Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
It's not remotely that simple, though, is it?
One can readily make a point that people can be disadvantaged in all sorts of ways - including their gender, race, sexuality, and we should also remember the biggest, their social class (wealth). That disadvantage then tends to drag their performance down relative to their less disadvantaged peers. They are disadvantaged in large part through factors like sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. One can easily make the argument that refusing to do anything to correct for those systemic disadvantages some of its people face is sexism, racism and homophobia. A society that turns a blind eye to sexism, racism and homophobia and lets those disadvantages persist is a sexist, racist and homophobic society.
The article you were linked to identifies a clear societal benefit from encouraging minority access to certain professions. When you say "it's just racist it can't be done" as a (somewhat facile) response, you could implicitly be arguing black people should have unnecessarily worse health outcomes and earlier deaths because the state has no responsibility to correct that. That's an interesting perspective.
I'm talking about public places where you're not allowed to say stuff / can get in trouble for saying stuff. You can make any kind of club as long as it's a private space or legally renting out a public place. Even a group like the KKK isn't illegal because they are racists, they are illegal because they did more than just gather and talk about how racist they were, it was the fact they did illegal ass shit.
You're making me go Judge Judy here...
Is AA racist? Yes or no
There's a difference between helping out people that are disadvantaged and just straight up accepting (into school) or hiring people who are disadvantaged. Helping them is giving them say extra funding through childhood to in theory give them the same opportunity. Same as helping someone that lost their job with unemployment benefits. The benefits don't care if what their race or gender is. Same would be for helping kids going up in poor communities so it's based on say the family's income or the school system there or whatever, that way everyone that's in that situation benefits vs just helping races that disproportionately reside in those areas. Helping a black person that lives in Gary, Indiana and not helping a white person that lives there is a racist policy. That's what AA is, it is a racist policy.
1) Correlation doesn't equal causation
2) Things are not morally good or bad because of the results. XYZ is morally good regardless if it ends up creating more happiness/welfare or reduces happiness/welfare
A fake judge with fake rulings based on no real law creating content for entertainment. Apt comparison
I don't believe that having more black doctors, who have to complete medical school regardless of entry, and who improve healthcare outcomes for black citizens purely through nearby existence, are inherently bad on principle.
It's been two months my dude, let it go
Affirmative action can be carried out in many ways that don't result in letting unqualified people into courses and jobs. It would be much more useful if you understood more about it.
Relevance?
Sure. If you ever shoot someone in the head, let's see how well you do in court arguing that the result of their death didn't make it a bad thing.
I realize what Judge Judy is dude...
Just answer Yes or No, how fucking hard is that? Is AA a racist policy?
I know well enough about AA to know it's unequivocally a racist policy.
Just because one city/area with more black doctors has better health outcomes than another doesn't mean the better health outcomes are caused by having more black doctors. I willing to bet that city has more income equality and that's the far bigger reason for the better health outcomes vs there being more black doctors.
You do realize if you say results of something is what makes something good or bad, then you can literally make arguments that the Nazis were good. It's possible that in the long run humanity would be better off as a single race if everyone was the same race/culture, you wouldn't have such all the conflicts we have. If everyone was German for example, no one would be fighting in Israel/Palestine or Russia/Ukraine. I'm not saying everyone being one race would result in things being better because there's so many things that would go into it and you'd have to consider, but you can definitely make the argument that it could be better. Racism would not be good because it would result in things being better in the long run nor is it bad because things would be worse in the long run. Racism is bad because of principle and discriminating against people for no reason is inherently wrong. Thus, bringing up how AA has led to some benefits is completely pointless because it is bad due to being a straight up racist policy regardless if the benefits outweigh the costs or not. I find it completely ridiculous that you guys are pushing back on someone saying racism is bad, seems like you just like arguing or you must be contrary to everything I say.
And your willing bet is as good as actual research! They controlled for that, by the way.
Man, just stop
Last edited:
In a wider picture of research on discrimination against black patients in healthcare, this study is a lot more plausible than you give it credit for. (You are, of course, not aware of any of this research.)
I find it very hard to conclude the Nazis were good. Never mind for the Jews, disabled people, Roma, Polish, French, Soviets, etc., but pictures of German cities in mid-1945 would clearly indicate they weren't even good for Germany.
If you want to argue whether the Nazis were good at certain things, that's not a problem. Famously, they got the trains to run on time and set a new high standard for industrialised mass murder. Credit where credit's due.
The trains thing was A) Italian fascism, and B) a blatant lie.
Good propaganda though. Fascists in general and Nazis in particular were good at that
I do apologise for my mistake. So, just good at industrialised mass murder, then.
Yeah, very few things they were good at. Except as mentioned, a good PR campaign that makes people think, even to this day, that they were good at things. Wondrous Nazi technology that didn't work well and never could that still has fanboys.
Is AA a racist policy? Yes or No
I don't agree with utilitarianism.
Do more black patients more often live in areas of income inequality?
It was more so the concept (vs just Nazis) that if humans were all one race/culture, could that be more beneficial in the long run? Thus, you then could make the argument that for Nazis. The whole concept of killing everyone of every race but one is inherently wrong regardless if that is indeed better in the long run. The door for that isn't even open, hell the door isn't even there because racism is that bad. AA is racism, therefore it's bad. I really don't understand why I have to say this once let alone over and over again.
I would accept that some affirmative action policies can be racist to some degree. I'm not remotely convinced that affirmative action is inherently racist. I think that saying affirmative action is racist (period) is something people who don't like affirmative action lazily do because it saves them having to think about complicated and difficult things.
Are you seriously saying, "it's just a little racist, it's still good"?
Any policy that puts people from any race ahead (or behind) of people from another race is racism. It doesn't matter if it results in better outcomes, that is still racism. That is affirmative action. What you do policy-wise is uplift people "dealt a bad hand" to attempt to give them the same chance as someone else not dealt a bad hand. AA is not that at all.
Depends. If you are competent at reading comprehension, obviously I did not say that. If you are not competent at reading comprehension, you might think so.
Except we don't: our societies barely even try, and thus institutional disadvantage - including racism - grinds on generation after generation.
So what's your answer to that? People disadvantaged by racism can just suck it up for the next few hundred years as it very gradually evens out?
That is precisely the aim of affirmative action. You simply refuse to accept that huge amounts of poverty in the United States is racialized and has direct, racist ancestryAre you seriously saying, "it's just a little racist, it's still good"?
Any policy that puts people from any race ahead (or behind) of people from another race is racism. It doesn't matter if it results in better outcomes, that is still racism. That is affirmative action. What you do policy-wise is uplift people "dealt a bad hand" to attempt to give them the same chance as someone else not dealt a bad hand. AA is not that at all.
But surely that's the okay form of racism, because it's part of the USA's traditional culture.
Some people need to believe that they got where they are by absolutely nothing but "the sweat of their own brow".
In before some wombat gets it twisted
That does not mean most white people benefit from, are aware of or can do anything about this 'traditional culture'. It's a product of history that we have to actively work to overcome. It hurts many white people too