|
On April 27 2016 03:28 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 03:23 Numy wrote:On April 27 2016 03:12 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 27 2016 03:02 Numy wrote:
The issue is by creating such a thing you separate that vulnerable group or highlight them. It's not a solution and should not be thought of as one. It's a spot measure that's purpose is meant for a limited duration while the issue in greater society is sorted out. Unfortunately too many people believe it's something that is needs to stay instead of merely being the poor bandaid that it is.
It's really funny reading this while being an actual minority as a white male. The States really needs to stop being so backward. It creates issues for the rest of us unfortunately. Globalization is both good and bad. It's meant as a reprieve from societal issues not a platform to espouse them. but just because it has its misuses isn't a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. safe spaces are important things to have support for those vulnerable groups while we work on fixing the racist tendencies of our societies or the harmful gender stereotypes (like women can't do computer stuff well, or men can't be emotional or vulnerable without being homosexual). I just can't see justification for attacking safe spaces while they still provide value to our society you know? like why are those people so adamant about removing a place of support and safety for vulnerable people. it's like complaining that elementary schools don't allow random adults who want to just check out the playground equipment out for endurance training onto their campuses to use the stuff with the kids. It's important to provide safe areas for vulnerable populations. Also numy what IS it like to be a white man in post apartheid south africa? Safe spaces weren't really a thing when I was in Uni or even a thing here in general so I have a hard time evaluating it completely. I said my initial reasoning for why I dislike the concept. It should be looked at as merely a tool while change happens. I'll try use an example of something here that while it doesn't mirror safe spaces it has the same flaw in my mind. We have a system called BBE which is essentially an economic system where you get benefits for employing disadvantaged people(Black in most cases) or lose access to benefits if you don't. I understand the reason for this concept and agree with it but it doesn't actually solve anything. It's highlighting racial divide while not fundamentally fixing the issues of the past. In order to have a society that doesn't have racial issues there needs to be no policy or items based on racial issues because no matter how good the intention of these policies they will always draw attention to the fact that they are racial in nature. So bringing this tangent back to the safe spaces things, by creating a zone "for people of X" it highlights that these people are different from the rest of society while not actually combating the need for these people to have this zone. As I said earlier, it's a fine temporary tool but shouldn't be something you want as a permanent fixture. You want to land up in a place where these people are an ordinary part of society. That's not really mentioning the fact that I feel people seem to abuse this tool as a way to create their own polarized hate filled view on the world. There should should never be a place where people are safe to fuel hatred and discrimination without consequence. Agree 100%. Also when you are told you are a victim your whole life you are going to start believing it and it will prevent you from actually making something of yourself. Just look at the "the chalkening" that happened recently. People literally cried from seeing "trump 2016". Like how is this acceptable that this person exists? How easy of a life have you had to have for this to actually make you cry?
Also people blew tf up when there was poo in the vicinity of the Latin Student Union (yes, they and the black students have their own student unions). Turns out some blind girl's seeing eye dog had taken a dump there.
|
There's nothing wrong with being offended by Trump 2016. Hell I am and I'm not even American! The issue lies in demanding the action be taken against the group doing Trump 2016 on the basis of that. That's the "end goal" you want. People being able to voice dissenting opinions in peace. That obviously changes when that voice turns towards violence/hatred/discrimination which just shouldn't be tolerated. It's a very fine line to walk which is why we should be teaching people the skills needed to discuss their opinions in a productive way and evaluating biased information in order to form their own opinions on it.
All you accomplish by accommodating radical behavior is stop people from engaging in this process.
|
Yeah safe spaces, and those sorts of programs like affirmative action exist to treat the symptoms of inequality not cure the inequality. and especially for affirmative action type stuff in media positions and upper management, it provides representation, which generationally leads to change. new kids grow up with black or gay or trans idols doing the things they want to do, and get inspired to do the same, and the next generation is better off and doesn't need the programs as much. that doesn't work for every position right, but for media positions and the visible things, it means so much. In america, much of the black youth wants to be actors or athletes. and thats because they see black actors or athletes who grew up in their area and became this 'important person' and are inspired by that.
representation is the best way to solve problems over multiple generations. the better represented all groups are, the more normal it seems to have a diverse group to the next generation, the more diverse the groups get when those kids are old enough to have kids. etc etc. So while those work programs help in the visible jobs they just patch over other issues without fixing anything.
|
The problem is that when quotas are FORCED like that there will always be incompentent people who get put there as a token and it makes those people look worse.
Even if we achieved 100% equality for everyone that will not mean that everything will be split evenly. Different races/cultures/communities/sex are better/worse at different things.
|
A lot of it I think is due to how our political system works and human nature. We demand results now yet these problems can't be fixed in a short space of time. They'll take decades to truly resolve. We continually change who leads the country which means they could undo any kind of long term solution the previous leaders started or even have their own idea on how to fix it so we land up back in the same place of short term "apparent" solutions.
In our case we should have been focusing a lot of our resources on improving public education to the point where majority of people have access to good education but instead we flounder with these policies that don't actually fix anything and if anything merely allow a select few to amass wealth.
|
I've experienced literally none of these things at my uni lol
It seriously sounds like something out of some dystopian fiction novel
|
On April 27 2016 03:58 nafta wrote:
The problem is that when quotas are FORCED like that there will always be incompentent people who get put there as a token and it makes those people look worse.
Even if we achieved 100% equality for everyone that will not mean that everything will be split evenly. Different races/cultures/communities/sex are better/worse at different things.
Oh boy the people used as "token woman/black person (sometimes both)/minority" in our government... granted, they're not necessarily incompetent (some are), but it's made so obvious why they got that ministry that it kinda reeks (and it's bad for them too when they're competent ones).
|
Yea it honestly makes it worse.
Equality of opportunity>>>>>>>>>equality of outcome. Even if something is 100% white men or black women or w/e else doesn't mean it is unfair.
|
On April 27 2016 03:58 nafta wrote:
The problem is that when quotas are FORCED like that there will always be incompentent people who get put there as a token and it makes those people look worse.
Even if we achieved 100% equality for everyone that will not mean that everything will be split evenly. Different races/cultures/communities/sex are better/worse at different things.
Don't worry, plenty of incompetent and unqualified people end up places solely because of nepotism. 
|
On April 27 2016 04:12 nafta wrote:
Yea it honestly makes it worse.
Equality of opportunity>>>>>>>>>equality of outcome. Even if something is 100% white men or black women or w/e else doesn't mean it is unfair.
the issue occurs where you notice the trend of Jobs that pay well and start paying better are the ones in western society to be dominated by white men, and it's not because white men are the best programmers or the best CEOs, it's because the tech industry is extremely hostile to minority groups, and business is more about networking than talent or intelligence. Look at publishing in the US for example. publishing was a high paying industry, women started joining the industry and then the average pay in the industry started plummeting. the men left for greener pastures and now publishing is almost entirely a women's club in america. industries can be "functional" and still be representations of an unhealthy economic environment. a lack of diversity isn't due to cultural or genetic predisposition. because white men used to do everything in america and europe, the industries that started to get diversified also started to decrease in social status as a result, which also leads to less and less pay. thats a societal issue.
On April 27 2016 04:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 03:58 nafta wrote:
The problem is that when quotas are FORCED like that there will always be incompentent people who get put there as a token and it makes those people look worse.
Even if we achieved 100% equality for everyone that will not mean that everything will be split evenly. Different races/cultures/communities/sex are better/worse at different things. Don't worry, plenty of incompetent and unqualified people end up places solely because of nepotism.
many many many more people are currently in positions they are unqualified for or bad at from nepotism than have ever been filled through these affirmative action programs. it's true.
specifically though you have hiring biases in a lot of industries, where people have shown and proven that two IDENTICAL resumes receive different treatment based on the perceived ethnicity of the applicants name. A white guy named Tyrone will be treated worse than a black guy named William, because it's assumed the former is black and the latter is white. and that's what affirmative action tries to prevent and combat. those subtle biases.
|
On April 27 2016 04:19 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 04:12 nafta wrote:
Yea it honestly makes it worse.
Equality of opportunity>>>>>>>>>equality of outcome. Even if something is 100% white men or black women or w/e else doesn't mean it is unfair. the issue occurs where you notice the trend of Jobs that pay well and start paying better are the ones in western society to be dominated by white men, and it's not because white men are the best programmers or the best CEOs, it's because the tech industry is extremely hostile to minority groups, and business is more about networking than talent or intelligence. Look at publishing in the US for example. publishing was a high paying industry, women started joining the industry and then the average pay in the industry started plummeting. the men left for greener pastures and now publishing is almost entirely a women's club in america. industries can be "functional" and still be representations of an unhealthy economic environment. a lack of diversity isn't due to cultural or genetic predisposition. because white men used to do everything in america and europe, the industries that started to get diversified also started to decrease in social status as a result, which also leads to less and less pay. thats a societal issue.
And those businesses start falling behind the others that hire you based on how good you are.
The pay gets reduced because more people want to do it so they don't have to pay as much.
So you fix nepotism by ignoring it and adding another thing that is just as bad.
|
In my philosophy of science class today a girl suggested that it would be irresponsible of scientists to give nuclear weapons to stupid races of people like africans
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On April 27 2016 04:24 killerdog wrote:
In my philosophy of science class today a girl suggested that it would be irresponsible of scientists to give nuclear weapons to stupid races of people like africans
LOL when you told me about this I automatically assumed it was a guy
gold.
|
On April 27 2016 04:24 killerdog wrote:
In my philosophy of science class today a girl suggested that it would be irresponsible of scientists to give nuclear weapons to stupid races of people like africans
What about stupid people like her
|
You have to admire her courage. Most people would be too embarrassed to say such thing in a public space.
|
On April 27 2016 04:24 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 04:19 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 27 2016 04:12 nafta wrote:
Yea it honestly makes it worse.
Equality of opportunity>>>>>>>>>equality of outcome. Even if something is 100% white men or black women or w/e else doesn't mean it is unfair. the issue occurs where you notice the trend of Jobs that pay well and start paying better are the ones in western society to be dominated by white men, and it's not because white men are the best programmers or the best CEOs, it's because the tech industry is extremely hostile to minority groups, and business is more about networking than talent or intelligence. Look at publishing in the US for example. publishing was a high paying industry, women started joining the industry and then the average pay in the industry started plummeting. the men left for greener pastures and now publishing is almost entirely a women's club in america. industries can be "functional" and still be representations of an unhealthy economic environment. a lack of diversity isn't due to cultural or genetic predisposition. because white men used to do everything in america and europe, the industries that started to get diversified also started to decrease in social status as a result, which also leads to less and less pay. thats a societal issue. And those businesses start falling behind the others that hire you based on how good you are. The pay gets reduced because more people want to do it so they don't have to pay as much. So you fix nepotism by ignoring it and adding another thing that is just as bad.
If there is one thing we are sure about it's that we don't know how to hire best people for the job. The book: thinking, fast and slow. gives great insight into this why people can't hire the right people.
|
I think the issue isn't with white guys going "hurr we're the real oppressed ones". It's more like people against being almost encouraged to blame 100% of their problems on outside sources and expect society to protect them from everything.
Sometimes sith-lords give examples of how their life isn't so easy and everyone is like "LOL YOU'RE WHITE YOUR LIFE IS SO EASY".
Yes minorities experience a statistically significant increased amount of oppression or whatever you want to call it but that doesn't mean every middle class gay guy had a harder time than a poor ass white guy in baltimore or something. (yes poor black guy from baltimore probably has a much harder time)
Reducing every "anti-SJW" position as "aww look at the poor white males" is equally banal as calling all feminists whiny crybabies.
|
i would argue the point that giving nukes to any country at all is probably rather undesireable, so it's not like she's wrong in her conclusion itself, which is somewhat impressive
most feminists i talked to came across as whiny crybabies to me, i guess that means im banal rip
|
On April 27 2016 04:24 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 04:19 PrinceXizor wrote:On April 27 2016 04:12 nafta wrote:
Yea it honestly makes it worse.
Equality of opportunity>>>>>>>>>equality of outcome. Even if something is 100% white men or black women or w/e else doesn't mean it is unfair. the issue occurs where you notice the trend of Jobs that pay well and start paying better are the ones in western society to be dominated by white men, and it's not because white men are the best programmers or the best CEOs, it's because the tech industry is extremely hostile to minority groups, and business is more about networking than talent or intelligence. Look at publishing in the US for example. publishing was a high paying industry, women started joining the industry and then the average pay in the industry started plummeting. the men left for greener pastures and now publishing is almost entirely a women's club in america. industries can be "functional" and still be representations of an unhealthy economic environment. a lack of diversity isn't due to cultural or genetic predisposition. because white men used to do everything in america and europe, the industries that started to get diversified also started to decrease in social status as a result, which also leads to less and less pay. thats a societal issue. And those businesses start falling behind the others that hire you based on how good you are. The pay gets reduced because more people want to do it so they don't have to pay as much. So you fix nepotism by ignoring it and adding another thing that is just as bad.
I'm arguing neither for nor against Affirmative Action because honestly I don't have an informed enough opinion to argue either side. I just find it silly that when AA is complained about, nepotism is rarely mentioned when I view it as equally as (if not more) pervasive of a problem in general.
edit - yes, I do realize that one is an enforced legal structure and the other is systemic human nature
|
On April 27 2016 04:38 Dandel Ion wrote:
i would argue the point that giving nukes to any country at all is probably rather undesireable, so it's not like she's wrong in her conclusion itself, which is somewhat impressive
most feminists i talked to came across as whiny crybabies to me, i guess that means im banal rip
I mean her underlying point was fine, and the tutor just said it was a valid point of view and moved on.
She could have phrased it better though lel
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
