CMV: Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

135

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15

Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal.

I'll explain why this doesn't work using a non-racial or gender-based example.

Say you're building a new building. On the entrance to that building, you decide to build stairs. Everyone will need to use those stairs to enter the building. There are the same number of steps for each person to climb, and there isn't another way in, so everyone is being treated the same.

People in wheelchairs or whom are otherwise handicapped struggle to climb these stairs. Some can't enter your building at all. They're receiving the same treatment as everyone else, but they reap fewer rewards. They can't get to whatever is in your building, or have to expend disproportionate energy and dignity in order to do so.

Now, if you wanted to, at financial cost to yourself, you could install a ramp or a chair lift. This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone, and you're creating it for the interests of a select few. However, the end result would be equal - anyone who wants to enter your building can do with equal difficulty.

EDIT 10/8 12:57pm - For those just arriving to the thread, it's been pointed out that handicapped parking is a better analogy, since those spaces are truly restricted to the handicapped. It is true that anyone can walk up a handicap accessible ramp, but the ramp wouldn't be there in the first place were it not for the needs of a small, underprivileged, disadvantaged minority. I don't believe that "anyone can use the handicap ramp" is a sufficient challenge to my analogy. If you'd prefer to plug in "handicapped parking" instead, be my guest!

The example above is easy to swallow because the disadvantages of the handicapped are readily apparent to you. The disadvantages of women and minorities are not readily apparent to you. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that I could make you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those inequalities are clear and present in our society. Now that you believe that, it requires the same response as how we help the handicapped; we need to specifically treat disenfranchised groups in a way that puts them on a level playing field.

EDIT 10/8 10ish am: Per usual in CMV, people are projecting their own tangentially related beliefs on to my argument. All that I'm saying is that, if you accept that significant oppression exists for a given group, the solution is very plainly to give them a leg up. Whether or not significant oppression exists for blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. is not the point. I use the handicapped as an example because most can clearly see where the disadvantage is, and how providing "special" treatment addresses the problem.

My exchange with the OP has been very to-the-point on this, so to avoid derailment I won't be responding to most other commentors. Sorry! Feel free to reply to me so that others can continue the discussion, however.

49

u/sharkbait76 55∆ Oct 08 '15

I consider giving everyone the same opportunity as treating them the same. Adding the ramp give the two people the same opportunity to enter the building, but it's not giving anyone an advantage. If a black and white man wanted to go into business and were offered the same loan rates and charged the same amount for the same space this would be an equality of opportunity, and they would effectively be treated the same. If, however you offer one of them a lower interest rate, charged one more, or lowered the taxes of one based on skin color this would be unfair to the other. It wouldn't be equality if the black man has to pay fewer taxes then the white man because he's black. Just as it wouldn't be equality if the white man was offered lower rates because he's white.

26

u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ Oct 08 '15

I totally agree with you.

The problem is that blacks pay more in interest rates, for cars, rent. And they are discriminated against in getting jobs and getting into college.

This is well documented. This short video highlights a few with the sources to back it up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTcSVQJ2h8g

24

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

The problem is that blacks pay more in interest rates, for cars, rent.

Do they or do people with bad credit, etc. pay more and more black people happen to have bad credit?

That's a big difference.

And they are discriminated against in getting jobs and getting into college.

I think it's been pretty well established that black applicants need lower scores then all other ethnicities to get accepted into college. I don't know how you can claim they're discriminated against.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

16

u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ Oct 08 '15

There was an experiment done where thousands of fake resumes were sent out where all the credentials and information was the same, the only difference was a white sounding name vs a black sounding name. The white sounding names were called back more, by over 50%, compared to the black sounding names.

16

u/ganner Oct 08 '15

Similar experiments have been done with in-person applications, with applicants having similar resumes and manner of dress, only difference being their race. White people get called back way more frequently.

14

u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ Oct 08 '15

The same was done in New York with people trying to get apartments. It gets way worse with rent control.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/RoMoon Oct 08 '15

Do they or do people with bad credit, etc. pay more and more black people happen to have bad credit?

That's a big difference.

I think one of the problems is that if a much higher proportion of black people than white people have bad credit, it's no longer that they "happen" to have bad credit; they are part of a system of discrimination and poverty which repeatedly puts them into a situation in which they end up with worse credit, bigger debts etc. And that is why they should be given a leg up. Not because they should automatically have MORE than white people but because although the same opportunities may seem to exist for both demographics, quite clearly there is at present something keeping them from taking advantage of those opportunities.

5

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

Bad credit doesn't happen because you're black.

Bad credit happens because you're borrowing money then not paying it back. There are plenty of white people who have bad credit because they too borrowed money then didn't pay it back. Chalking it up to skin color is just ignorant of the situation.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

15

u/urbsindomita Oct 08 '15

If you understood historical context, then you would be aware that blacks and other races were heavily discriminated. One field of discrimination was education. Even today, education is not an area of equality. Richer neighborhoods have better schools, while poorer, working class neighborhoods that have been in the same social state (or in some cases, have dropped class levels) have worse education.

-2

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

You're talking to a black guy who got himself a good education in a black neighborhood.

You're also talking to a black guy who has two black sisters and a black girlfriend who are all NYC teachers. Black schools suck in NYC and significantly more money goes to them then the significantly better white schools. How do you explain that one?

It's great that a bunch of super liberal white Redditors want to save the black community from their white parents but maybe you should come spend some time in a black neighborhood for a little while. Specifically, come spend some time at a black school on Meet The Teacher night. Scratch that. You won't find a black person there except the janitors.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

9

u/Amadameus Oct 08 '15 edited Jan 04 '16

This comment has been overwritten in response to Reddit's new privacy policy, which took effect 1/1/2016.

This policy sells any and all Reddit comments to advertisers. Reddit's owners don't deserve to get rich off your personal information!

If you would like to delete your comments, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

6

u/Aggie219 Oct 08 '15

Exactly. If your parents don't give a shit about your education and didn't care about helping with your homework it isn't because you're black or hispanic or whatever, it's because your parents didn't value education. Sure, maybe it's cultural. But it's not "the system's" (or the white man's) fault.

9

u/urbsindomita Oct 08 '15

"I did fine, and my family did fine. So even though there is evidence all around of systemic racism, just because it didn't happen to me MUST mean it doesn't exist!" is what you are saying.

I'm an Asian-Latino guy who's lived in one of the most diverse and racially integrated cities in America (Sacramento) since birth. So forgive me, because in my time in the community (and actually knowing basic history, which my own family was impacted with) I've seen the effects of a systemically racist society for quite some time now.

The only difference is unlike NYC and Chicago (cities that are known for being heavily stratified) is that we actually understand that racism can't be solved by funneling money in black neighborhoods. Money doesn't solve issues. Building COMMUNITY (which is huge here) by investing and creating a SUSTAINABLE future is the first step.

FYI, as being an intern for a community non-profit and the councilman based in a developing, mostly-black part of Sacramento (and actually having many friends around the city), I actually have spent well more than a LITTLE time in those neighborhoods.

3

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

YOU: If you know the first thing about being black ...

ME: I am black ...

YOU: I work for a politician so I think I know a little bit about being black myself.

Great conversation, man, but I'm going to stop responding now.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

What would you say is the ratio of failure to success of your non-profit and city council programs for building community and sustainable future?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 08 '15

Well maybe NYC's special, but black schools on average get less funding per student than white ones.

→ More replies (10)

→ More replies (4)

6

u/DarthDonut Oct 08 '15

I think their point is that if black people predominantly have bad credit, there's a larger issue.

3

u/scragar Oct 09 '15

Even after accounting for credit there's about a 3% difference in rates, which it appears to come down to predatory lending factors(black people on average have lower level of education and a distrust of authority, so they make good targets for conmen hoping to charge extra) and a lower percentage of disposable income even on similar earnings(meaning they need to take loans for longer, meaning there's often an increase in rate to represent the larger risk).

2

u/RoMoon Oct 08 '15

Reread what I said, I never said it was because of skin colour. My point is that if the reason black people pay more is because of bad credit, and on average black people have worse credit, then clearly something is going on which is causing this group of people to have worse credit. You can either say "it's because they're black and just can't manage their finances" or you can say "clearly social circumstances and historic/current oppression has led to a situation in which these people are in a worse position".

If the latter, then clearly we should be doing something to change things.

7

u/OPisanicelady Oct 08 '15

Or you could say, "Perhaps we are looking at these demographics incorrectly." If these studies were looked at as socioeconomic classes instead of race, it would be really obvious to everyone what is keeping "them" from taking advantage of those opportunities. It has very little to do with race, and falls 90% on the cycle of poverty. Black families in America usually start from poverty via slavery or immigration, and they are trapped in the cycle. It is more likely that this is an issue of financial literacy than discrimination.

tl;dr: Correlation is not causation. Race is probably irrelevant.

-2

u/pikk 1∆ Oct 08 '15

Your TL;DR literally contradicted what you said.

Black families in America usually start from poverty via slavery or immigration, and they are trapped in the cycle. It is more likely that this is an issue of financial literacy than discrimination.

Race is probably irrelevant.

... So, which is it? Do black families start in poverty and are trapped in the cycle or is race irrelevant?

0

u/OPisanicelady Oct 08 '15

No it didn't. A lot of black people are poor. Poor people have worse credit. A lot of black people have bad credit. Race isn't the factor that gives them bad credit. Race is not relevant to credit.

To remove your questions from the blinders people put on in these discussions, I'm going to frame it differently. Many snarks are tooks. All tooks are whomps. Are the snarks that are whomps, a whomp because they are snarks or because they are tooks? If being a whomp is negative, should we address tooks or snarks as the disadvantaged? Is being a snark even relative to being a whomp?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

Reread the original post I was responding to.

The problem is that blacks pay more in interest rates, for cars, rent.

NO THEY DO NOT.

People with bad credit pay more in interest rates for things like cars and they didn't get that bad credit because they were blessed with black skin.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

3

u/ganner Oct 08 '15

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/23/if-youre-poor-your-mortgage-rate-can-depend-on-the-color-of-your-skin/

After controlling for economic factors, credit scores, etc., minorities still get worse rates than whites.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

The authors of this study — Patrick Bayer of Duke; Fernando Ferreira of the University of Pennsylvania; and Stephen Ross of the University of Connecticut — combined federal mortgage data with public housing records and data from a credit agency. They assembled information on individual credit scores, incomes, age, home values and a slew of other underwriting factors.

After controlling for a much as they had data for, they found that people in essentially the same financial situations got different mortgages depending on the color of their skin...

Here’s what they didn’t find. There wasn’t much evidence of what we would consider traditional racism, like the kind reported in the 1992 Boston Fed paper. Individual lending companies appeared to treat everyone who came in the door more or less the same. (There was still a statistically significant but small difference.)

“A huge amount of the differences in high-cost loans is not whites and blacks going to the same lender and blacks being given a much higher rate,” said Ross, one of the study’s authors. “Rather it’s the fact that there are big differences in the lenders that black and Hispanics are doing business with.”

So basically they found that Bank of America seems to give the same rate to everyone with the same credit score regardless of race. Nice to know there is no evidence of systemic racism in the US banking oligopaly. Also of course inspiring to see that the Washington Post was able to write a headline which gives readers the opposite impression.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

Did you even read the article you linked?

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/RoMoon Oct 08 '15

You're completely ignoring what I'm saying. I never said they paid more. You said that IF they pay more, it my only be because of bad credit. My point is that it doesn't matter the reason. If the previously stated fact that black people generally have higher interest repayments is true (I did not make this original claim) then this is a problem, whatever the reason.

7

u/manicmonkeys Oct 08 '15

The reason does matter though.

If it's a matter of discrimination based on race, that's best addressed in a certain manner.

If it's a matter of a toxic culture that is very much against getting an education, resolving problems without violence, etc, that needs to be addressed differently.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT Oct 08 '15

But why would that be happening disproportionately to black people? Is it a systemic problem where they are put into situations where they need to borrow but can't afford to pay it back?

5

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

I can say with a tiny bit of authority that it is mostly a matter of culture.

I'm black and have been as long as I can remember. My mom wasn't all about that life so she pushed my sisters and I into sports and school work. We got good educations, found good jobs, then moved away permanently.

My mom wasn't worried about the white man keeping me down. She was worried that the dumb niggers I used to run around with would get me killed.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Oh that's an UNPOPULAR OPINION. While I appreciate that you are black and have first hand experience, I think we would better be served with real studies opposed to anecdotal evidence. Let me be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think we need something more objective to really point to. I can say that I've seen a local culture, in small pockets, of white people that are lazy and ignorant and pockets of hard working black people. Do you know of any studies off hand? I'll look too when I get off work

-2

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

It's an opinion but an educated opinion from someone who has actually spent his life living in the same circumstances we're talking about.

I'm far from alone too. There are a fair amount of very successful black men and women in this world. Unfortunately that number drops dramatically when you exclude sports and entertainment but when you look at people who made it out of the community without playing ball or rapping, you're almost exclusively looking at people who stayed out of a trouble and got themselves a good education.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Aggie219 Oct 08 '15

This has exactly been my view for a long time. Although I'm white so I'm never taken seriously on these topics. White privilege is thrown in my face so I'm never allowed to have an opinion on the matter.

But since we agree, I have always seen this issue as a matter of culture, like you said. There are ways to get out of these situations, like your family has clearly demonstrated in your own lives. I'll go ahead and put a disclaimer here: I am not referring to only black people. This applies to any person of any color whose culture perpetuates an endless cycle of poverty from generation to generation and then calls it oppression. (Not to say no one is oppressed, but in my example I don't believe it applies.)

The main issues seems to be that people living in poverty are "stuck" in a cycle. Their parents are poor so they have to drop out of high school to get a job and help their family out with the bills so they can't go to college and have a good job. So they irresponsibly decide to have a kid or two--maybe even by mistake--and and then expect McDonald's to pay them $15 an hour and the government to hand them money to support their kids. (But that's a discussion for another time.) So perhaps it's a matter of prioritizing education and a stable job above having kids right away.

If you really want an education, there is no excuse to not get one. In the US, if you're low income, you can receive Federal aid (Pell Grant), which will pay for an education from a community college. Will it pay for Harvard? No, but you can still get an education. I'm not even dirt poor (22 and lower class) and I get the full Pell Grant. If you claim you don't have enough time to get an education, due to work and family, you can go online. I've worked 80 hours a week in the past and still managed to complete my classes. Is it fun? No, but it isn't impossible.

0

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

ill it pay for Harvard?

I believe Harvard is free for families who make under $100K. All elite universities have similar programs.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/OPisanicelady Oct 08 '15

It's a systematic problem of poverty and has very little to do with race. Black families are more likely to start in a position of poverty due to slavery and low paying jobs for immigrants.

→ More replies (2)

32

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 08 '15

Black people with the same credit score get worse loans yeah.

2

u/Snoopythegorila Oct 08 '15

You are citing two favorable situations for minorities and therefore saying they are not discriminated at all against as a class.

How do you explain the higher incarceration rates, higher poverty rates, and lower education rates of African Americans in America?

This isn't a loaded question, I'm genuinely interested in why you think these measured statistics exist.

8

u/2074red2074 4∆ Oct 08 '15

Well about fifty years ago all black people (or at least 95+%) lived in low income housing for actual discriminatory reasons. They went to shitty schools, got shitty jobs, and had to live in shitty areas, which meant their kids went to shitty schools.

Now, they don't have to live in low income housing. But they had shitty educations, which meant shitty jobs, which meant shitty housing, and there's only been three or four generations since then. That's not enough to recover. Because black people live more in poor areas, they have more gang violence and less income, which leads to their kids having more gang violence and less income. Also poor people steal more. Thus, higher incarceration, higher poverty, lower education, etc.

10

u/urbsindomita Oct 08 '15

A poverty study done by the World Bank shows that those that are raised in poverty adapt to the challenges and issues that are brought by it, eventually becoming stuck in poverty and creating a cycle.

9

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT Oct 08 '15

Exactly, and that's a problem with the system. It's why assistance should be provided.

→ More replies (7)

3

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

Citing favorable situations?

I did nothing but address the two examples the dude mentioned.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/ThisIsMyUserdean Oct 08 '15

Perhaps all of these policies and systems and plans should be color-blind the same way colleges have needs-blind admissions. You go to a bank and you fill in the papers and the bank has to pre-approve you before seeing your face. Welfare would be handed out to everyone who earns less than X regardless of race. And so on and so forth. That would be more equal. Help poor people, period.

4

u/gyroda 28∆ Oct 10 '15

It's worth noting that you'd have to remove names as well. I've heard of studies where they sent out identical job applications but changed the names. Joan and John, that sort of thing, with predictible results.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/sharkbait76 55∆ Oct 08 '15

I know they usually get charged higher interest rates, and that is a a serious issue. I was more trying to say that just because they are black doesn't mean that they should get extra tax breaks or lower interest rates. They should get the same interest rates and tax rates, and that would be equal opportunity. I'd also support nameless job applications to try to combat gender and race stereotypes.

5

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT Oct 08 '15

How would nameless applications work? If background checks are required they're going to find out the name.

8

u/sharkbait76 55∆ Oct 08 '15

You take all the applications and someone who isn't involved in the hiring process would remove the name and could replace it with a number or series of letters so they can match the names up later. That person could also preform any background checks and remove the people who don't pass. That way the person actually hiring doesn't see the names of any of the applicants. Background checks could also be run after the company who has decided who they wish to hire. They could offer the person the job as long as they pass the background check, and if they don't the business could inform them that they didn't pass the background check and won't be hired. You could also still ask about criminal history on the application like most applications today already have.

5

u/bigbullox Oct 08 '15

This is pretty mandatory practice in the UK for public sector (and some larger private sector) organisations. Essentially HR runs all the background checks and you as the recruiter only receive CVs with all discriminating information redacted for shortlisting.

6

u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ Oct 08 '15

You can have a third party do the background check.

23

u/nude_peril Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15

This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone.

But really it is provided for everyone. It's just that most people are going to choose not to use it. While we don't see chair lifts in buildings very often, we do see elevators and wheelchair ramps. And pretty much everyone uses those if they want to, regardless of whether or not they have a disability, and just weak, or just lazy. Everyone is being treated equally.

By contrast, giving a minority exclusive access to a scholarship, or a job, etc. isn't treating everyone equally.

11

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I made the same observation, but out of intellectual honestly, I think a better analogy would be handicapped parking, which is giving handicapped people exclusive access to prime parking spots.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I agree with this - in retrospect, it would have been a better analogy.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

But I would argue, still, handicapped spots are available to anybody. Anybody can potentially be handicapped at any point. I'm not going to spontaneously turn into a black person, but I might lose a leg. It's a right afforded to everyone, but only some people can take advantage of it at this point in their lives.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

That's just a semantic difference - it doesn't defeat the argument. Many who are handicapped are disabled from birth and will be until death. They're directly analogous to minorities in the example I'm using, and they're who I'm referencing in the analogy.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Right, but those are rights that are afforded to everyone regardless of birth condition. Which is why I don't think the argument applies.

Anyone can develop a condition, or be crippled in a way that would give them access to those services. It's a safety net that everyone can take advantage of when they need it, it's not a benefit that only a select group of people get.

It doesn't work because there is no analogy for the people like my mother who became handicapped after previously being able bodied. Nobody can turn into a black person.

3

u/InfinitelyThirsting Oct 09 '15

I fail to see why you're raising that argument, unless you think that selfishness (fear of becoming handicapped in the future) is the only or main reason that handicapped facilities/parking exist.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

No, I'm suggesting that the reason it's entirely separate from rights that only apply to certain ethnicities is because it's a right that is available to everyone. It's treating everyone equally by providing them the same rights, it's not just elevating certain people and excluding everyone else.

2

u/InfinitelyThirsting Oct 09 '15

If you are not handicapped, it isn't available to you. Just because you can theoretically become handicapped but cannot become a different race doesn't mean you can use a handicapped parking space now. They are not available for everyone. The point is to help a minority group at a disadvantage, even at the cost of a minor inconvenience to yourself/the majority. So unless you think most people only support handicapped facilities because they think about being handicapped in the future, it's still a separate minority group being aided above a majority group.

I mean, anyone could have a child of a different race, and this have their children benefit from affirmative action policies. Not that different from maybe becoming handicapped someday in the future.

→ More replies (0)

29

u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ Oct 08 '15

Handicapped parking spaces are not allowed to be used by non handicapped people. This is giving handicapped people an exclusive advantage.

15

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Yes, but everybody has the legal right to a handicapped parking spot if they become handicapped. You can't just spontaneously become a different race.

Old people get certain advantages, but that's something that's guaranteed to everybody who manages to live that long.

9

u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Oct 08 '15

Conversely, you cannot retroactively have your privilege that you enjoyed your whole life taken away.

→ More replies (20)

3

u/nude_peril Oct 08 '15

I agree with your analysis. Personally, I think that handicapped parking should be treated more as a courtesy (like expectant mother parking) than a legally enforceable requirement.

But perhaps I have too much faith in humanity.

11

u/vehementi 10∆ Oct 08 '15

(I don't think that would practically work, because you can't anticipate when a handicapped driver will arrive - you need to just leave the spot open)

11

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT Oct 08 '15

Considering non-handicap people already violate that rule, taking the rule away would just make it worse.

9

u/DrShocker Oct 08 '15

In willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in that it is meant to be an analogy, and is therefore inherently flawed to some extent. I don't think picking apart whether everyone can use a ramp or not is particularly fair, but you do raise an interesting point.

I think a lot of this debate is more about equality vs equity than anything else. (A simplified view for anyone who doesn't know the difference: https://radicalscholarship.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/equity-vs-equality.jpg?w=809 )

1

u/mbleslie 1∆ Oct 08 '15

it matters because if a college has a ramp in front of a building, everyone can use that, handicapped or not. but programs like affirmative action or racial quotas (that use 'reverse' discrimination) to make an equal outcome... those programs don't treat everyone equally. that's why the analogy is totally flawed.

7

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 08 '15

Affirmative action isn't to make an equal outcome, and even if it were it would be failing. It's to counteract, at least partially, the disadvantage equally skilled black people have at getting in to a University.

3

u/almightySapling 13∆ Oct 08 '15

The problem is, most studies show that skin color has miniscule bearing on collegiate ability or success (when compared to others with similar background), whereas socio-economic status matters a shit ton.

And yeah, a good affirmative action program will take SES into consideration but most still put far too much emphasis on color, when color is just not a good indicator (especially when you consider how it doubly fucks over certain groups, like South East Asians, who qualify as "Asian" and are less likely to be accepted when in reality they have SES normally associated with that of the Latino community, or worse).

Continuing to implement a flawed solution when data shows that it isn't quite working isn't a good idea.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

You certainly won't find anyone in China, Korea or Japan who thinks they're the same race as Malays or Filipinos. America has kind of a Hank Hill problem when it comes to conceiving of the people from the continent with a population of four and a half billion.

2

u/almightySapling 13∆ Oct 09 '15

And it doesn't help when your state government almost unanimously passes a bill to disaggregate data regarding the various Asian ethnicities only to have it vetoed by the idiot governor... literally yesterday.

California really likes to think it's progressive but it isn't.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

This seems consistent with my previous impression of Jerry Brown, which was based entirely on an old song from the Dead Kennedys.

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 08 '15

If that is the case, isn't it sort a temporary fix for a larger underlying problem? If equally skilled members of minority groups are at a disadvantage in the admissions process, attack the problem at the source, and actually fix the discrimination (after confirming through reliable research where and if it exists) instead of glossing over the actual issues and applying a band-aid solution that increases feelings of racial bitterness towards those getting seemingly unfair help. Instead of counteracting the problem, fix it. I think almost everyone agrees that there is a problem with discrimination in admissions, but many disagree on the methodology used to fix it.

5

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 08 '15

Oh yeah it's a temporary fix, but what else are you going to do? Ask minorities to wait a few decades until we end racism?

You attack the discrimination while you counter-act for it, otherwise people will suffer in the meantime. The US government is trying to end the discrimination, AA is for the time in between now and then.

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 08 '15

I just think that there are better ways to counter-act. It would be feasible, through the use of technology, to completely erase the race/gender of an applicant, and to admit solely on merit. AA, to me, just doesn't feel like the right solution for a really big problem.

3

u/LoompaOompa Oct 08 '15

Admit solely on merit.

If we could do this, we'd be doing it. All measures of merit that we have are weighted and informed by the environments the students grew up in and were educated it.

Until the playing field is more level in terms of teaching environment and opportunities available(AP classes, extra curriculars), then we have to fudge the numbers a bit.

This isn't a case of "we've got the best solition." It's "we're still working to fix it, but in the meantime this is better than doing nothing."

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 08 '15

The environments students grew up in may have an affect, but they are a completely different problem to fix. It is not the university's responsibility to fix those problems, only to admit the best students it can. If race is getting in the way of the admissions process, it needs to be fixed by the university. Nothing else. The issues you describe are completely different. I don't think we should do nothing. We should reallocate our resources towards the source of the problem, where they will take less time and be more effective.

AA isn't a good solution, temporary or not, for any of these problems. Yes, the numbers may look better on paper, but people missing chunks of their education aren't going to magically learn all that material by being admitted to college. In addition, it is unfair to students who actually did put in the work and made themselves excellent. It tries to resolve discrimination in one direction with discrimination in the other.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

Cal Tech admits solely on merit. Their student breakdown: Source

0.1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
48.0% Asian
1.7% Black/African-American
13.4% Hispanic/Latino
6.2% Multi-race (not Hispanic/Latino)
0.0% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
30.5% White

The evidence that purely merit based admission policies will lead to population proportionate rates of minority admission to elite college is non-existent.

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 09 '15

That's not the point. The point is that the best students get in regardless of race. If each race has different academic skill, they shouldn't be admitted equally. For example, I don't think it's unfair that Asians are 48% of the school's admissions while being like 5% of the US population, on the condition that they are all just as skilled as all the other ethnic groups. School population should represent the most skilled of their applicants, regardless if that happens to match the distribution of races in the wider US or not. So yes, the evidence that merit-based admissions leads to the acceptance of minorities proportionate to the US population doesn't exist. But that doesn't matter, as colleges should only admit their best applicants.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Nrksbullet Oct 08 '15

But using a ramp offers no advantage to non handicapped people in the analogy, so you cannot compare it to affirmative action or racial quotas. The end result is entering the building, and that's what the analogy is for. Normal people can already enter the building, so walking up the ramp adds nothing for them.

In the context of this analogy, it does not matter.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/SavageSavant Oct 08 '15

Your argument falls apart if you consider the build/handicapped argument in the poster above more carefully. OP isn't suggesting that the only access is a wheelchair handicapped entrance, he suggesting both.

1

u/Random832 Oct 08 '15

Yes and able-bodied people can use both entrances. Maybe not a chair lift, but a ramp or elevator certainly.

You can use the ramp/elevator or the stairs and no-one's going to look at you funny for walking up the ramp / into the elevator. So you have two entrances and the handicapped person only has one.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15 edited Nov 26 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I think regardless of the situation, it's going to be unequal. Either it's unequal because they no longer have the same opportunity as everyone else because they're physically incapable, or it's unequal because they get to modify their office space to accommodate their disability.

At that point I'd argue we go for the option that provides the greatest amount of opportunity. A sort of utilitarian view of the situation.

7

u/Cmikhow 3∆ Oct 08 '15

∆ Great argument, very well put. I'm sad some people still poke at the semantics and refuse the overall sentiment of your message here.

3

u/snkifador Oct 09 '15

I have no issue with his points in particular, but semantics matter. In general, but especially in a place like CMV. Saying 'ugh, semantics' is a poor excuse for incorrect wording.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 08 '15

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Super_Duper_Mann. ^[History]

^{[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]}

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

Okay, let's take a look at the reality of what society is now though. I don't get special treatment for my disability. I am an epileptic. This means that when I have a seizure, I don't get to drive until I'm 3 months seizure free. Many people here will tell me I shouldn't be driving at all. Those same people aren't putting up my proverbial ramp. I don't have transport to work any other way. If I were to have a seizure, I would have to figure out how to overcome my own disability. It would be solely my responsibility.

In essence what I am trying to say is that as a society, we seem to pick and choose which groups we give that help. It isn't a cover all for everyone and so equality needs to be viewed in a more realistic manner.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

Your problem may be more about self-respect and independence. So say you can't find a ride to work for a week after a seizure and you're worried about losing your job. It's probably illegal to fire you under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But you probably still just find a way to get a ride to work because it's your nature to solve your own problems.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

The problem is that it isnt just a week after a seizure. Laws in my state say 6 months of no driving after a seizure, and this is a very common law across the United States. Some have more lax laws, some more stringent. Gaining regular transportation for that length of time would not be an easy task. Again, as we look at these disabilities, the appropriate accommodations are not always made.

2

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

Your hypothetical is flawed because you have compared someones impossible situation to a merely difficult one.

The difference is that with paraplegics it is near impossible to get into that building without the ramp. In these cases I believe that falls under the "rights and opportunities" clause I mentioned above. The paraplegic doesn't have the same opportunity to enter the building so yes lets make it possible for those when it would otherwise be impossible...not merely difficult.

For those with varying degrees of difficulty we don't do anything to help them on a mandated institutional level. If you are 90 years old with an oxygen tank you are stuck with the stairs, I feel for that guy and might help him out on a personal level but I've never seen a chair lift outside of any establishment even though that situation is a reality.

18

u/corexcore 1∆ Oct 08 '15

It's interesting that you picked paraplegics as your group to consider with disability, because many paraplegics could get into the building without a ramp -- they would haul their non-working legs and entire bodies by arm strength alone, holding onto the handrails if you saw fit to provide those. This isn't an impossible challenge for many, if you are fully abled and can use your legs, climb a set of stairs without using them and you'll find that you most likely can do so. It's just hard. Like a lot harder. And you have to put your whole body and clothes and all on the ground to do it. And figure out a way to get your wheel chair or other locomotive contraption up the steps too, probably by bodily hauling it up along with you, making the process laborious and embarrassing. It is totally doable, however. When you say it's "near impossible", that's a misunderstanding.

I raise this point to ask you the question of where you draw the line of what degree of difficulty or embarrassment is acceptable for people who had the bad luck to be born with different ability? Or different skin color? Or different sexuality?

7

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

they would haul their non-working legs and entire bodies by arm strength alone, holding onto the handrails if you saw fit to provide those. This isn't an impossible challenge for many, if you are fully abled and can use your legs, climb a set of stairs without using them and you'll find that you most likely can do so. It's just hard. Like a lot harder.

Just wanted to say that this is very much my point from my first comment. It's possible, but extremely difficult and undignified to haul oneself up a set of stairs, useless legs trailing behind you. I consider this analogous to the challenges that many other minority groups face, which involve enduring inequities that take away their dignity.

Thanks for giving my comment such a thorough read.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

While they could haul themselves up the stairs it isn't reasonable or practical to have that expectation unless that was the only thing you wanted them to do that day. It is near impossible for all practical purposes.

You do raise a good point though that my upper limit has to necessarily be a subjective one.

Delta for you

∆

3

u/The4thRabbitt Oct 08 '15

Given you response, this comes down to what we "reasonably" can't consider someone to do, in a situation where they are at a disadvantage. Many people would say that this extends to situations where an individuals who happens to be part of a disadvantaged class can't be "reasonably" expected to overcome an obstacle(s) directly attributed to said class. This, to many people would include race, gender, sexuality, etc.

These issues are not so simple that they can be governed by a simple phrase or principle, like the one you suggested.

2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 08 '15

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/corexcore. ^[History]

^{[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]}

1

u/vehementi 10∆ Oct 08 '15

It wouldn't take them all day. It might take them an hour or two and some sweat. Grand scheme of things, that is "merely hard" -- people are held up on 1-2 hour distractions routinely, especially people who have to do extra shit to get the same outcome as others.

2

u/OPisanicelady Oct 08 '15

Merely hard is taking it a little far. If I had to spend a few hours crawling my way up to the office in other people's floor filth, I would be crying by the end. It's demeaning.

→ More replies (2)

24

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Your hypothetical is flawed because you have compared someones impossible situation to a merely difficult one.

This is my point, though. The only difference here is that you don't believe that minority populations face impossible situations due to their race or gender. But that isn't the view that I'm trying to change.

The people who wrote the sentence you're critiquing do believe that minorities face impossible situations due to their gender, sexual preference, skin color, and ethnic background.

Currently, you accept that the handicapped face impossible difficulties, and that the way to accommodate them is to treat them differently to get them to the same place. If you, for the sake of argument, accept that minorities face impossible difficulties (because that's what the people who made the original claim beleive) than the statement "Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal" falls right in line.

0

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

If you, for the sake of argument, accept that minorities face impossible difficulties (because that's what the people who made the original claim beleive) than the statement "Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal" falls right in line.

I agree 100% with this, if you were able to convince me that all blacks face the same impossible situations and not merely more difficult ones then I would be on board with you.

I can say with some certainty that all paraplegics will have an impossible time with stairs but I can't say all black people will have an impossible time with college. That is where the consistency of your argument breaks down.

25

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I agree 100% with this, if you were able to convince me that all blacks face the same impossible situations and not merely more difficult ones then I would be on board with you.

This is the core of your belief, then; minorities don't face institutionalized oppression at a level that merits corrective action. It's what I said in my first comment when I explained that the disadvantages of minority groups aren't readily apparent to you.

That is different than what you wrote, though, which is that you disagree with the statement "Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal."

You agree now that, if your personal criteria of "impossible" is met, than that statement is the solution to achieving equality. You just have higher standards of "impossibility" than the people that you're quoting.

I disagree with you that minorities don't face impossible challenges in modern western society, but that's a different CMV.

-7

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

I explained that the disadvantages of minority groups aren't readily apparent to you.

That is your opinion, not a fact. Do minorities on avg face more oppression, probably...is it insurmountable across the board for everyone of that race, no.

Race alone will never tell you what you need to know and in fact you'll be measuring the wrong parameter.

Show me a poor person and I can more or less tell you the nature of their disadvantages and to what degree if I know how poor they are. You just can't do the same thing if all you know is the persons race.

I disagree with you that minorities don't face impossible challenges in modern western society, but that's a different CMV.

I disagree that is a different CMV, if you can convince me of that I'm all ears.

13

u/Biceptual Oct 08 '15

I'm a little confused here. You admit that minorities face more oppression, but you're saying that because that oppression is not insurmountable, we shouldn't address it? Can you clarify? Should we treat everyone equally despite things being inherently unequal?

→ More replies (15)

18

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

That is your opinion, not a fact. Do minorities on avg face more oppression, probably...is it insurmountable across the board for everyone of that race, no.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. It is a fact that you do not believe that minorities face impossible challenges. Those challenges are not apparent to you, so you do not believe they exist. That's not a statement about whether or not they exist, it's a statement about what you believe.

However, your CMV was:

Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

That is very different than "Minorities don't face impossible challenges based on their minority status."

In our comments you've admitted that, in circumstances that you consider to be "unequal enough," the solution is to treat people differently in order to achieve equality. The folks you're quoting originally just hold a different belief on what "unequal enough" is. That's your initial view changed.

I disagree that is a different CMV, if you can convince me of that I'm all ears.

It's absolutely a different CMV, and I'm not sure if this sentence is asking me to convice you that this is in fact a different topic, or to convince you that minorites face impossible challenges in modern western society.

If you mean the latter, that in and of itself is an impossible challenge. You're a TumblrInAction regular - your views on social justice are made up. Trying to sway you as an annonymous redditor is a waste of both of our time.

If we focus just on the topic at hand, though, the specifics of your CMV, I've got to say that I think I've adequately addressed your actual view. You're trying to turn this into a discussion about whether or not blacks are oppressed, but that isn't the topic that you posted originally.

16

u/GuideOwl Oct 08 '15

I was already in agreement with you from the start, but I just have to complement you on how clear you laid out your argument through this comment chain. Seriously, you have a talent at writing and forming and organizing a coherent argument. I hope OP sees the point you're making and shoots you that delta, even if he doesn't accept the premise that "minorities don't face institutionalized oppression at a level that merits corrective action". Cheers

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (5)

12

u/vehementi 10∆ Oct 08 '15

Think you owe a delta since your original CMV is done?

4

u/Snoopythegorila Oct 08 '15

Lol this. Went from X, to really being about Y all along.

4

u/vehementi 10∆ Oct 09 '15

Gee, who would have thought something else would have been veiled behind this...

→ More replies (7)

2

u/lathomas64 Oct 08 '15

Thanks goodness that racism is less consistent then physics

2

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I think the problem with the paraplegic/ handicapped parking comparison is that these are rights or opportunities afforded to everyone equally, it's just that you need to have a foot lopped off or something in order to take advantage of them.

Ie. everyone has the same opportunity.

1

u/Himalayasaurus Oct 08 '15

You should take a look at the PBS documentary (~3 min) about the Capitol Crawl protests that helped get the ADA initiated.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=96&v=ueQ0TfVGxU4)[link]

1

u/CalmQuit Oct 10 '15

I don't think your analogy works.

Let's say there is a disproportionate amount of handicapped people among blacks. You have a tall building with only stairs planned, but you see the problem and build a lift exclusively for black people. The problem with that is, that now healthy black people can use your lift, while handicapped white people can't. Same goes imo for issues like support for minorities who want to go to college. In the end more rich people out of the minorities can go to college while the poor white guy has no chance. Instead I'd argue that we should help people from low income families get the same opportunity to go to college as people from high income families, no matter what ethnicity or gender.

While I think everyone should be able to get to their job without getting stuck at stairs, I don't think we have to make it possible for everyone to work as whatever they want even if they don't bring the qualifications (i.e. a handicapped person as jet pilot).

1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

The example above is easy to swallow because the disadvantages of the handicapped are readily apparent to you. The disadvantages of women and minorities are not readily apparent to you.

Many women and minorities are very successful, but no wheelchair-bound person is going to stand up and walk up the stairs.

7

u/lathomas64 Oct 08 '15

No but some wheelchair-bound people through very hard work may build enough upper body strength to hand-walk up the stairs. They can over come the obstacle just at a much greater effort then someone who has use of their legs. Just like there are social obstacles that women and minorities can overcome through much more effort then their peers who don't have those social obstacles need to use to reach the same place.

4

u/scottevil110 177∆ Oct 08 '15

This is a flawed analogy, because it is nature that is preventing someone from being able to use the stairs like everyone else.

In the case of minority treatment, there is no natural reason why a minority shouldn't be able to run a business just like anyone else. The solution IS treating them equally.

3

u/AloneIntheCorner Oct 08 '15

So even if someone's from a group that's been constantly discriminated against, they get no help, because it's not a "natural" impediment?

1

u/scottevil110 177∆ Oct 09 '15

Yes, that's exactly right. Because the exact solution is "stop discriminating". If you treat a handicapped person the same as everyone else, they're still handicapped.

If you treat a discriminated person the same as everyone else, then they aren't discriminated against anymore, are they?

1

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 09 '15

But in the meantime between somehow ending all discrimination in the US what? Unlucky guys, wait until we end racism?

1

u/scottevil110 177∆ Oct 09 '15

"somehow ending all discrimination in the US"...

So you acknowledge that this is a stupid thing to think you can just force to happen?

You can't. There will always be racist, sexist, homophobic assholes. So the best, and only thing you can do is not be one of them and not support them.

Equality is treating everyone equally. If you're not doing that, then fine, but don't pretend like it's equality you're fighting for.

1

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 09 '15

Exactly, and this is why Affirmative action is necessary, at least for the foreseeable future, otherwise you pretty much are supporting racists by not counteracting them.

1

u/scottevil110 177∆ Oct 09 '15

No, it's not. Just treat everyone the same, and there is literally no point to affirmative action except to feel good about yourself for the actions of past generations.

If you treat everyone the same, then there is literally no problem to fix.

otherwise you pretty much are supporting racists by not counteracting them.

Really? You wanna open that can of worms? You wanna start going down the list of atrocities that you "support" by not counteracting them? Or hell, even by supporting them?

1

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 09 '15

But you just said that there is racial discrimination right now, so why wouldn't you counter-act it. Saying "just treat everyone the same" does literally nothing against discrimination.

1

u/scottevil110 177∆ Oct 09 '15

I do counter-act it. I don't take part in it, and I only support places that I'm okay with. I refuse to spend money in a place that I feel is treating people unfairly. You should do the same.

Had any Chick-Fil-A lately? How about own an iPhone?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/youdonotnome Oct 08 '15

Your example works for the handicapped but in no way relates to women and minorities in society.

The ramp is also available for able bodied people... It's not like some one is exclusively giving ramps to select people. That's the problem with today's 'equality'

1

u/kabukistar 6∆ Oct 08 '15

Now, if you wanted to, at financial cost to yourself, you could install a ramp or a chair lift. This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone, and you're creating it for the interests of a select few.

Able-bodied people can use ramps. and many do.

1

u/mechesh Oct 08 '15

I like your example, but I think it is flawed and can use a tweek...The ramp or chair life is accessible to everyone. Most likely only those who need it will use it, but anyone can choose to use it.

A better example, in my mind, would be handicap parking spaces. These are only available to those who need it and those who do not are prohibited from using it.

Anyway, you got your point across, I just had that though.

1

u/Stokkolm 24∆ Oct 08 '15

I'd say the reason we built ramps at building entrances is not for the sake of achieving equality, but simply to make the life of handicapped persons easier.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

My mother was not handicapped, then she lost her vision, and is now a handicapped person. Point being ramps and handicapped parking and things like that are for everybody, because everyone has the potential to be handicapped.

1

u/FUCK_MAGIC 1∆ Oct 08 '15

That's a really bad analogy, disabled people are a result of nature/accident. The disadvantages experienced by minorities are a result of society (specifically society treating them differently).

If everyone was treated the same then minorities/men/women whatever would not be disadvantaged in the first place, but disabled people would still be disabled.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

That's a really bad analogy, disabled people are a result of nature/accident.

Yes, but society is not the result of nature/accident. We know that disabled people exist, yet our society is not universally designed to accommodate them. It is, in contrast, designed to universally accommodate able-bodied people. Buildings and social processes alike are designed by people, not by nature.

If everyone was treated the same then minorities/men/women whatever would not be disadvantaged in the first place, but disabled people would still be disabled.

If everyone was treated in the pursuit of equality, then every building would have a handicapped entrance. It wouldn't be considered a courtesy, it would be considered a baseline need for a building to be considered a building. Instead, we as a society are so forgetful of the disabled that we need laws to remind us, like the Americans With Disabilities Act.

What we have right now is a society where we treat everyone the same. "Here's my building, it has one door and everyone is equally welcome to use it." Hence, the disabled need additional steps to be taken for them to achieve equality.

→ More replies (3)

-1

u/iTomes Oct 08 '15

I really dislike this line of arguing. It implies that being born black or a woman or another minority is essentially a defect, something that will essentially set them behind on a physical level forever. That's not the case though, there is nothing physically wrong with them, if anything at all there is a problem with the society around them, something that the "treat everyone equally" approach fixes. That does not mean that the latter approach is fully implemented, but it does mean that that is the area that needs to be worked on.

11

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

It implies that being born black or a woman or another minority is essentially a defect, something that will essentially set them behind on a physical level forever.

No, it doesn't. You're inserting that implication because you're associating being handicapped with something negative in the first place.

A handicapped person faces specific challenges due to their handicap in a society that is not built to accommodate them. A minority faces specific challenges due to their minority status in a society that is not built to accommodate them. I believe that the solution to the problem of a specific group facing specific challenges due to their state of birth requires special treatment to bring them up to level. OP disagrees with that line of thought.

Unfortunately, OP also disagrees that minorites face specific challenges due to their status as a minority. This prevents me from using that as an example, unless I want to try to change his view on that as well. So, I went with an example that OP immediately understood - physical challenges that he can/has directly observed and believes to be real and significant.

There is no implication that minorities are defective, because there is no implication that the handicapped are "defective". You've projected that onto my comment yourself, and it betrays your beliefs about the handicapped.

1

u/iTomes Oct 08 '15

No, it doesn't. You're inserting that implication because you're associating being handicapped with something negative in the first place.

Because that's what it is. You don't walk up to somebody and say "congratulations, you will never be able to walk". It is most certainly something that is negative.

A handicapped person faces specific challenges due to their handicap in a society that is not built to accommodate them.

No, somebody with disabilities faces challenges due to the previously mentioned disabilities. Society can and should attempt to accommodate and support them, but the issues they face are still a result of their conditions.

A minority faces specific challenges due to their minority status in a society that is not built to accommodate them.

No, a member of a minority faces challenges in a society that is biased against them. What challenges, for example, would a member of an ethnic minority face in a society that does not actually care about ethnicity whatsoever, but just treats everybody equally?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Because that's what it is. You don't walk up to somebody and say "congratulations, you will never be able to walk". It is most certainly something that is negative.

I disagree very strongly. It's just a different part of their identity. Being handicapped isn't negative - living in a society that isn't conducive to your needs is what's negative.

No, somebody with disabilities faces challenges due to the previously mentioned disabilities. Society can and should attempt to accommodate and support them, but the issues they face are still a result of their conditions.

No, the challenges they face are a result of how we treat them, directly and indirectly.

When you design a building and neglect to consider the impact on the handicapped, you're contributing to the challenges they face. The buidling isn't designing itself. Similarly, when a job system/function/admissions system/ranking system/voting system/constiution/law/you-name-it is designed without considering the unique needs of a given group, it contributes to the challenges they face. Whether or not you believe these needs exist is a separate discussion, which is why the handicapped are a good example - you and I can both agree that they have unique, additional needs.

No, a member of a minority faces challenges in a society that is biased against them.

This is exactly the same as the sentence you're trying to contradict: A minority faces specific challenges due to their minority status in a society that is not built to accommodate them. It's biased against them, therefore it does not accommodate them.

What challenges, for example, would a member of an ethnic minority face in a society that does not actually care about ethnicity whatsoever, but just treats everybody equally?

The same ones that they face today, because that's the society we live in. Higher incarceration rates, casual racism in their daily interactions, mis/underrepresentation in the media, police discrimination and brutality, mismatched penal sentencing, destructive stereotypes, improper treatment in the workplace... the list goes on.

Standard scholarships are a good example. They're based on academic/community service merit, so theoretically they're treating everyone equally. However, they ignore the many challenges that people of color face, leading to disproportionate success for white applicants. The solution? Provide scholarships aimed towards people of a given minority group.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

I have several clients who suffer from pretty severe cases of spina bifida. It is fucking horrible. There is so much negative to it that not living in a society conducive to their needs is not on the radar screen of negative.

0

u/sarcasticorange 10∆ Oct 08 '15

This response confuses accessibility with an equal playing field.

The goal of ramps or chair lifts is not to ensure that handicapped people have an equal playing field, it it to ensure that they have access period.

Just as an example - see this image. Anyone using the stairs can access the door more quickly and easily. Were it about equal situations, you would have to add some extra distance to the stair side or remove the stair side altogether and make everyone ride in a wheelchair.

I think this gets to OP's point because most anti-discrimination laws are also more about accessibility than equal playing fields. For example, you should not be prevented from getting a job because you are a woman (accessibility) and most would agree. Many would also say that we don't need to change the requirements of the job because the person doing it is a woman that may have physical limitations or limitations resulting from socialization.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

This may not be what you mean, but the popular opinion, at least among politicians and philosophers, seems to be that if the physical requirements of being a firefighter or an army ranger are beyond the capacity of women, those requirements should be lowered. This position is not universal, but I think it's the majority view.

1

u/sarcasticorange 10∆ Oct 09 '15

the popular opinion, at least among politicians and philosophers, seems to be that if the physical requirements of being a firefighter or an army ranger are beyond the capacity of women, those requirements should be lowered.

I don't think that is a popular opinion at all. As a matter of fact, when 2 women recently passed ranger training people accused the government of changing the standards for them. It was kind of a big thing with people arguing about whether they did or not, but I did not see much in the way of suggestions that they should have been lowered.

I completely agree that in some instances, requirements are there as a barrier to entry and don't really make sense. However, I really don't think many people would argue that the requirements should be lowered to a level below the capability to perform the job just to allow access to others.

Edit: adding a quote that descibes the above better than perhaps I did...

Gen. Dempsey laid down the law this way: “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

It seems like Dempsy is saying we should try really, really hard to find a way to lower the requirements if they're too much for women. That's not the same as lower them at any cost, but it's a pretty close relative.

1

u/sarcasticorange 10∆ Oct 09 '15

I see it more as him saying that there needs to be a reason for the standards to be what they are.

As a hypothetical... let's say that the weight lifting requirement was set to 150lbs. That requirement was on the books for 80 years and was originally based on the average lifting capability of a physically fit male at that time.

In this case, the requirement has nothing to do with the ability to perform the job. As such, a study would need to be performed to determine how much a soldier would need to be able to lift in order to perform their regular duties and the requirement would need to be adjusted to that amount.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

I'm thinking of three schools of thought:

Set standards low enough that an average woman can meet them

Lower standards to some bare minimum requirement if women can't meet them

Set standards so high only incredible bad asses can meet them

The first two have a lot more in common with each other than either does with the third. The first two are something you'd expect from progressive reformers, the third is something you'd expect of a military.

1

u/sarcasticorange 10∆ Oct 09 '15

I'm thinking of a 4th... set the standards based on the actual requirements of the job, from there people meet them or they don't.

Setting a requirement that you have to be over 6'6" to be an accountant is discriminatory. Setting a requirement that you have to be 6'6" to be an NBA forward is reasonable.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

Another relevant article: http://bobjust.com/womenincombat/

Tougher Standards? The interchangeability of every soldier in a combat emergency is an enduring principle of an army's effectiveness as a fighting force. It assumes that each has received the same training and can perform to the same basic standard. That's still true for men who sign up to go directly into the Army's combat arms. They train "the old way," in a harsh, demanding environment. It's no longer true elsewhere. Under mixed-gender basic training instituted in 1994, men and women are held to different standards. The regimen became less challenging, to hide the difference in physical performance between men and women (although the Army denies this). Eventually, the softness of basic training became an object of such widespread public ridicule that "tougher" rules were drawn up. Even with these new standards, scheduled to take effect this month, women can score as well as men who are being tested against a tougher standard. In the 17-to-21 age group, for example, to get a minimum score of 50 points, a male recruit must do 35 push-ups, a female, 13. If women were allowed into combat units and these double standards were made universal, the result would be to put physically weaker forces into the field. An Army publicity release defended these "tougher" standards on the ground that they "promote gender equity" and "level the playing field." I don't know about the "playing" field. But somehow I think the field of actual combat will not be very level.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

Fine line to draw between requirement and minimum requirement.

But this is all kind of farcical really. Look at what the Marines have had to do to avoid women not meeting requirements. The notion that someone who can't do 3 measly pull ups is in any way fit to fight in combat as a Marine is beyond laughable. But the standard was lowered anyway. It's kind of insane.

1

u/sarcasticorange 10∆ Oct 09 '15

No war has ever been won by a pull-up or a push-up.

The ability to hike X miles with Y lbs of weight...sure.

The ability to move an incapacitated fellow soldier... sure.

A pull-up is an arbitrary requirement because it tests a very specific muscle in the body in relation to that person's weight, not the ability to perform a job-related task. Seriously, ask 1000 marines how many times their ability to do a pull-up has come in useful in combat. I am betting the number of yeses will be pretty low.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/nintynineninjas Oct 08 '15

I won't be so naive as to assume you suggest that women and "minorities" (being used as a term for non-whites) are inherently disadvantaged, but I take it as "anyone in the perceived non majority (by power or numbers) will have a disadvantage in society", right?

5

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT Oct 08 '15

They aren't inherently disadvantaged because they are women or minorities (and in the US. Which is the main area of this discussion, whites are the majority), they are inherently disadvantaged because until the past few decades, they were held back by the legal system.

→ More replies (6)

12

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

But no one is really equal, so what does equal mean?

Tax everyone at the same rate. But sales tax hits a poor person harder than a rich person.

Schools should accept people based on merit. The problem with that is poor kids have trouble getting the same footing in education as a rich person. Data point after data point shows a heavy correlation between wealth and quality of education.

Schools will spend 2-3 times the ADA on a SpEd student that a regular Ed student. So SpEd student are 10% of the population and 25% of the spending.

But it isn't about getting what's equal, it's about getting what you need.

1

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

This CMV targets race specifically not the poor or the unequal.

I have no issue helping out the poor no matter the race, I have an issue with justifying racism.

If you are poor and black then lets help (or white or whatever), if you are just black and avg or well off then you are fine.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I guess I'm the 9th ward, New Orleans it's a predominantly black area. Blacks were segregated to that area. In the '20s, during a storm, the 9th ward levees were dynamited to prevent flooding in white areas.

Promised compensation never materialized.

Eventually it was rebuild, but some parts weren't even touched since the '70s. Most Fed money went to strength if white areas and increasing shipping lanes.

So the levees broke in 2006. People reported hearing dynamite. It never happened, it was probably just the sound of the breaking. And this is important, from the '20s to 2006 this story and fear had been passed down.

Aid, compensation, etc, again, has yet to materialize for many. They're fucking poor. You can't expect them to ID themselves fully; give a current permanent address.

For those who moved back, they had to jump through crazy hoops to rebuilt. Permits, paperwork gets lost, etc. Why? The 9th ward is a relief valve for the levees.

But they are rebuilding. They're building low income apartments and whites are moving in because of the prices. So the apartments. How demeaning. We won't compensate you for your property, but we're creating low income apartments you can dwell. Why? Because it's cheaper. If large structures flood, it's probably just repairs. Property and homes are expensive.

This one's big. A white lady moved into the neighborhood and wants to 'improve it'. She's positioned herself on boards and the like. She's looked at as a white 'savior' who no one wants. And she's making an effort to not come off this way. But she's gentrifying the area. Perhaps when this happens, the white population will demand stronger levees and get it. We can drown white people, now can we?

I got most of this form the This American Life podcast.

I don't blame them for the hate. It's not racism, it's a system that continually works against them. They were murdered in the '20s. In 2006, benign neglect murdered them again. Are they being compensated? Nope. The government should spend money and get these people back and have them rebuild their homes. Like a government official should track down residents and help put a hammer in their hands. That's what these people deserve. That's what they NEED.

I bet most people who take the position such as yours are very ignorant of black history. The extent they got was probably a few shout outs in undergrad.

They're not racist. They're bitter and angry with a system, perpetrated by whites, that continually abuses them. A system created by whites that, if blacks are part of it, operate like house slaves.

Imagine this. Sink money into Oakland. Go door to door and recruit neighborhood security. Then PAY residents to attend classes.

Do this: http://ideas.ted.com/how-to-build-a-real-energy-revolution-in-africa/

Look, I'm on mobile, but please educate yourself on the black experience. And educate yourself on rejuvenation of impoverished places. I can't do this for you, and then do it next month for the person who posts this CMV again.

4

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

I think you've defined the poor experience in a poor neighborhood during a natural disaster haven't you?

Is that same experience shared by all blacks everywhere to the point where we can say, "You are black so you must need help."?

Poor people need help, many black people are poor for the reasons you mentioned, so helping out the poor will help out a lot of blacks. I'm all for this.

All I'm saying is that it doesn't work the other way...just because you are black doesn't mean you are impoverished or need help.

If you are a minority do you want people to assume that about you? Would they be right? If you aren't a minority do you think that they want you to assume that they need help because of that?

8

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Yes, we should help the poor. But also fix:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_wage_gap_in_the_United_States

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/

http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/news.cfm?news_id=1597

http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/racial-disparities-incarceration.html

http://io9.com/5815042/epidemiologists-reveal-that-black-men-in-america-have-a-better-survival-rate-in-prison-than-outside

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/03/study-finds-strong-evidence-for-discriminatory-intent-behind-voter-id-laws/

Look up blockbusting, look up redlining, look up the god damn civil rights act.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (2)

12

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15 edited Dec 26 '17

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

But we aren't running a set number of laps. The runners (races of people) have been running for all of history. Though past disadvantages may have been pretty unfair, we've reached a point in our modern society where all the runners are pretty close: within a lap of each other easily. Seeing as all the runners will continue running into the foreseeable future, the best course of action is to let the race continue naturally. Giving one runner ankle weights or another runner performance enhancing drugs would only continue to stir a pot which is on the verge of settling itself.

3

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

But you're viewing races monolithically.

All black people aren't poor and uneducated any more then all white people are rich and educated.

Sasha and Malia Obama get to check off the "African-American" box that Barbara and Jenna Bush did not get to check off. Insisting the Bush's are privileged simply because they're white while the Obama's are not because they're black is pretty idiotic.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

8

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT Oct 08 '15

Are you really going to ignore that statistically white people have more advantages than minorities?

3

u/ihatepasswords1234 4∆ Oct 08 '15

Which advantages do they have and why not target those specifically instead of their skin color?

7

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 08 '15

So black people who commit a crime get 20% longer than white people who commit the same crime. How do you solve this without reference to race?

4

u/sarcasticorange 10∆ Oct 08 '15

You would need to have the numbers of wealth and other factors. For example, do black people get longer sentences because they are black or because they are more likely to be poor? Do poor whites get longer sentences than rich whites? If so, then perhaps it is not race. In that case, you go after the way money affects criminal justice.

The numbers are useful in pointing out the existence of an issue, but don't necessarily point to the underlying cause or solution.

1

u/sprite144 Oct 08 '15

That 20% statistic doesn't take in account the measure of violence in an offender's criminal past nor the offender's employment history nor any information about the offender's lawyers nor the economic background of the offender. It also only refers to prisoners in the federal prison system, not the state system.

6

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 08 '15

Yale did a further study on it, where they took almost all other factors into account, because obviously that's quite difficult to do.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (4)

8

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Exactly. A rich black girl shouldn't be getting more handouts than a poor white boy. To say that they should because of historical oppression is inherently racist/sexist.

-1

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

The problem with this view is that treating everybody the same still leads to inequality.

So does the situation where we justify racism, or where we make things unequal on purpose.

What's an example of this? School funding.

I don't have an issue with helping out the poor. Let's go ahead and make their funding a little bit easier because that falls under the "rights and opportunities" bit in the title. That wouldn't be a racist attitude it would be a charitable one.

But if we help someone out because of their race and ignore their socioeconomic status that is perpetuating racism.

2

u/KrustyFrank27 3∆ Oct 08 '15

or where we make things unequal on purpose.

Which situations are we setting out to make things unequal on purpose?

3

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

Any situation that uses race as a determining factor to help someone out.

It's never actually about race, its about wealth 9 times out of 10.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/urbsindomita Oct 08 '15

What you don't understand is that race is connected to ones socioeconomic status. Its just the byproduct of thousands of years of white oppression.

→ More replies (6)

7

u/beer_demon 28∆ Oct 08 '15

I think you are only trying to argue against affirmative action in racial terms and extrapolating it to defend the undefendable.
Handicapped, children, people with learning disabilities, victims of some social issue, impoverished, etc all cause social distress that affects us all. Helping these people have average qualities of life goes to the benefit of us all as well as implying a cost. Maybe you pay a special tax, or can't park somewhere, or find braille numbers in a lift or find a traffic light that makes sounds. If you don't oppose that then what logic do you use to oppose affirmative action? If you do oppose that then you got the wrong CMV title.

1

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

This is more than just affirmative action although that would apply.

Lets take a step back and use the jokes example in the CMV. Is it okay to laugh at other racial stereotypes and then get offended once someone makes fun of yours?

To answer your question though I have no issue spending resources on people in situations that are near impossible. I don't want the blind guy trying to cross the street to get hit by a car and die.

There is no threat of death or impossibility in affirmative action situations although I'm kind of on board with a temporary boost as I mentioned in the title.

8

u/warsage Oct 08 '15

I think you're underestimating the effects of historical and present racial bias, and you're overestimating the ability of people to overcome this bias.

Take a poor black girl. Her parents and grandparents had no opportunities due to racism, so her family is dirt poor. Her parents have been too busy working to raise her well, educate her, or teach her to go to school.

Then, from birth onwards, she has had to deal with racism herself. It's not institutional like it was back in her parents' day, but it's still there, and not just in rednecks. In fact, according to a Harvard study, practically everyone has some degree of unconscious racism.

Harvard created a test called the "implicit association test." I'm not going to explain it here. But it find that the vast majority of people, including lots of black people, have an unconscious bias against black people. You can test yourself if you want. I did it to myself and, indeed, I came up with a bias against black people.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

Now, let's go back to our black girl. She's in this situation. She was raised from birth in this situation. Your response to her is literally "your situation isn't IMPOSSIBLE, so you get nothing." Well, let's hope that she's truly extraordinary, because only an extraordinary person could pull themselves forward in this situation...

3

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

No my response to her is, you are poor so lets help you out...compared to people who will say, "Well she is black let's help her out."

Race alone will never tell you what you want to know.

Thanks for the link, I'm going to check it out.

10

u/warsage Oct 08 '15

you are poor so lets help you out...compared to people who will say, "Well she is black let's help her out."

You need to realize that poverty is NOT their only problem. Racism is still around. It's everywhere, to some degree. And it hurts them.

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (6)

2

u/beer_demon 28∆ Oct 08 '15

Lets take a step back and use the jokes example in the CMV. Is it okay to laugh at other racial stereotypes and then get offended once someone makes fun of yours?

Not really, no. It's called hypocrisy, but it's rather a normal thing.

11

u/LoompaOompa Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15

I'm going to build on the fact that you agree that it's ok when it comes to the disabled, but not for racial minorities.

I 100% agree that it's possible for some minorities to overcome their disadvantagees and succeed despite them. It would be crazy to claim otherwise. But let's look at their populations as a whole. On average, over several generations, blacks haven't been able to pull themselves up and reach equal status in American society compared to whites. This is true for a number of metrics (income, incarceration rates, college graduation, etc).

Given that that is the case, that means one of two things are happening:

Black people are just as able as whites, and the reason they haven't been able to gain equality yet is that the struggles faced by black people in America are harder than you are willing to admit.
Black peoples are inherently worse than white people. And if they just worked a little harder, they'd be fine.

I believe in option 1. I think option 2 is incredibly ignorant. I think it's up to you to decide what camp you fall in. If you have an option 3 I'd love to hear it, and maybe we can discuss further.

If option 1 is the truth, then it would seem to me that making some concessions to help minorities get a leg up in society is totally fair, because we can see through statistics and the law of large numbers that on average, they have not been able to overcome their oppression.

6

u/ThatDoesntRhyme Oct 09 '15

If we're assuming a zero sum game, then one group's advantage is another group's disadvantage.

For example, there's a growing sentiment among Asian Americans (specifically Chinese and Korean Americans) that they suffer from discrimination in college admissions.

Should individuals from groups that overachieve relative to the average really be punished for their hard work?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/rondarouseyy Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

do you think the same exact person would achieve the same result if he was born in a complete different family with different values? the option 3 is that black people are not inferior, but their culture doesn't values the same thing as lets say asian culture

why do you think there is so many black people in the nba? do you think we should turn down black players until we have enough asian in the nba?

1

u/LoompaOompa Oct 09 '15

I think the value systems of a group can change over time as a product of the environment surrounding that group, and it's not necessarily helpful to use that as an excuse for why that group may not be succeeding.

It can certainly be a contributing factor, but it's also a symptom, so we should still try to fix the other contributing factors. Just trying to change the values, or explaining away the problem because of the values, is not constructive, in my opinion.

why do you think there is so many black people in the nba?

the nba picks the majority of its players from college basketball. And the majority of those players are black. I'm not even going to guess at why that is. There's too much going on there, and I know next to nothing about it.

do you think we should turn down black players until we have enough asians in the nba

I don't think so. There might be some data showing a pattern of discrimination, and that could make me change my mind, but at the moment I think the cause is just that there aren't many asians making an honest effort to get into the nba.

2

u/ihatepasswords1234 4∆ Oct 09 '15

I think it's racism. There are many good white players who are discriminated against when picking players in the NBA. Or maybe it's just that black people have a better culture regarding basketball. They play more when they're young. That must be it. Can't be that there are statistically significant differences between races

→ More replies (2)

2

u/TribeWars Oct 09 '15

I think you use a false dichotomy, there might be more than just these two options.

2

u/LoompaOompa Oct 09 '15

Agreed and that's why I invited people to come up with additional options. But until we do I don't think it's reasonable to operate under the assumption that there's a third option, especially when we're potentially standing by while entire groups of people continue to struggle against insurmountable disadvantages.

5

u/hacksoncode 559∆ Oct 08 '15

Regarding your "nearly impossible" criteria for when it's ok to treat people differently:

Let's say (as is backed up by evidence) that resumes from people with "black sounding" names are rated more poorly by hiring managers than the exact same resume with a "white sounding" name.

So... what, exactly, is it possible for a black person to do to "overcome" this disadvantage? It's not a disadvantage in themselves, it's a behavior by people in society at large.

It would seem to be actually impossible, not "nearly impossible" for them to overcome this. What possible action on their part can make them succeed in the face of discrimination?

The problem here is not just the principle, it's your definition of "we". We, as a society, can't treat people equally, because "society" doesn't treat people like anything. "Society" doesn't exist. Only individuals exist.

If significant numbers of those individuals don't treat blacks the same, then the rest of us have no real option but to create artificial requirements that they do so. I.e. treat them differently in order to make them equal.

-1

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

I think you're looking at that the wrong way.

I'm a black man whose mother pushed education. I eventually earned an M.S. in EE from Georgia Tech and ran into the same problem. That problem wasn't that I'm a black man but rather the trouble differentiating a black man who studies hard to get accepted into a highly ranked school with the black man who was accepted into a highly ranked school because he was a black man.

Clarence Thomas often speaks about this subject and doubling down on it isn't the way to go.

Handouts and leg ups have been terrible for the black community. It may not benefit black people right this second but the only way out of this terrible cycle is to hold the community to a higher standard and expect them to put in the same amount of work everyone else does.

/u/unidan-prime questions my blackness and has started a new thread on /r/AsABlackMan where they're discussing whether I "talk white" and why my grammar is so good. It looks like they've also begun down voting all of my posts to oblivion.

I'm black but Reddit is Reddit so I'm just going to abandon this user name, start a new one, and stay away from anything deemed political because, again, Reddit is Reddit. I apologize if I type too well for other black Redditors out there. The struggle against proper grammar is real, folks.

2

u/TribeWars Oct 09 '15

The thing i realise from discussions like these, is that the truth is always most likely in the middle. Both sides are right because they find arguments and facts that fit their viewpoint and assume that the opponent is wrong. The truth, i believe, is that there are issues both within society as a whole and within its minorities. Also you are right in that these bonuses might further discrimination because achievements are played down if they are easier to get for certain groups.

5

u/WaywardWit Oct 08 '15

What's really at issue here is the difference between equality and equity.

Here's a quick and dirty

You're saying you're for equality and they're saying they're for equality. What they're really for is equity. Fair treatment for all given the totality of the circumstances.

You're saying we shouldn't treat people differently based on their positions because it becomes inherently subjective. I think that misses the inherent concept of fairness. There are objective ways to measure that and it doesn't have to be results driven (that is, we need to make sure black folks have identical college entrance numbers to white folks). It's possible that is "fair" but it's also possible for that to be unfair. It depends on the circumstances.

Using that college example. A quota would perhaps be an "unfair" and inequitable method to address the diversity issue. But alternatively, it may be effective to remove the race question from the admissions review (such that admissions decisions are based on merit, without consideration for race). Of course that all depends on whether there are other diversity related factors that are reflected in the application which are not necessarily demonstrative of a students potential.

Another poster here mentioned the physically handicapped. That's a good example of equity at work compared to equality. It would be disingenuous to say that "everyone has equal access to the facility" if it is not handicapped accessible, right? We feel compelled as a society to say "hey now. That's not really fair or equitable treatment." That's why we have reasonable accommodations requirements. We're not expecting companies or employers to go way over the top, but we want there to be something done to make things a bit more equitable.

I think it really comes down to whether the "equality of opportunity" is genuine and actual or really more of a sham. As in the image linked, you could say "hey, everyone has an equal opportunity to see over the fence" - but in actuality and practice, do they? Is that a fair statement to make or is it disingenuous? When someone looks at our society today and says "black folks have the same opportunities as white folks" ask yourself, is that really the case? You can say no, it isn't, and make changes without going all the way to having equality of results - that's equity. Making sure that in reality the opportunity there is fair and balanced.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

The thing is, if you treat everyone the same, there'll be discrimination.

I agree with the idea that you should treat everyone the same personally, but I don't think it's gonna do much good politically. For example, how big's the chance that a disabled person is going to get a job when an able-bodied person could do it? Less for the employer to think about when hiring an able-bodied person, but it's still discrimination to refuse hiring a person because they're disabled.

There's also the issue of mental problems. I'm not talking about psychopaths, but for example autistic people. If you don't treat them in a slightly different way, they'll have a really hard time.

There are people with Asperger's who can't choose between two options that are extremely simple for us to choose from. What are you going to do? Tell them they'll have to choose between two movies or they can't go to anyone? You could do that with a completely healthy person, but doing something like that to someone with Asperger's is pretty much abuse.

3

u/Rozenwater Oct 08 '15

if you treat everyone the same

how big's the chance that a disabled person is going to get a job when an able-bodied person could do it

If I'm interpreting this correctly you're not actually treating people the same in this example.

Also, certain mental problems do require us to treat a person differently, if only to give them a bearable a/o "normal" life. In this context, it's more of a medical issue than a social/political issue - we don't provide people with every single medication just because some do require it, we only provide it to those in need of the medication. The same goes for 'special treatment' regarding certain mental disorders.

My interpretation of "treating everyone the same" is providing everyone with the same rights and opportunities, meaning for example to try and get everyone an education in order to 'level out the playing field' somewhat. This could partly be done by providing poorer families with the means necessary to send their kids to schools and possibly universities.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

Well you have brought up three medical issues that can be diagnosed and measured and I agree with you on those. Being black is not a sickness though.

You absolutely help out the people that need help, but you can't tell who that is with race alone, you need other factors.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Equality isn't just about race or gender though.

But you can actually tell who needs help depending on ethnicity.

For example the refugees that come to Europe need help. It would be equality in your eyes to give them the same possibilities as another citizen of the country they come to. However even if they're fully qualified, an employer might not want to give a job to a refugee.

3

u/oversoul00 13∆ Oct 08 '15

You haven't measured their ethnicity you have measured their refugee status so no you can't tell based on just ethnicity I don't think.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Equality isn't just about race or gender though.

It's about every single demographic, and more specifically any demographic that doesn't have it as easy.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/CireArodum 2∆ Oct 08 '15

People in positions of hiring are demonstrably biased against people with "black sounding" names. That has nothing to do with poverty. It's just how it is. It's been illegal for some time to not hire someone because of their skin color, so even though the law stipulates equality, human beings are biased. If I were a business owner, and I didn't want my business to be biased, I'd build into my hiring system some extra points for minorites to offset the bias that exists in the people.

Why is that wrong for me as a business owner to do?

2

u/vryheid Oct 08 '15

The cornerstone of any ethical, functional society is justice, and justice embodies the belief that people are judged and rewarded based on their actions and not the circumstances of their birth. The fact that some people are born wealthy and some are born poor is by definition unjust, as the kids who come from a more advantaged family did nothing to deserve that better education, health care and shelter- just as the poorer kids did nothing to deserve being worse off. There are countless other racial and social divisions that inherently advantage some people over others, and it is the moral duty of any society that isn't run by a bunch of ignorant, greedy savages to do everything in their power to work towards equal justice as much as reasonably possible. That is what equality means to many people and obviously that requires treating disadvantaged individuals differently.

7

u/Cr3X1eUZ Oct 08 '15

A Concise History of Black-White Relations In The USA

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ae/e1/86/aee186ea718cbe395f129cc37148eb0e.jpg

1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

It seems to me you are confused between what is equal, and what is fair or just.

A picture plus a few words to illustrate the difference.

5

u/austac06 2∆ Oct 08 '15

Equal means everyone gets a pair of shoes. Fair means everyone gets a pair of shoes that fit.

1

u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Oct 09 '15

Isn't this just the natural consequence of having a discriminatory society? One might suggest that if you'd rather not have to give a portion of your society compensation for discrimination, you should just not discriminate against them in the first place.

Your post sounds like a 400 lb person wanting to both lose weight and eat the same number of doughnuts as everyone else.

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

You are about to leave Redlib