US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9877

On February 10 2018 01:31 brian wrote:
i wouldn’t call for olympians as good as other average olympians to be kicked out on the basis of being a minority either, though.

i think your original wording was more clear. i think IyMoon is simply wagering that this isn’t a sort of affirmative action, as your ‘fear’ (for lack of a better word, i don’t think you necessarily have any concerns here)leaves room to imply.

Some breakthroughs in American sports were historic, none more so than Jackie Robinson’s in baseball. But Robinson didn’t make the Majors because he was black. His legendary career occurred in an age of outright racial discrimination, because he was better at the game than almost everyone around him.

On February 10 2018 01:23 Sadist wrote:




Yes and it doesnt snow everywhere.


Winter olympics will always be less diverse in the US because of the population distribution relative to access to mountains and snow.

Cost is a contributor, specifically for things like hockey, but i think Geography is a bigger factor.

Edit: i also think nobody has a problem with trying to eliminate barrier to entry but if you measure success in national team participation. Thats where the concern arises in selecting people for reasons other than results.

On February 10 2018 01:41 brian wrote:
Oh, I’m sorry. i didn’t realize you were still talking about the article and instead thought you were offering your opinion. it had read as if you supported minority olympians but if they were only as good as the average athlete they should get out, to which Moon then replied ‘we’ll cross that bridge if we get there,’ so to speak.

On February 10 2018 01:46 Logo wrote:


Yeah no worries, I could have made myself clearer.

On February 10 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:

Personally, I have not heard mass complaints from the athletes themselves or people who did not qualify. It only has risen into the national discourse once Fox News and other outlets that like to do these race bait style articles got ahold of it. I could be wrong, but from my reading the diverse teams seem to be the product of diverse try outs and the law of averages.

On February 10 2018 01:52 Sadist wrote:




I hate fox news and everything they stand for but I am able to understand some of their concerns regarding the measurement of success for all things diversity.

I think diversity is great and gives tons of advantages regarding larger talent pools, different thoughts and experiences, etc. My concern is if someone says they want to become more diverse how do they measure success? When they meet a percentage based on the US population? I just think if we arent careful it can put people into boxes and if you take the exercize to the extreme you end up with a situation where people are turned away because quotas are already met.

I know it is highly unlikely and would probably never get to that but its a concern. Its hard to keep programs going without measurable results. But eventually i think having a target out there for people based on ethnicity, sex, sexuality, can in itself be immoral. We are taught these things shouldnt matter and the person should be judged as an individual yet at the same time we want to put people into boxes to check a scorecard.

On February 10 2018 01:57 IyMoon wrote:


I feel it can go something like this. You should think everyone is equal and judge only on merit but people don't do this yet and its not something that can change overnight so right now you need a stop gap.

At some point the world gets to a place where things like this are not needed, people just feel that we are not at this place yet.

Outside of the orchestra I can't think of a single hiring/audition practice that can be truly blind so bias still plays a role and things like diversity quotas are only there until bias can be taken out to a large extent

let me know if that was clear, I feel like I was rambling

On February 10 2018 02:26 Jockmcplop wrote:

This has become the conventional wisdom but its a very narrow and single minded way of looking at the problem.


You start with a society rife with bias.
Instead of addressing the bias head on, you try and work around it to make the world look as if the bias isn't there
Then, at some point in the future the bias will just disappear.

I can see why this though process has happened but it ignores the fact that you can't just wish these things away, and it doubly ignores the fact that when you try and force these things it makes the bias seem more pronounced, especially when you have very big groups of people complaining about the obvious injustice of such a system.

It boggles the mind how people can think that such an incredibly flawed idea will bring the result they want. If you look closely enough the only thing that's actually going to reduce bias in this formula is time.

On February 10 2018 01:52 Sadist wrote:




I hate fox news and everything they stand for but I am able to understand some of their concerns regarding the measurement of success for all things diversity.

I think diversity is great and gives tons of advantages regarding larger talent pools, different thoughts and experiences, etc. My concern is if someone says they want to become more diverse how do they measure success? When they meet a percentage based on the US population? I just think if we arent careful it can put people into boxes and if you take the exercize to the extreme you end up with a situation where people are turned away because quotas are already met.

I know it is highly unlikely and would probably never get to that but its a concern. Its hard to keep programs going without measurable results. But eventually i think having a target out there for people based on ethnicity, sex, sexuality, can in itself be immoral. We are taught these things shouldnt matter and the person should be judged as an individual yet at the same time we want to put people into boxes to check a scorecard.

On February 10 2018 02:29 Plansix wrote:

I cite this often, but it was instructive. A CEO was being interviewed on NPR about how they made their work force more diverse. They had a mostly white male group of employees and the CEO just wanted to make sure that there wasn’t some underlying issue in their hiring process. So he reviewed the demographics of the resumes they received and that their work force made up a nearly one to one ration. So 10% of the resumes were women and they had about 10% women on their work force, for example.

So he jumped to the next question: How were they getting their resumes and could they just increase the number of resumes from women/minorities? And over like 8 years they did that and had a more diverse work force. Because creating diversity isn’t about just being open to hiring anyone, but also making sure a diverse set of people trying out for the job. And sometimes you have to find them.

On February 10 2018 02:50 zlefin wrote:
there's a subset of people that will intentionally misinterpret any messaging to make a point, and promulgate it to the bigotry-adjacent. there's no good way around that.

On February 10 2018 02:45 Sadist wrote:



Thats an example of a good way to do it. Its casting a wider net. Its exactly what i think the USOC wants to do. I just think the messaging can get people concerned. If it isnt worded correctly there is a subset of people that will hear "theres too many white dudes".

In your example, some may look at the stats an interpret there was intentional bias in the hiring practice of that company when as you mentioned it could be as simple as not finding the people due to not casting a wide enough net. It just feels like theres constant accusations of intentional bias being thrown around in the media non stop and when in all liklihood the bias, if it is present, could be explained by things that are much less derisive.

On February 10 2018 02:52 Sadist wrote:



Completely agree but i still think the media, and really pretty much everyone including myself, could do some good by working on the language.

It also helps to not have the blinders on and not be so 100% sure of ones self.