|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well.
Do most people view education as a zero sum, competitive event? I seem to see a lot of analogies to competitive sports. Maybe I am being too naive, but I thought the goal of education is to have an informed, humane and productive citizenry more than it is to weed out the weak from the strong. Later on, when people are specializing into challenging fields then a sports analogy is more appropriate, but it seems unfitting for general education.
|
On February 08 2022 14:42 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well. Do most people view education as a zero sum, competitive event? I seem to see a lot of analogies to competitive sports. Maybe I am being too naive, but I thought the goal of education is to have an informed, humane and productive citizenry more than it is to weed out the weak from the strong. Later on, when people are specializing into challenging fields then a sports analogy is more appropriate, but it seems unfitting for general education.
School education has multiple purposes. One is actual teaching, but figuring out allocation of resources to different students and distributing people to different paths of life post-school are also purposes of school.
So it is both. It is simultaneously a competition for the best education and best post-education positions, but also a place that gives you education, socialization and which reproduces a culture.
|
On February 08 2022 14:42 Starlightsun wrote:
Do most people view education as a zero sum, competitive event? I seem to see a lot of analogies to competitive sports. Maybe I am being too naive, but I thought the goal of education is to have an informed, humane and productive citizenry more than it is to weed out the weak from the strong. Later on, when people are specializing into challenging fields then a sports analogy is more appropriate, but it seems unfitting for general education.
If you want to see zero-sum, look at the scramble associated with admission to top schools ("Ivy League", Stanford, etc.) with a limited admission and a very nebulous selection process that allows for lots of layers of discrimination. Anyone can get into a generic state school and get a quality education in their field of choice, but there's a major career advantage of being associated with a "top" school that is explained neither by quality of student nor instruction. It's the reputation.
It's admission to these top schools that attracts the majority of attention in all these admission criteria quibbles. I posit that this whole affair is a clear issue of class, and that the focus on race is mostly a distraction. But a distraction that is very mainstream since both Republicans and Democrats want to play into it.
|
Im curious, given the horrible housing price situation, as well as the horrible inflation on food and such, I see two core aspects of like, living, being degraded heavily (at least in the public eye) when it comes to affordability.
Im wondering where you all think the breaking point is for Americans? When do you think the material impact to people's lives gets bad enough that people start to go all French Revolution, is it even possible in this day and age?
I've been listening to the Revolutions podcast recently and Im noticing some interesting similarities between the French Revolution and whats happening now and Im very interested to see how it develops given we have a non-functional government thats not likely going to get any more functional in the foreseeable future.
How is society going to adjust to the state of things in the US, violently, or systematically, or will it adjust at all?
|
Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote it was "manifestly contrary to the law of nature... that a handful of people should gorge themselves with superfluities while the hungry multitude goes in want of necessities."
Sure feels that way.
|
On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well.
Black athletes are vastly over-represented in the NBA. Does that mean the sport is therefore unfair towards non-Black people? Should there be quotas for other races? I think almost everyone would agree this line of thought is completely ridiculous.
So then, why is it fine when black people are over-represented, but not when white people are?
|
On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well.
I'd say it isn't unfair. I mean, if you put an NBA team against the University of Manchester Basketball team, well yes, it would be unfair. But, at the professional level, all athletes are incredibly gifted individuals, both in talent and in genes and there are typically selection rules in place (like the draft, etc.) to even out the teams. At that point, the main advantages aren't about size and strength but skill and how well they play as a team.
|
On February 08 2022 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well. I'd say it isn't unfair. I mean, if you put an NBA team against the University of Manchester Basketball team, well yes, it would be unfair. But, at the professional level, all athletes are incredibly gifted individuals, both in talent and in genes and there are typically selection rules in place (like the draft, etc.) to even out the teams. At that point, the main advantages aren't about size and strength but skill and how well they play as a team.
So the NBA isn't unfair even though black people are heavily overrepresented because the players are just incredibly gifted with talent and genetics? Hmm...
|
Are you insinuating white people being overrepresented is due to superior talent and genetics?
|
On February 08 2022 14:42 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well. Do most people view education as a zero sum, competitive event? I seem to see a lot of analogies to competitive sports. Maybe I am being too naive, but I thought the goal of education is to have an informed, humane and productive citizenry more than it is to weed out the weak from the strong. Later on, when people are specializing into challenging fields then a sports analogy is more appropriate, but it seems unfitting for general education.
In most countries today, quality of education is limited by resources devoted to it. Spending extra money / teacher time on a select few 'gifted' children directly affects every other kid because it's an extra line in the budget. Also, pretty much our entire modern way of life is a zero-sum competitive event. If getting into a 'gifted kids' program early gives you an advantage that persists in the later years of your life, well, that means other kids will have a harder time competing against you for jobs, university scholarships, etc. The 'good' places are limited, and testing pre-school age kids to decide who gets extra resources and who doesn't is pretty insane (and that's without even getting into the can of worms that is separating kids into 'gifted' and 'not gifted' at such an early age, which is absolutely a psychological minefield and I am sure affects parents as well and is just such a weird thing to have).
|
On February 08 2022 18:55 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well. Black athletes are vastly over-represented in the NBA. Does that mean the sport is therefore unfair towards non-Black people? Should there be quotas for other races? I think almost everyone would agree this line of thought is completely ridiculous. So then, why is it fine when black people are over-represented, but not when white people are?
It's ridiculous to compare representation in the top tier league of professional sports to things like basic education. Besides, if you're going to talk about quotas in sports, why fixate on NBA? Why not talk about 'gentleman's sports' such as tennis which are way more skewed towards white people than NBA is towards blacks?
edit: also, a significant reason as to why black people are overrepresented in certain sports has a lot to do with anti-black racism in other places, actually. A high-achiever child with strong work ethic from a black family is comparatively more likely to be encouraged to play basketball than his white peer would be, simply because there is an understanding that a black kid is comparatively more likely to be successful as a basketball player than he is as silicon valley engineer -- not because black kids are too stupid for engineering, but because there absolutely are systemic disadvantages for them.
|
On February 08 2022 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well. I'd say it isn't unfair. I mean, if you put an NBA team against the University of Manchester Basketball team, well yes, it would be unfair. But, at the professional level, all athletes are incredibly gifted individuals, both in talent and in genes and there are typically selection rules in place (like the draft, etc.) to even out the teams. At that point, the main advantages aren't about size and strength but skill and how well they play as a team.
But they need a certain level of size to even reach the point where they can play. The average height of an NBA player is 6'6. Every single player in the league is above-average height for the US. It's basically the dot game you invented.
So, what's the difference? Given that physical attributes are always going to be necessary for success in sport at some threshold, what is a "fair" sport in your view?
I'm not even talking about the race angle. Your analogy seems to suggest that every imaginable competitor has to have an equal chance to win in order for something to be fair, which is quite an out-there proposition
|
On February 08 2022 20:11 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2022 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well. I'd say it isn't unfair. I mean, if you put an NBA team against the University of Manchester Basketball team, well yes, it would be unfair. But, at the professional level, all athletes are incredibly gifted individuals, both in talent and in genes and there are typically selection rules in place (like the draft, etc.) to even out the teams. At that point, the main advantages aren't about size and strength but skill and how well they play as a team. But they need a certain level of size to even reach the point where they can play. The average height of an NBA player is 6'6. Every single player in the league is above-average height for the US. It's basically the dot game you invented. So, what's the difference? Given that physical attributes are always going to be necessary for success in sport at some threshold, what is a "fair" sport in your view? I'm not even talking about the race angle. Your analogy seems to suggest that every imaginable competitor has to have an equal chance to win in order for something to be fair, which is quite an out-there proposition.
We were talking about education, not sports. I think sometimes simple analogies help to get the point across but obviously break down if you take it too far, as in this case. I think we all agree that every student, no matter where they live or how they look like should have a fair chance at 'winning' in the education system, correct?
If a sport like basketball was used as the metric to gauge a student's success in the academic system, then yes, this would be deeply unfair. You will get no argument from me there.
Edit: I guess, to answer your question fully:
It's about stated outcomes. Professional sports are meant to entertain us with feats of prowess, whereas education is about making sure everyone has a fair chance in life. This has the obvious conclusion that in sports, we will select those athletes that deliver the highest amount of entertainment, regardless of socioeconomic status or ethnicity.
|
Northern Ireland26794 Posts
On February 08 2022 19:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2022 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well. I'd say it isn't unfair. I mean, if you put an NBA team against the University of Manchester Basketball team, well yes, it would be unfair. But, at the professional level, all athletes are incredibly gifted individuals, both in talent and in genes and there are typically selection rules in place (like the draft, etc.) to even out the teams. At that point, the main advantages aren't about size and strength but skill and how well they play as a team. So the NBA isn't unfair even though black people are heavily overrepresented because the players are just incredibly gifted with talent and genetics? Hmm...
One could argue the two are rather linked
With a relative paucity of other opportunities in more conventional, average jobs, going for the all or nothing push for elite sports is more attractive for those at the bottom of the societal ladder.
Going for a long shot, really low percentage play is more attractive when a comfortable existence is already a relatively lower percentage shot than other players in the game have.
The NBA isn’t unique, many footballers the world over come from disadvantaged backgrounds, in most countries it’s generally the majority.
Or the history of pro boxing which almost reads as a snapshot of demographic trends and which group was at the bottom of the heap at any given time tends to be rather well represented in boxing.
|
On February 08 2022 20:26 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2022 20:11 Belisarius wrote:On February 08 2022 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well. I'd say it isn't unfair. I mean, if you put an NBA team against the University of Manchester Basketball team, well yes, it would be unfair. But, at the professional level, all athletes are incredibly gifted individuals, both in talent and in genes and there are typically selection rules in place (like the draft, etc.) to even out the teams. At that point, the main advantages aren't about size and strength but skill and how well they play as a team. But they need a certain level of size to even reach the point where they can play. The average height of an NBA player is 6'6. Every single player in the league is above-average height for the US. It's basically the dot game you invented. So, what's the difference? Given that physical attributes are always going to be necessary for success in sport at some threshold, what is a "fair" sport in your view? I'm not even talking about the race angle. Your analogy seems to suggest that every imaginable competitor has to have an equal chance to win in order for something to be fair, which is quite an out-there proposition. We were talking about education, not sports. I think sometimes simple analogies help to get the point across but obviously break down if you take it too far, as in this case. I think we all agree that every student, no matter where they live or how they look like should have a fair chance at 'winning' in the education system, correct? If a sport like basketball was used as the metric to gauge a student's success in the academic system, then yes, this would be deeply unfair. You will get no argument from me there. Edit: I guess, to answer your question fully: It's about stated outcomes. Professional sports are meant to entertain us with feats of prowess, whereas education is about making sure everyone has a fair chance in life. This has the obvious conclusion that in sports, we will select those athletes that deliver the highest amount of entertainment, regardless of socioeconomic status or ethnicity.
The corresponding argument is that education is a way to increase productivity in society because people with more knowledge are more productive. Since some people naturally are better suited to learning knowledge, while others have other gifts, it would be most effective if those who were good learners received the best education. Standardized testing, college admissions criteria etc are all ways to try to do this, since we don't have infinite education resources.
|
On February 08 2022 20:11 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2022 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well. I'd say it isn't unfair. I mean, if you put an NBA team against the University of Manchester Basketball team, well yes, it would be unfair. But, at the professional level, all athletes are incredibly gifted individuals, both in talent and in genes and there are typically selection rules in place (like the draft, etc.) to even out the teams. At that point, the main advantages aren't about size and strength but skill and how well they play as a team. But they need a certain level of size to even reach the point where they can play. The average height of an NBA player is 6'6. Every single player in the league is above-average height for the US. It's basically the dot game you invented. So, what's the difference? Given that physical attributes are always going to be necessary for success in sport at some threshold, what is a "fair" sport in your view? I'm not even talking about the race angle. Your analogy seems to suggest that every imaginable competitor has to have an equal chance to win in order for something to be fair, which is quite an out-there proposition
The idea that society should mimic sports is weird, society doesnt actually have to be ultra competitive where you're part of a select few ultra-elites and the rest of humanity is a nothing. Its like the idea that humanity can have some actual inherent value not tied to some societal competitiveness is unthinkable.
Sports don't have to be fair because sports aren't an important or necessary part of living a good life as a human being. That is the difference. Access to education, healthcare, housing, food, not being murdered by cops, etc. etc. are important/necessary parts of living a good life as a human being in the world as it is.
|
Northern Ireland26794 Posts
On February 08 2022 17:59 Zambrah wrote:
Im curious, given the horrible housing price situation, as well as the horrible inflation on food and such, I see two core aspects of like, living, being degraded heavily (at least in the public eye) when it comes to affordability.
Im wondering where you all think the breaking point is for Americans? When do you think the material impact to people's lives gets bad enough that people start to go all French Revolution, is it even possible in this day and age?
I've been listening to the Revolutions podcast recently and Im noticing some interesting similarities between the French Revolution and whats happening now and Im very interested to see how it develops given we have a non-functional government thats not likely going to get any more functional in the foreseeable future.
How is society going to adjust to the state of things in the US, violently, or systematically, or will it adjust at all?
You’d think it would be easier in the modern telecommunication age to whip up a real mob, but it seems easier diffused by so many different angles and well, so much information.
Plus we live relatively atomised lives, more free to choose our paths and values and associates that throughout history.
Which I think has many benefits, but it does make spontaneous mass uprisings a lot more difficult as there’s less to tether to and unify.
There seems little permeation into the wider consciousness of us in the West that such things are possible anymore. Revolutions are things other peoples and cultures do, in different circumstances of genuine tyranny. That or people are largely unaware of contemporary examples.
I’m not sure what would be a trigger point but I imagine the threshold would be super high. On the other hand if you saw it happen anywhere in the wider West, that would massively increase the chances of repeat occurrences.
|
On February 08 2022 17:59 Zambrah wrote:
Im curious, given the horrible housing price situation, as well as the horrible inflation on food and such, I see two core aspects of like, living, being degraded heavily (at least in the public eye) when it comes to affordability.
Im wondering where you all think the breaking point is for Americans? When do you think the material impact to people's lives gets bad enough that people start to go all French Revolution, is it even possible in this day and age?
I've been listening to the Revolutions podcast recently and Im noticing some interesting similarities between the French Revolution and whats happening now and Im very interested to see how it develops given we have a non-functional government thats not likely going to get any more functional in the foreseeable future.
How is society going to adjust to the state of things in the US, violently, or systematically, or will it adjust at all?
The people of the US are far too divided to rise against the system. Its always "the other side"s fault, so its more important "your" elite gets to exploit and abuse the working class of the country than actually purging the oppressors at the top.
Thanks to very successful divide-and-conquer played on the working class of the US, the leadership and their moneyed handlers never has to fear grand systemic reforms that would strip them of power.
Understanding you've got more in common with red-hat Qanoners and Portland progressives than you do with your public representative would be a start, but i doubt itll even get to that point.
|
On February 08 2022 20:51 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2022 20:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 08 2022 20:11 Belisarius wrote:On February 08 2022 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 08 2022 13:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 07 2022 20:40 Belisarius wrote:On February 07 2022 17:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2022 14:59 gobbledydook wrote:
Critical Race Theory is a theory that examines the effect of policies and systems on race, and how policies and systems with no explicit race discrimination can nevertheless favour the majority White race over other races.
There are a few points of contention right now, which are often conflated and result in meaningless arguments.
1) Is the academic CRT theory being taught in schools? Clearly the answer is no.
2) Are white people, overall, achieving better outcomes than black people in the current systems? Clearly the answer is yes.
3) Does the fact that white people achieve better outcomes than black people on average mean the system is unfair? This is something that can be debated. I am inclined to believe that it is indeed harder for black people to excel, given equal talent.
4) Are white people inherently privileged because of that? I find it difficult to argue that this is valid on an individual level and I find it insulting when someone gets told to 'check their white privilege' because they are white.
5) Should it be taught in schools that white people are privileged because of their race? Some school districts were trying to put elements of this concept in their curriculum. I think this is a clear no. I think this is also what most parents that are against CRT are really against, but for lack of a better term blame CRT. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the conclusion of CRT theory is that white people are privileged.
6) Should standards be lowered for 'non-privileged' races? This is the core concept behind affirmative action, particularly in college admissions and in race quotas. This can be debated, but I think it should be no, and the equity problem described in 3) should be solved by improving the resource allocation earlier in life so black children have the same opportunities as white children, instead of lowering the standards after the fact.
I really like your post here and think it will generate good discussion. I only have time to add to point 3. If a system delivers systematically worse results for a certain subset of people, it's objectively not fair. For instance, if you design a game where only kids abive a certain height can win (say touch a dot with your foot and another with a hand that is very far away) and then you give prizes to the winners, you'd say the game was unfair. I don't think this is debatable. Do you consider professional basketball to be unfair? If not, what do you see as the substantive difference? I'm interested in a response for this as well. I'd say it isn't unfair. I mean, if you put an NBA team against the University of Manchester Basketball team, well yes, it would be unfair. But, at the professional level, all athletes are incredibly gifted individuals, both in talent and in genes and there are typically selection rules in place (like the draft, etc.) to even out the teams. At that point, the main advantages aren't about size and strength but skill and how well they play as a team. But they need a certain level of size to even reach the point where they can play. The average height of an NBA player is 6'6. Every single player in the league is above-average height for the US. It's basically the dot game you invented. So, what's the difference? Given that physical attributes are always going to be necessary for success in sport at some threshold, what is a "fair" sport in your view? I'm not even talking about the race angle. Your analogy seems to suggest that every imaginable competitor has to have an equal chance to win in order for something to be fair, which is quite an out-there proposition. We were talking about education, not sports. I think sometimes simple analogies help to get the point across but obviously break down if you take it too far, as in this case. I think we all agree that every student, no matter where they live or how they look like should have a fair chance at 'winning' in the education system, correct? If a sport like basketball was used as the metric to gauge a student's success in the academic system, then yes, this would be deeply unfair. You will get no argument from me there. Edit: I guess, to answer your question fully: It's about stated outcomes. Professional sports are meant to entertain us with feats of prowess, whereas education is about making sure everyone has a fair chance in life. This has the obvious conclusion that in sports, we will select those athletes that deliver the highest amount of entertainment, regardless of socioeconomic status or ethnicity. The corresponding argument is that education is a way to increase productivity in society because people with more knowledge are more productive. Since some people naturally are better suited to learning knowledge, while others have other gifts, it would be most effective if those who were good learners received the best education. Standardized testing, college admissions criteria etc are all ways to try to do this, since we don't have infinite education resources.
This may be where we differ in our basic worldview. I always thought that what was important in society was more along the lines of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' rather than maximising productivity.
|
Norway28797 Posts
To what degree one considers society built from the top or bottom is one of those fundamental questions that guide your opinions on a myriad of smaller political questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
