If there are prospects for a better future, we must abandon any attempt to divine a pallet of different remedies that address the uneven real/imagined victimologies. We must recognize the internal contradiction of assuming there can EVER be consensus about adjusting preferential remediations among/between different aggrieved groups. Ther…
If there are prospects for a better future, we must abandon any attempt to divine a pallet of different remedies that address the uneven real/imagined victimologies. We must recognize the internal contradiction of assuming there can EVER be consensus about adjusting preferential remediations among/between different aggrieved groups. There is no mathematical formula for dealing with real and perceived historical injustices.
The path forward must be premised on a policy that does NOT attempt to apply deferential remedies for some, but not for others. Affirmative discrimination can never be applied in such a manner that differential levels will satisfy everyone. It's a fool's errand to assume otherwise. Equality of opportunity and equality before the law are the only principles that can unite disparate identities for the common good.
What does equality of opportunity mean to you? Sounds good, but never seen a real life example of it that satisfies the diverse experiences, barriers, privileges and support of the American population.
What does it mean? The state will take no action to support various groups/identities as a remedial act to redress perceived or imagined historical "injustices." In effect ,it is the idea that equality before the law should be the foundational principle of governmental operations -- no favoritism for any race, creed, religion, age, or ethnic identity, the principle that underlies the 14th Amendment.
Thanks for the respone. I think we're talking past each other at this point.
After reading your response, it looks like I need to be more specific. For example, how do we ensure all kids have an equal opportunity and support to receive a quality public school education no matter what their neighborhood conditions are. This is a basic example where the government does have more control over than not.
1. All kids are not equal. They will not grow at equal rates, intellectually or otherwise.
2. All people (kids, too) do no have equal tastes, nor do they have equal talents, or interests.
3. All homes are not the same. No way one can make affirmative compensations such that life in all homes would be the same. Unless children are living in in a purely communist society, their home life cultures will not be the same., And, even if incomes were equal, some would be rural, while others would be urban. Some would have parents who provided discipline, others would not. Some would practice BBall; others would practice the 3 R's,.
4. It is illogical to assume you can create a perfectly 'equal' footing or life context. Some children take advantage of opportunities; others ignore the library and just want to hang wid the bothers and be cool. It is not a question of white privilege.
I get the equality before the law part. Thanks for breaking it down in more detail. My question was regarding the equality of opportunity portion of your comment. And I'll be more specific, what does it look like to you in real life. Not a definition, not a theory, I understand those. Like Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face. That's where I've seen "rational" theories and definitions fall apart - when it comes to real world application.
So I ask my question again, what does equality of opportunity, however you define the term opportunity, look like in practice in a very diverse American society?
As Thomas Sowell has so often noted, talent, intelligence, personality aspects, height, weight, sex/gender, ethnicity, skin quality, hair color, etc. are not, and cannot, be distributed equally. So too with almost every other potential characteristic - language, regional dialect, cultural tic's, etc. Any one, or any group of these personal characteristics could be used in a discriminatory manner to affect decisions about which candidate shall or shall not be offered a job. None of us start from a totally equal position.
My point is, the STATE cannot, nor should it attempt, to make compensatory adjustments to level the field of competition. To do so would merely replace one collection of bias's for another. Example. Assume a woman of Greek ethnicity is competing with a woman of Norwegian ethnicity. How much should the darker-skinned woman be added remedially, even though the lighter skinned woman speaks several foreign languages fluently? What is the intersectionality of Greek ethnicity compared to Norwegian ethnicity? If you have an answer, how do you know? Who established the calculus for ranking race/ethnicity such that the 'unbiased' government HR Team can render "social justice"?
Finally, What preconceived bias caused you to assume the ethnic Greek woman had a darker skin--since I did not specify that in the example?
If there are prospects for a better future, we must abandon any attempt to divine a pallet of different remedies that address the uneven real/imagined victimologies. We must recognize the internal contradiction of assuming there can EVER be consensus about adjusting preferential remediations among/between different aggrieved groups. There is no mathematical formula for dealing with real and perceived historical injustices.
The path forward must be premised on a policy that does NOT attempt to apply deferential remedies for some, but not for others. Affirmative discrimination can never be applied in such a manner that differential levels will satisfy everyone. It's a fool's errand to assume otherwise. Equality of opportunity and equality before the law are the only principles that can unite disparate identities for the common good.
What does equality of opportunity mean to you? Sounds good, but never seen a real life example of it that satisfies the diverse experiences, barriers, privileges and support of the American population.
What does it mean? The state will take no action to support various groups/identities as a remedial act to redress perceived or imagined historical "injustices." In effect ,it is the idea that equality before the law should be the foundational principle of governmental operations -- no favoritism for any race, creed, religion, age, or ethnic identity, the principle that underlies the 14th Amendment.
Whites have had favoritism for the past 400 years-- the white affirmative action and headstart programs. WTF! Lol!!!
Thanks for the respone. I think we're talking past each other at this point.
After reading your response, it looks like I need to be more specific. For example, how do we ensure all kids have an equal opportunity and support to receive a quality public school education no matter what their neighborhood conditions are. This is a basic example where the government does have more control over than not.
I appreciate the back and forth.
1. All kids are not equal. They will not grow at equal rates, intellectually or otherwise.
2. All people (kids, too) do no have equal tastes, nor do they have equal talents, or interests.
3. All homes are not the same. No way one can make affirmative compensations such that life in all homes would be the same. Unless children are living in in a purely communist society, their home life cultures will not be the same., And, even if incomes were equal, some would be rural, while others would be urban. Some would have parents who provided discipline, others would not. Some would practice BBall; others would practice the 3 R's,.
4. It is illogical to assume you can create a perfectly 'equal' footing or life context. Some children take advantage of opportunities; others ignore the library and just want to hang wid the bothers and be cool. It is not a question of white privilege.
I get the equality before the law part. Thanks for breaking it down in more detail. My question was regarding the equality of opportunity portion of your comment. And I'll be more specific, what does it look like to you in real life. Not a definition, not a theory, I understand those. Like Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face. That's where I've seen "rational" theories and definitions fall apart - when it comes to real world application.
So I ask my question again, what does equality of opportunity, however you define the term opportunity, look like in practice in a very diverse American society?
As Thomas Sowell has so often noted, talent, intelligence, personality aspects, height, weight, sex/gender, ethnicity, skin quality, hair color, etc. are not, and cannot, be distributed equally. So too with almost every other potential characteristic - language, regional dialect, cultural tic's, etc. Any one, or any group of these personal characteristics could be used in a discriminatory manner to affect decisions about which candidate shall or shall not be offered a job. None of us start from a totally equal position.
My point is, the STATE cannot, nor should it attempt, to make compensatory adjustments to level the field of competition. To do so would merely replace one collection of bias's for another. Example. Assume a woman of Greek ethnicity is competing with a woman of Norwegian ethnicity. How much should the darker-skinned woman be added remedially, even though the lighter skinned woman speaks several foreign languages fluently? What is the intersectionality of Greek ethnicity compared to Norwegian ethnicity? If you have an answer, how do you know? Who established the calculus for ranking race/ethnicity such that the 'unbiased' government HR Team can render "social justice"?
Finally, What preconceived bias caused you to assume the ethnic Greek woman had a darker skin--since I did not specify that in the example?