37 and 38. In the Equality Act 2010 they are provided for under
      positive action clauses Part 11 Chapter 2, Section 1 (c) and Chapter 2 Section 2 (a)
      & (c).
      Positive Action can be described as,” measures to overcome the effects of past
      discrimination and achieve equality of opportunity for people from protected
      groups” who are under-represented in parts of the labour market.

      Source[/espoiler]

      Positive Action in Theory and Practice:
      Experiences from the UK and Europe


      I've always disliked Positive Discrimination/Action. It's tipping the scales. If you positively discriminate for one minority, then another minority will equally and exactly be oppositely affected. It seems completely unavoidable and I dislike that it's so widely accepted in our culture. People focus on the idea that it helps some people and that they're doing good when they're also causing negativity for other groups.

      I can say this with certainty but I don't know how much luck I would have finding a source if needed, schools across England have a quota to fill. They have to maintain certain percentages of minority groups of race and religious belief. Religious Schools have to take.. I think it's about 5% none/other religious believers because of a government ruling not to exclude others. I think that while this allows children to grow up in a more varied environment and allows them to be more accepting of other cultures and religions, it forces schools to take unnecessary action which, I believe, is more likely to cause negativity than positivity.

      If I was forced to go to a school for a religion I did not believe in and, as I am aware, practise it; I would be pretty angry and it would be more likely to push me away than bring me closer.

      I'm pretty sure this opinion is applicable to other variations of positive discrimination/action.

      Another point I would like to touch on is that "Not being ______ is the new ____", replacing the blanks with whichever type of discrimination you like. I think this is very important in modern day culture. People are so scared of offending a minority that they will purposely remove everything that makes them who they are. The idea of a "flaming homosexual" is, according to what certain media would have you believe, incredibly offensive to the LGBT community as it "makes a mockery of them." However, everyone has the right to be who they are, and if they are what would be considered a very stereotypical gay person, they may feel repressed or offended because they aren't allowed to be themselves in case others feel offended.

      It's a tricky business, but I've seen it many times whether it be in social media, tv, the news, school etc.



      why would trump support the vikings

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Keith ().

    • Keith wrote:

      I've always disliked Positive Discrimination/Action. It's tipping the scales. If you positively discriminate for one minority, then another minority will equally and exactly be oppositely affected.

      No, the majority will be equally and oppositely affected, which is part of the point.

      I can say this with certainty but I don't know how much luck I would have finding a source if needed, schools across England have a quota to fill. They have to maintain certain percentages of minority groups of race and religious belief. Religious Schools have to take.. I think it's about 5% none/other religious believers because of a government ruling not to exclude others. I think that while this allows children to grow up in a more varied environment and allows them to be more accepting of other cultures and religions, it forces schools to take unnecessary action which, I believe, is more likely to cause negativity than positivity.
      Let me ask you something: Let's say that 5% of UK citizens are non-Christian. Given that, then is it not interesting that there are many schools that have far fewer than that? Why would that be?

      If I was forced to go to a school for a religion I did not believe in and, as I am aware, practise it; I would be pretty angry and it would be more likely to push me away than bring me closer.
      I somehow doubt people are being forced into a religious school that they don't want to go to.

      I'm pretty sure this opinion is applicable to other variations of positive discrimination/action.

      Another point I would like to touch on is that "Not being ______ is the new ____", replacing the blanks with whichever type of discrimination you like. I think this is very important in modern day culture. People are so scared of offending a minority that they will purposely remove everything that makes them who they are. The idea of a "flaming homosexual" is, according to what certain media would have you believe, incredibly offensive to the LGBT community as it "makes a mockery of them." However, everyone has the right to be who they are, and if they are what would be considered a very stereotypical gay person, they may feel repressed or offended because they aren't allowed to be themselves in case others feel offended.
      That's a separate issue, but there's a key difference you're missing.

      Being an incredibly camp gay is fine, I know a few on ZU, even.
      Mocking gay people by taking the stereotypes up to 11 is not okay. Not because you're being incredibly camp, but because you're mocking them.

      It's something many people seem to have trouble with. You can't call a black person a "♥♥♥♥♥♥" unless you're doing so affectionately because otherwise you're attacking them. That's why some people can do it and others can't. If you want to call your best friend "♥♥♥♥♥♥ Jim" and they're fine with that then there's no problem. If your uncle calls everyone non-Caucasian "♥♥♥♥ing ♥♥♥♥♥♥s" then there is a problem.

      For some reason this is an incredibly difficult concept for some people to grasp. It's not what words you use*, it's what you're using them to do.


      Anyways, as for affirmative action, I'm for it. It's trivial to show that minorities are way underrepresented in almost all aspects of a "good" life: Education and income being the big two. Now, either this is because upon becoming a minority one immediately loses all skills and abilities (and keep in mind that these minorities do quite well in places where they're majorities) or there's some other factor that means they don't have a level playing field, and that needs to be counteracted.

      It's like holding a marathon where some people start at the blocks and others start a mile back. That's so ludicrously unfair that no one would support it. Yet when it comes to the real world, where the damage is far more real, any attempt to line everyone up for the pistol shot is met with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

      So, how would you propose we give everyone a fair chance?



      *Alright, the words you use do matter, because words have meaning. Calling a random person a Wop, ♥♥♥♥♥♥, Jap, Chink, Gook, whatever is hurtful to them, even if you meant it in jest. That means you've hurt them for no reason, which is wrong. It's also making fun of someone for something they have no control over, which is frequently regarded as despicable anyways.

      Still, what words you use matters less than what message you're sending, I suppose is my point. Using racial slurs on a good friend of yours isn't sending a message of hatred, so it's acceptable. Using them on strangers is very different.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by John ().

    • John wrote:

      No, the majority will be equally and oppositely affected, which is part of the point.


      yes but why should the majority be subject to discrimination?

      I somehow doubt people are being forced into a religious school that they don't want to go to.


      It's not unheard of for a child to be sent to a religious school despite what they want. Parents want what's best for their child, and if they think that going to a religious school will teach them better discipline or simply be a better location for education, then they will most likely do so.

      That's a separate issue, but there's a key difference you're missing.


      that's not quite the point I was making. Let's say, for example, Louie Spence. I know that there is a lot of hate for him, I'm not sure I've ever heard someone say anything positive about him. One of the main reasons is simply because(in this case my family) think he is disrespectful. They think that mincing while you walk down the street alongside your mother is incredibly offensive and that if he were to do it near any of them, he would be beaten as an appropriate punishment from a parent to child. I feel I should say I don't in any way agree with this, it is simply an observation.

      The other reasons people seem to have for hating him, in my experience, is that he is a "mockery" of the LGBT community. He flaunts his homosexuality in a way that they feel offended as if he is exaggerating to either make a social statement that all gays are like that or to simply make an overplayed joke.

      However, since no one outside of his relatives, friends or contacts can say that they know him for certain, you can't say for certain if he's being offensive or not. We can't say if he puts it on as an act for TV, or if he is like that anyway. It could simply be a hook to attract viewers or he could just be fortunate to have such a colourful personality.

      Would you say it's fair to remove him from the public eye because he offends people who aren't okay with him? I certainly wouldn't, but in a sense it to be the point you're making. You have to know that a person is okay before you can make any sort of stereotypical discrimination against them. While he is simply being himself, he is representing the LGBT community and, from what I've seen, it hasn't had a great response with most folk.

      I'm sorry if I seemed like I was saying you hated Louie Spence or something there, I'm really awful at making points. I was just trying to ask you of your opinion on public discrimination and I got lost somehow...



      why would trump support the vikings
    • Keith wrote:

      yes but why should the majority be subject to discrimination?

      They shouldn't, and they aren't.

      Affirmative Action is only discrimination in the sense that the odds are adjusted from their "natural" state to one where everyone has an equal chance.

      It's not unheard of for a child to be sent to a religious school despite what they want. Parents want what's best for their child, and if they think that going to a religious school will teach them better discipline or simply be a better location for education, then they will most likely do so.

      Parents deciding something for their child that they (the child) don't like is not the same thing as the government forcing people to send their children to religious schools when they (the parents) don't want to.

      that's not quite the point I was making. Let's say, for example, Louie Spence. I know that there is a lot of hate for him, I'm not sure I've ever heard someone say anything positive about him. One of the main reasons is simply because(in this case my family) think he is disrespectful. They think that mincing while you walk down the street alongside your mother is incredibly offensive and that if he were to do it near any of them, he would be beaten as an appropriate punishment from a parent to child. I feel I should say I don't in any way agree with this, it is simply an observation.

      The other reasons people seem to have for hating him, in my experience, is that he is a "mockery" of the LGBT community. He flaunts his homosexuality in a way that they feel offended as if he is exaggerating to either make a social statement that all gays are like that or to simply make an overplayed joke.

      However, since no one outside of his relatives, friends or contacts can say that they know him for certain, you can't say for certain if he's being offensive or not. We can't say if he puts it on as an act for TV, or if he is like that anyway. It could simply be a hook to attract viewers or he could just be fortunate to have such a colourful personality.

      Would you say it's fair to remove him from the public eye because he offends people who aren't okay with him? I certainly wouldn't, but in a sense it to be the point you're making. You have to know that a person is okay before you can make any sort of stereotypical discrimination against them. While he is simply being himself, he is representing the LGBT community and, from what I've seen, it hasn't had a great response with most folk.

      I'm sorry if I seemed like I was saying you hated Louie Spence or something there, I'm really awful at making points. I was just trying to ask you of your opinion on public discrimination and I got lost somehow...

      Well, again, it's a question of what message you're sending. I have no idea who Louie Spence is and know absolutely nothing about them. Still, if people see what he's doing as offensive, then the question is why: If he's genuinely just being himself then he's in the right. If he's mocking others, or deliberately reinforcing the stereotype, or whatever, then he isn't.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!
    • I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, discrimination of any kind is wrong and we should strive to overcome it. But on the other hand, treating any minority differently is, in my opinion, discrimination itself - people should be treated with the same respect and dignity, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preferences.

      The theory is good, but the practice doesn't seem to work when people take the act too far in an effort to show that they aren't racist. For instance:

      Is it okay to outright give someone extra marks on a university application because of their life choices?


      I've never heard of that particular example myself, but if it's true I don't believe such a thing is fair. Another example is that if you apply to the UK Police Service and you are from a minority (be it race or from the LGBT community) the chances of a successful application increase.




      John wrote:

      For some reason this is an incredibly difficult concept for some people to grasp. It's not what words you use*, it's what you're using them to do.


      This, a thousand times. I've recevied comments about my heritage before many times; when it's a friend, it's okay because they're your friend and you know they mean it in jest. When it's overly used or used by someone you're not entirely comfortable with, it's a completely different matter and can be very offensive - and yet a lot of people don't seem to be able understand this.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Dante Alighieri ().

    • John wrote:

      Well, again, it's a question of what message you're sending. I have no idea who Louie Spence is and know absolutely nothing about them. Still, if people see what he's doing as offensive, then the question is why: If he's genuinely just being himself then he's in the right. If he's mocking others, or deliberately reinforcing the stereotype, or whatever, then he isn't.


      Well that's my point, you simply don't know if he's mocking others or deliberately reinforcing the stereotype. Is it wrong to assume he is or isn't? I give him the benefit of the doubt, but most people I know despise him. Would you believe that he should be censored because no one knows if he has motives for acting so... for lack of a better word, fabulous?

      Stryder Aedernis wrote:

      I've never heard of that particular example myself, but if it's true I don't believe such a thing is fair. Another example is that if you apply to the UK Police Service and you are from a minority (be it race or from the LGBT community) the chances of a successful increase.


      This is actually something which Nesi told me about in Hungary. You can get something like 450 marks out of your final exams and if you get 100%, you can roughly get into any university. However, Gypsies get some marks outright because of their heritage while the majority have to work their ass off to get the full marks. It also depends on your monetary income. If you're poor, you get even more marks than richer gypsies. I'm not sure that I like the idea of wealth being directly related to intelligence, because I don't think it's as important as it's made out to be here.



      why would trump support the vikings
    • I hate the idea of 'positive' discrimination. I think it's just unfair. I have a disadvantage when applying to university because I'm white and upper middle class. How is that fair?

      I understand that coming from a poor background can affect your education, but I don't see why I should be punished for that. Obviously something needs to be done about this, but why not fix it at the source instead of discriminating against people who aren't to blame. If I work my a** off to get qualifications, then I deserve recognition for that irregardless of my background.
    • Zalif wrote:

      I hate the idea of 'positive' discrimination. I think it's just unfair. I have a disadvantage when applying to university because I'm white and upper middle class. How is that fair?

      No, you have a disadvantage if you're not-white and not-middle-class. All AA does is level the playing field.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!
    • Zalif wrote:

      I hate the idea of 'positive' discrimination. I think it's just unfair. I have a disadvantage when applying to university because I'm white and upper middle class. How is that fair?


      this simply isn't true. Being white and upper-middle class means you have an inherent advantage. Affirmative action exists to give people who aren't white and upper-middle class that same advantage, thus ensuring equal opportunity.

      yes, this means your advantage won't be as big as it was before, but that advantage wasn't earned, it was based on discrimination. Everybody should have the same opportunity. Complaining about the fact that the black people or the lower class people are being given advantages so that they can have the same opportunities as you is really just disgusting.

      pronouns: it/its or squi/squir
      ask me about my LGBTA+ and nonbinary Discord servers.
    • When Cambridge University Atheist and Agnostic Society invited Kate Smurthwaite to speak on the intersection of atheism and feminism, the issue of positive discrimination was brought up and she spoke about how she imagined positive discrimination working.

      She was skeptical of forms of quotative positive discrimination, but did not actively speak against them, when arguments for and against the women only colleges were brought up, she chose rather to ask the audience (who were members of these colleges and differed on their opinions), but encouraged everyone to be involved in a different kind of positive discrimination.

      She suggested for example that a company that is about to recruit mostly men should look at themselves and think about why that has happened and also put some effort into asking for more women (or non-men to be even broader) to recruit. Or that perhaps on a more personal level that we should encourage perhaps our ethnic minority friends to run for presidents of societies.
    • Nyarlko wrote:

      this simply isn't true. Being white and upper-middle class means you have an inherent advantage. Affirmative action exists to give people who aren't white and upper-middle class that same advantage, thus ensuring equal opportunity.

      yes, this means your advantage won't be as big as it was before, but that advantage wasn't earned, it was based on discrimination. Everybody should have the same opportunity. Complaining about the fact that the black people or the lower class people are being given advantages so that they can have the same opportunities as you is really just disgusting.


      To be honest, I probably shouldn't have said white. I don't believe that race has anything to do with entry to university. It's just an unfortunate fact that in general racial minorities are poorer, of course there are plenty of exceptions to this rule. The racial factor is largely irrelevant, it's the economic status which largely matters.

      As I said in my original post, I do believe it's a problem that some people are disadvantaged when it comes to education but the causes of this need to be dealt with. Making it easier for the disadvantaged to go to university/get jobs etc. is completely retrospective and unfair towards others who aren't disadvantaged. Instead, education in poorer areas needs to be improved, this will provide a much more permanent solution.

      I disagree with you saying that the advantage isn't 'earned'. My parents have worked hard for their entire lives in order to provide for me. I also believe that by working hard enough anyone can get the grades they deserve. I've faced my fair share of adversity but I worked through it, if I can do it then so can others.

      Saying that my opinion is 'disgusting' is just offensive. I am not racist or discriminatory in any way. I believe in equal opportunity, I just believe that the government is trying to achieve it in the wrong way. Countering discrimination with more discrimination is just illogical.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Zalif ().

    • Nyarlko wrote:

      this simply isn't true. Being white and upper-middle class means you have an inherent advantage. Affirmative action exists to give people who aren't white and upper-middle class that same advantage, thus ensuring equal opportunity.


      Is this advantage inherent to white people? I don't see how it can be, considering money is not a genetic factor.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of what you were saying is that affirmative action should be applied for the sake of negating peoples disadvantages/lack of advantages. Having lots of money/more opportunities, in most cases, is not inherent to being white (to say otherwise is to suggest that most establishments are actively discriminatory or that non-whites are inherently inferior in some way - which would require quite the burden of proof). It is inherent to being of a "higher" class (since, if I'm not mistaken, these are the things that "class" is made of).

      By this logic, I'd go so far as to agree with you that lower-class families would require assistance, since having less money/opportunities is inherent to being lower-class. Where I suppose I'd diverge from some of the people in this thread (judging by past AA threads), is that this assistance ought to be supplied on the basis of race (something you seem to support, given your mention of "white" people in your post).

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Double A ().

    • this simply isn't true. Being white and upper-middle class means you have an inherent advantage. Affirmative action exists to give people who aren't white and upper-middle class that same advantage, thus ensuring equal opportunity.

      yes, this means your advantage won't be as big as it was before, but that advantage wasn't earned, it was based on discrimination. Everybody should have the same opportunity. Complaining about the fact that the black people or the lower class people are being given advantages so that they can have the same opportunities as you is really just disgusting.
      This is sometimes the case, and is sometimes not the case.

      Certainly affirmative action helps sometimes, although it's been overdone in the past. Such as in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, where a white man wasn't admitted into a medical school, because some of the extra seats were reserved for blacks specifically. Some of them got in, despite having a much lower GPA, and qualifications in general, just because of their race. Although this particular act (establishing a quota) was found unconstitutional.

      I'm all for affirmative action, but do it right. It's certainly unfair if people with greater qualifications are turned down for anything because of their race, and it can be detrimental for the society as well. Note that one of the men who had lower qualifications than Bakke, but was admitted in his place because of his race, later had his medical license revoked because he was grossly negligent, and could not perform his job as well, and it lead to the death of one of his patients.

      It can be good, and it can be bad c:

      The post was edited 1 time, last by theunabletable ().

    • Zalif wrote:

      To be honest, I probably shouldn't have said white. I don't believe that race has anything to do with entry to university. It's just an unfortunate fact that in general racial minorities are poorer, of course there are plenty of exceptions to this rule. The racial factor is largely irrelevant, it's the economic status which largely matters.


      unless you think there's something about racial minorities that makes them less capable of making money, the fact that they are disproportionately poor compared to white people is due to racism rather than being any fault of their own. This is the kind of problems that affirmative action seeks to remediate.

      As I said in my original post, I do believe it's a problem that some people are disadvantaged when it comes to education but the causes of this need to be dealt with. Making it easier for the disadvantaged to go to university/get jobs etc. is completely retrospective and unfair towards others who aren't disadvantaged. Instead, education in poorer areas needs to be improved, this will provide a much more permanent solution.


      how is giving minorities the same opportunities as advantaged classes unfair? What's unfair is the fact that they don't have the same opportunities to begin with. Once again, affirmative action only corrects this unfairness and, as John puts it, levels the playing field.

      by giving the disadvantaged and lower-class people an opportunity for education, they have a very good chance to improve their situation by getting the qualifications for a good, money-making job. Otherwise, they'll never be able to go to school, never get those qualifications, and never be able to improve their economic standing.

      I disagree with you saying that the advantage isn't 'earned'. My parents have worked hard for their entire lives in order to provide for me. I also believe that by working hard enough anyone can get the grades they deserve. I've faced my fair share of adversity but I worked through it, if I can do it then so can others.


      unfortunately, this just isn't the case. Racial minorities are disproportionately disadvantaged. A lot of your advantage is merely because you were born the right race and in the right family, things you have no control over.

      Saying that my opinion is 'disgusting' is just offensive. I am not racist or discriminatory in any way. I believe in equal opportunity, I just believe that the government is trying to achieve it in the wrong way. Countering discrimination with more discrimination is just illogical.


      affirmative action is not discrimination. Affirmative action corrects existing discrimination. How is giving everybody the same opportunities to achieve discriminatory?

      Double A wrote:

      Is this advantage inherent to white people? I don't see how it can be, considering money is not a genetic factor.


      either white people are better off because the white race is superior, or it's because of racism. I'll let you figure it out.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of what you were saying is that affirmative action should be applied for the sake of negating peoples disadvantages/lack of advantages. Having lots of money/more opportunities, in most cases, is not inherent to being white (to say otherwise is to suggest that most establishments are actively discriminatory or that non-whites are inherently inferior in some way - which would require quite the burden of proof). It is inherent to being of a "higher" class (since, if I'm not mistaken, these are the things that "class" is made of).


      white people are disproportionately richer (higher-class) than black people. Again, this is either because white people are just plain better, in which case they've earned their superior position, or it's because of racism, in which case it's just unfair and needs to be remediated.

      By this logic, I'd go so far as to agree with you that lower-class families would require assistance, since having less money/opportunities is inherent to being lower-class. Where I suppose I'd diverge from some of the people in this thread (judging by past AA threads), is that this assistance ought to be supplied on the basis of race (something you seem to support, given your mention of "white" people in your post).


      I mentioned "white" because Zalif did.

      theunabletable wrote:

      This is sometimes the case, and is sometimes not the case.

      Certainly affirmative action helps sometimes, although it's been overdone in the past. Such as in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, where a white man wasn't admitted into a medical school, because some of the extra seats were reserved for blacks specifically. Some of them got in, despite having a much lower GPA, and qualifications in general, just because of their race. Although this particular act (establishing a quota) was found unconstitutional.

      I'm all for affirmative action, but do it right. It's certainly unfair if people with greater qualifications are turned down for anything because of their race, and it can be detrimental for the society as well. Note that one of the men who had lower qualifications than Bakke, but was admitted in his place because of his race, later had his medical license revoked because he was grossly negligent, and could not perform his job as well, and it lead to the death of one of his patients.

      It can be good, and it can be bad c:


      I won't argue that affirmative action has always been implemented correctly or perfectly, I merely argue for affirmative action in principle.

      pronouns: it/its or squi/squir
      ask me about my LGBTA+ and nonbinary Discord servers.
    • Nyarlko wrote:

      unless you think there's something about racial minorities that makes them less capable of making money, the fact that they are disproportionately poor compared to white people is due to racism rather than being any fault of their own.
      Either white people are better off because the white race is superior, or it's because of racism.
      white people are disproportionately richer (higher-class) than black people. Again, this is either because white people are just plain better, in which case they've earned their superior position, or it's because of racism, in which case it's just unfair and needs to be remediated.


      False dichotomy much? There are clearly more factors affecting the distribution of wealth than racism. For example, many people from racial minorities are immigrants from poorer countries which means they are likely to be poorer than people whose families have lived in the country for many generations.

      You're also simplifying the issue by limiting it black and white people. There are plenty of poor white people and plenty of rich black people.

      how is giving minorities the same opportunities as advantaged classes unfair? What's unfair is the fact that they don't have the same opportunities to begin with. Once again, affirmative action only corrects this unfairness and, as John puts it, levels the playing field.

      by giving the disadvantaged and lower-class people an opportunity for education, they have a very good chance to improve their situation by getting the qualifications for a good, money-making job. Otherwise, they'll never be able to go to school, never get those qualifications, and never be able to improve their economic standing.


      Yes it's unfair that they don't have the same opportunities, but as I said I don't think remedying this retrospectively is fair. If an upper class person gets an A it's worth less than if a lower class person gets an A. That is something I just cannot agree with.

      Also, as I said, if people work hard enough they can succeed. I go to a school with a bad reputation, but I work and I do well. There are lots of lower class people who do the same. There also lots of others who don't care and don't try at all.

      unfortunately, this just isn't the case. Racial minorities are disproportionately disadvantaged. A lot of your advantage is merely because you were born the right race and in the right family, things you have no control over.


      I didn't say I had control over it. What I said was that my parents have worked for our advantage, which definitely is the case.

      affirmative action is not discrimination. Affirmative action corrects existing discrimination. How is giving everybody the same opportunities to achieve discriminatory?


      Discrimination is treating a group differently based upon their gender, race, wealth etc. Making it easier for people to be accepted into university if they are of a certain race or social class IS discrimination.
    • Zalif wrote:

      As I said in my original post, I do believe it's a problem that some people are disadvantaged when it comes to education but the causes of this need to be dealt with. Making it easier for the disadvantaged to go to university/get jobs etc. is completely retrospective and unfair towards others who aren't disadvantaged. Instead, education in poorer areas needs to be improved, this will provide a much more permanent solution.

      You know what the best way to improve standards of living and education is? Giving someone an education. You do that, and odds are their children will grow up in a much better environment.

      Further, how is it "unfair"? What, exactly, is unfair about it?

      I disagree with you saying that the advantage isn't 'earned'. My parents have worked hard for their entire lives in order to provide for me. I also believe that by working hard enough anyone can get the grades they deserve. I've faced my fair share of adversity but I worked through it, if I can do it then so can others.
      Fun fact: If your parents were a minority then you'd be worse off. They could work twice as hard as they do now and still be far below where they are.

      You and they have an innate, unearned, advantage from being non-minorities and from, one assumes, coming from families above the poverty line.

      No one pulls themselves up by their bootstraps. Other people hire you, teach you, pay you, put you in touch with friends who need work done, etc. etc. Your life is almost entirely in the hands of other people, and if you're a minority then those other people are predisposed to actively or passively hinder you. This is a fact. It's not a matter of speculation.

      It's like sailing an iceflow. It mostly does its own thing, but if you work really, really hard you can influence the direction it drifts somewhat. Still, at the end of the day it's the ocean currents that decide where you end up.

      Saying that my opinion is 'disgusting' is just offensive. I am not racist or discriminatory in any way.
      Might want to take a look at why people think you are, then.

      I believe in equal opportunity, I just believe that the government is trying to achieve it in the wrong way. Countering discrimination with more discrimination is just illogical.
      Then, I say again, what would you do?

      Double A wrote:

      Is this advantage inherent to white people? I don't see how it can be, considering money is not a genetic factor.

      Yes it is. Not, of course, literally; but close enough. Money is inherited by heirs. Having wealthy parents means you get a better education (even in places where all schools are government-funded), better food, and better job opportunities. You'll generally be healthier, have more skills (from having a greater diversity of hobbies and sports you can afford to participate in) and just generally inherit a huge advantage from your parents.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of what you were saying is that affirmative action should be applied for the sake of negating peoples disadvantages/lack of advantages. Having lots of money/more opportunities, in most cases, is not inherent to being white (to say otherwise is to suggest that most establishments are actively discriminatory or that non-whites are inherently inferior in some way - which would require quite the burden of proof). It is inherent to being of a "higher" class (since, if I'm not mistaken, these are the things that "class" is made of).
      Having more money and opportunities are a result of being part of a local majority. If you move to a country where WASPs aren't the majority and raise a Caucasian kid there, they'll be at a disadvantage.

      And yes, most people are inherently discriminatory. We like people who look "normal" better than people who look foreign. This goes so far that simply having a foreign-sounding name greatly reduces your odds of being interviewed for a job by something like 50%; even if you submit (effectively) the same resume under different names.

      I suspect that this mostly isn't conscious. It'd be horrible if the majority of people actually thought that various minorities were simply inferior and so shunned them. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It's very real and there are countless studies to show it.

      By this logic, I'd go so far as to agree with you that lower-class families would require assistance, since having less money/opportunities is inherent to being lower-class. Where I suppose I'd diverge from some of the people in this thread (judging by past AA threads), is that this assistance ought to be supplied on the basis of race (something you seem to support, given your mention of "white" people in your post).
      Oh, there should definitely be AA for people who earn below the poverty line. But racism is also a fairly large factor that needs to be accounted for.

      Zalif wrote:

      Yes it's unfair that they don't have the same opportunities, but as I said I don't think remedying this retrospectively is fair. If an upper class person gets an A it's worth less than if a lower class person gets an A. That is something I just cannot agree with.

      Save that, without AA, that lower class's A is worth far less than someone from the middle or upper class. What AA does is make all those As worth the same amount. Yet you find that idea unfair, apparently.

      Also, as I said, if people work hard enough they can succeed. I go to a school with a bad reputation, but I work and I do well. There are lots of lower class people who do the same. There also lots of others who don't care and don't try at all.

      But if you're a majority then you can care much less than a minority and still do better. While a minority who works 18/7 on school can end up doing poorly.

      Discrimination is treating a group differently based upon their gender, race, wealth etc. Making it easier for people to be accepted into university if they are of a certain race or social class IS discrimination.

      But it's not being made easier for them, it's being made of equal difficulty to what others have.



      Look: Think about how wrong this discrimination feels to you, even though it's pretty minor. Now, think about the fact that this is the baseline level of discrimination that minorities go through in almost every interaction every day. AA quotas aren't chosen by throwing darts or drawing lots; they're based on the numbers of minorities and other such factors. If minorities are under-represented so much that an organization cannot meet its quota then there is clearly a massive amount of systemic racism somewhere.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by John ().

    • John wrote:

      Yes it is. Not, of course, literally; but close enough. Money is inherited by heirs. Having wealthy parents means you get a better education (even in places where all schools are government-funded), better food, and better job opportunities. You'll generally be healthier, have more skills (from having a greater diversity of hobbies and sports you can afford to participate in) and just generally inherit a huge advantage from your parents.
      Those aren't inherent in being white, those are inherent in having wealthy parents. It just so happens that white culture happens to have significantly more of those.

      It's an important distinction, when we take into account that the people who are hurt by affirmative action the most are poor whites (considering it's targetting based on race, and not income, yet it's income where the appear), and when we take note of the fact that, while a much higher percentage of blacks in, let's say, America are in poverty, a higher percentage of those in poverty are white.

      It all depends on where you make your distinctions, and how much it helps the "disadvantaged". One could definitely say that affirmative action helps the disadvantaged, because it helps the group that is most disadvantaged. But one could say that it doesn't help the disadvantaged as much as if the same was given to the majority race, because that's helping the most disadvantaged individuals.

      It's not an issue of racism; the issue is poverty. Being black doesn't make you poor, and being white doesn't make you rich. We can't take a simplistic view of it, and look at it as "Black people are poor more often than white people, black people are disadvantaged (nearly) inherently." A more accurate view would be "Black people are poor more often than white people."

      You have no more inherent advantage for being white than being black. You have an inherent advantage if you're in an environment that's healthy. If your parents are higher-income, you have an advantage. Whites more often have a high-income than blacks. That's the difference. Of course we all know this, and I'm not contradicting you exactly, but it's important to note with statements like this "Fun fact: If your parents were a minority then you'd be worse off. They could work twice as hard as they do now and still be far below where they are." and "You and they have an innate, unearned, advantage from being non-minorities and from, one assumes, coming from families above the poverty line."


      The thing that gives people the advantages are experiences; income; family; or for short, your environment.

      All we can say is that majorities get those environments more often on average. That's the view we should keep in mind when trying to fix things. We should focus on fixing those toxic environments specifically, and affirmative action can be a tool in this. We needn't have our opinion be "minorities are poor more often on average, ergo minorities are worse off absolutely."


      This is definitely not an argument against affirmative action; it's more, in my opinion, a more productive and fairer lens through which we should view inequality and these types of matters. A better baseline that we can use to decide what tools we should use to solve these problems, whether that tool be affirmative action, or some other form of solution. I think with a criteria near this thinking, it becomes easier to recognize when and how affirmative action hurts or leaves behind some people, and in what ways it does help others, so that we can do it better, and help solve poverty and racism as much as we can.


      If minorities are under-represented so much that an organization cannot meet its quota then there is clearly a massive amount of systemic racism somewhere.


      I don't think this is necessarily true either, although it often is (unless our definition of systemic racism is reaaaally broad, so as to lose its significance). Some cultures really are just different, and don't promote the type of environments that lead down certain paths. It's not necessarily a minority or group being disadvantaged at times, as it's just, quite simply, not represented.

      I'll give an example, and I hope it's not considered too irrelevant as it doesn't deal directly with race, but I feel it's an almost identical concept.

      Say you have to create a chess team that has to have perfect gender diversity. Your chess team will not be as good as it could be lol. Not because of some systemic sexism within the chess community against girls, but that there just aren't that many girls interested in chess (who haven't had the environments necessary to enjoy or try to get good at chess).

      Although one could say that ANY difference in representation is evidence of "sexism" or "racism", but I think at the point where that becomes the baseline for sexism/racism criteria, its negative connotations start to fade.

      And if my analogy drifts too far off-topic for you (for delving slightly into gender, instead of being exactly about race), swap out chess for professional basketball, and gender equality for racial equality, and the results should be relatively similar.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by theunabletable ().

    • Zalif wrote:

      Yes it's unfair that they don't have the same opportunities, but as I said I don't think remedying this retrospectively is fair.


      this remedy isn't "retrospective", as I already explained. Giving people access to education is how you improve their standing in the economy. If you have a good education you can get a good job, make good money, raise a family, and then give your kids a good education so that the cycle can continue.

      whereas, if you can't get an education and you can't get hired, you're going to stay where you are no matter how hard you work to fight against it.

      If an upper class person gets an A it's worth less than if a lower class person gets an A. That is something I just cannot agree with.


      you've got everything all out of balance. Upper-class people are already at an advantage above lower-class people. Affirmative action isn't about disadvantaging upper-class people, it's about advantaging lower-class people so that they are at the same level as the upper-class people.

      your end of the scale is already heavier. AA is about balancing it.

      Also, as I said, if people work hard enough they can succeed. I go to a school with a bad reputation, but I work and I do well. There are lots of lower class people who do the same. There also lots of others who don't care and don't try at all.

      I didn't say I had control over it. What I said was that my parents have worked for our advantage, which definitely is the case.


      assuming your parents were born white and above lower-class, they were already advantaged before they started working. Unless you're trying to suggest that racial minorities are not as hard of workers as white people (which would make you racist) the fact that they are disproportionately disadvantaged is not any fault of their own.

      a lower-class racial minority can work twice as hard as an upper-class white person and not even get half as far.

      Discrimination is treating a group differently based upon their gender, race, wealth etc. Making it easier for people to be accepted into university if they are of a certain race or social class IS discrimination.


      it's countering the discrimination that already exists. How can you counter existing discrimination without focusing on the groups that are being discriminated against?

      is making sure ramps are built alongside stairs so handicapped people can access the same places discrimination?

      pronouns: it/its or squi/squir
      ask me about my LGBTA+ and nonbinary Discord servers.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by gerudoyoshi ().

    • Nyarlko wrote:


      either white people are better off because the white race is superior, or it's because of racism. I'll let you figure it out.





      I'm not sure the thing you're referring to can be explicitly labelled "racism", at least in the sense that is is happening currently ("treatment" implies either "action" or "specifically-directed inaction"). Would you mind elaborating on why you believe it is?

      John wrote:



      And yes, most people are inherently discriminatory. We like people who look "normal" better than people who look foreign. This goes so far that simply having a foreign-sounding name greatly reduces your odds of being interviewed for a job by something like 50%; even if you submit (effectively) the same resume under different names.


      Would it not therefore be fairer to target such establishments directly, rather than targeting all of them?


      Oh, there should definitely be AA for people who earn below the poverty line. But racism is also a fairly large factor that needs to be accounted for.


      Would "accounting for racism" not lead to some poor white people gaining less of an advantage than equally-poor black people?
    • Double A wrote:

      Would it not therefore be fairer to target such establishments directly, rather than targeting all of them?

      The research shows that it is all of them.

      Would "accounting for racism" not lead to some poor white people gaining less of an advantage than equally-poor black people?

      Yes, because the black people are still at more of a disadvantage than the white people.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!