Atlantic piece on college word police and Trump's popularity

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know what zero tolerance means. We should shoot people on sight when they use "gay" as an insult?

I work at a school. To me, "zero tolerance" can just mean "get sent to detention for a boring afternoon."

The point here is that when society allows its more asinine members to use slurs and express bigotry without some negative response... the message is extremely clear: "We don't object to what this guy is saying, and a lot of us privately agree with it." So you can't have a society which, most of the time, lets people make asinine jokes about minorities, not if you are trying to do anything other than perpetuate the mistreatment and oppression of the minority.

This is why it's so hard to fight against from inside the left. You get accused of being a secret conservative and pushed out. The right has had this problem for decades and it's turned them into a such a caricature of themselves that it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between an Onion article and an actual quote from a mainstream Republican official. The problem is that the left is so marginalized in this country that if it follows a similar path of polarization, it will go back to being the political whipping boy that it was in the early 2000's. The right-wingers will continue to inflate their fantasy of left-wing authoritarianism despite zero evidence, but when people are getting fired and shamed on the public stage for saying relatively innocuous things, it can cause some fence-sitters to come over to their side, and that would mean that the period of tentative social victories we've enjoyed in the last few years will be over.

I don't think we'd be seeing the current trend if it weren't for the shrinking number of potential "fence-sitters" likely to actually align with the Right on social issues.

It's like, gay marriage didn't start passing until a majority of the American population was at least prepared to shrug and go 'meh' about it.

By contrast, Loving v. Virginia settled the issue of interracial marriage at a time when most white Americans were still against it, as I recall- and yet nobody ever really mounted a meaningful or successful backlash against that. Within a few years, the idea of the legal system in the US ever barring interracial marriage was dead as a doornail.

So basically, I don't think social progress is as tenuous as you think. It is possible that we will see, for example, attempts to create a procedure for countersuing if one is wrongfully terminated over a frivolous 'discrimination' claim, or something like that. But that doesn't negate the basic change; it simply puts some limits on what that change will achieve.

Again, the world ends up looking eternally like it did in the 1970s. Nominal legal equality, extensive de facto discrimination and inequality, nobody actually addressing the issue, and the targets of that inequality having no real recourse except to riot and freak out and do weird crazy shit just to get the attention of The Man.

I don't think we've come very far from that when it comes to race and class (although sexuality has improved quite a bit)...

We're... starting to get there on gender. Improvements on race seem to not be coming along at all for blacks in particular, somewhat less badly for other racial minorities (i.e. Latinos and Asians).

The racial issue is inflamed by rising economic inequality. Being poor means getting hit with more injustice and feeling more oppressed by your society. Blacks were more likely to be poor in the 1960s, and that was not addressed in the time available prior to the Reagan Revolution and the beginning of the trend towards greater inequality. As a result, blacks today end up experiencing as much if not more injustice now than they did in the 1970s for reasons that are produced by a nasty tangle of anti-poor AND anti-black discrimination (e.g. abusive police behavior).

By contrast, the poverty issue does much less to interfere with the progress of women's liberation, to the point where we DO start having serious social conversations about things like work-life balance, expectation of women doing all the housework, and so on. We're not there but you can chart meaningful progress.

No one wants to sit down and discuss the real issues, they just want to circle the wagons and tell each other stories about the other side, and so ordinary people end up with horrendously distorted ideas about what it means to be a minority in America and no one ever corrects them because they're never aloud to voice those ideas outside of family get-togethers and similarly homogenous venues where no one has the perspective to be able to shed light on the subject. We all need to be a little less quick to assume that someone is one of THOSE PEOPLE (whether that's a racist, a statist, or whatever) if we're going to get anywhere.

I'm amenable to this- but I think we're still too far over on the "nobody is speaking out for the minorities" side of the line.

So I'm less concerned about people becoming targets of shirt-anger, especially since a large fraction of the public actually does rally behind people like Dr. Taylor, in a positive way, and because he didn't get fired or anything.

And I'm more concerned about people trying to quash discussion of why "Black Lives Matter" is a borderline subversive remark rather than a mind-blastingly obvious one. Because frankly, people getting shot is a bigger deal than people acquiring a bizarre sort of temporary Internet anti-celebrity.

[Yes, Shirtstorm has a relatively happy ending by the standards of people targeted by angry leftists who see discrimination, and yes the 'Black Lives Matter' movement is an unusually obvious case on the opposite side of the line, but I hope you see my point]

Rather, I am concerned - both in an abstract, ethical sense, and a realist, political sense - that we are way too quick to rip into someone just because they said something we deem offensive - or, even more problematically, something we have protectionistly deemed offensive for another party's benefit (such as Affleck nobly riding his steed into battle for all of Muslim-kind, in the video I posted above). This is very different from offending someone, one on one, and being disliked or getting insulted or offended back by the party you've offended.

The alternative is that the uttering of the offensive words is tolerated forever.

See, the groups getting slurred and insulted and so on are minorities in the US- they make up only a tiny fraction of the population. They are even further underrepresented by the standards of the sort of people who have the power to make their displeasure known safely.

There are disproportionately few millionaires, corporate executives, and so on who are black. Fewer who are female. Fewer who are anything other than Christian, maybe Jewish, or perhaps quietly agnostic. Virtually none who are transgender.

So the people who have the ability to impose consequences on a person (call him Bob) for being a bigoted jackass... are mostly the ones who are not targets of that bigotry.

Like, that gay guy who punches Bob in the nose for using homophobic slurs? He may be up for assault charges as a result. A black guy who behaves the same way takes a similar risk. Either one may well decide NOT to impose any negative consequences on Bob, because they lack power over Bob.

Bob expresses obnoxious opinions about Muslims at work? His Muslim coworkers cringe and take it... because the boss is a 55-year-old white guy who thinks that every city in the Middle East was full of partying celebrators after 9/11. Bob mocks transgender people when drinking with his friends? On the off chance that there are any transgender people present, the odds are they won't say a blessed thing about it- because being publicly revealed as transgender in the presence of a group of people who are strongly transphobic is a good way to get beaten, raped, murdered, or all of the above.

Now, if you talk the same way in front of your gay boss, your boss might fire you, consequence-free. If your small business has a major customer who's black, your racism has consequences that actually matter to you. And so on. But very few people are in that situation in their everyday life- there are very few powerful people who are openly gay, or who are members of racial minorities, or anything along those lines.

So unless the people who actually have power are willing to step up to the plate on behalf of the relatively low-powered minorities... those minorities are helpless to respond effectively against their persecutors. Which is exactly why such persecution was tolerated for so many decades historically.

And it's not that there weren't gays and lesbians in 1950. It's that gay people weren't organized, had no way of communicating with each other, didn't even have any accurate information on how many there were. So they had no means of imposing any systematic consequences on others who persecuted them. And since no straight person had any incentive to protect them, and no gay person was capable of protecting themselves from homophobia, they were massively victimized.

There was literally zero cost for persecuting gays. As a result, in 1950, gay-bashing wasn't just socially accepted, it was practically socially mandatory.

There's a reason that a lot of historians of gay rights in America basically point to the Stonewall riots and say "this is where it all began." Because that was arguably the very first time in American history that a large number of gay people publicly did anything that noticeably increased the costs of persecuting and attacking gays.

Within a few years, gay rights were at least on the radar for public discussion, and there were parts of the country where "breathing while queer" was no longer a felony.

I don't think that's a coincidence.

We are de facto banning words when uttering them - no matter the intention or context - gets you lynched by the court of public opinion. However well-intentioned one might think it is to beat up on someone for once making a joke that was disparaging of gays or Jews or blacks or whoever, all we're really accomplishing is tyranny of the majority.

I disagree. I would argue that what we are doing is mobilizing the majority to police itself and prevent one minority from persecuting another minority.

Which is exactly how the combination of "majority rule, minority rights" is supposed to work.

I mean forget about racial slurs, suppose I just want to be an utterly contemptuous, insulting, disrespectful fuckhead all day long. I mean, it's my right to do so. But do you really expect that I should somehow be guaranteed (by um... who exactly? President Obama?) that going around being an asshole all day shouldn't have consequences like losing friends, or getting fired?

Actually yes, there is a specific guarantee that we should make, which is saying things that offend someone (but are not illegal) in a context completely divorced from your job should not be a cause for termination. Conservative bosses should not be able to fire people for making liberal comments on twitter and liberal bosses should not be able to fire people for making conservative comments on twitter. The model we are sliding towards of all organisations (schools, companies, governments) trying to blanket monitor all of their staff is very chilling to freedom of speech and ultimately will further divide society into ideological groups which don't mix.

I strongly agree with this in general, although an exception might be made for people who are public spokespersons for their organization and/or whose celebrity value makes them a key asset to the organization.

If you're a major news anchor for NBC, and NBC pays you large sums of money every year because other people want to listen to what you say on NBC's behalf, and you start making racist comments on Twitter...

...Well, your ability to do your job for NBC has just been drastically undermined. You are in a real sense rendering yourself unfit for duty by making yourself infamous through deliberate actions.

However, this argument does not extend to any employee of a business who isn't primarily keeping their job through name recognition and public celebrity.

[Channel72]

And if we give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to explain what they meant? What about a religious person who is fine with gays as people but can't give up his childhood vision of marriage, or one of the millions of people who have nothing against the Jewish people but think that Israel's foreign policy is atrocious, or someone who is against affirmative action because they think it elevates race above merit (as many do)? Burn them at the stake? If we engage these people in discussion and they turn out to be raving bigots, then we'll have confirmation and can decide what consequences (if any) need to be meted out. If they turn out to be normal folks with a misguided or unpopular opinion, maybe we can change their mind. Hell, maybe they can change ours.

You're not even listening. Nobody is suggesting they be burned at the stake. I even said they shouldn't be fired, in most cases. But again, if it's a high profile company leader who was hired and is being paid to represent a certain narrative or set of values, then again, I see no problem with firing them if they fail to do so. If Mozilla decides that same-sex equality is a core tenet of their organization's values, and then one of their leading figures does something which is diametrically opposed to those values, then yeah - I don't see the issue with firing him. I mean, this works both ways. The KKK has the right to make sure that their stupid "Grand Dragon" or Wizard or whatever the fuck they call their leader believes and promotes Aryan supremacism. If the leader of the KKK suddenly tweets that Jews and blacks are actually awesome and should be treated equally to white Christians, the KKK would likely fire him, as is their right. So again, I don't see the issue here.

Again, I already said I don't believe a large, publicly-traded company should necessarily have the right to fire individual employees for expressing unpopular opinions, but if they specifically hired a leader or executive to promote a certain set of values, then they have every right to fire that guy if he doesn't do his job. I mean, to take the example of say, criticizing Israel: I'm personally very critical of Israel, but I would not be at all surprised if say, I applied for a position as leader of the American Israel Cultural Foundation, and they fired me after I wrote a scathing blog post about treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank. It would be their right to do so.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Which part of the discussion is that relevant to? I'm not attacking you, I honestly don't get why that story was posted in this thread, it's not about trump, "college word police", or accusations of bigotry chilling speech.

It's about people jumping to conclusions, not bothering to seek context, demonizing someone and forming a lynch mob.

[cmdrjones]

If you are fighting for "social justice" without using such tactics, then technically, you are NOT an SJW.
To one of those reactionary assholes (like myself) the fight for 'racial, sexual, and class equality,' is like fighting for unicorns, Elves and Leprechauns.... a little silly, but as long as you don't involve me in the struggle for things that do not exist, then I have no problems.

A, so I presume this is you admitting to support racism, sexism and income inequality in your usual convoluted way, CONFEDERATE PATRIOT. You must be a real fun guy at parties. Those cross-burning parties where everyone comes dressed in pointy, white bedsheets of course.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the crazy claim that it's possible to support the legal and moral equality of groups that are not qualitatively or quantitatively equal in an empirical sense.

Now, if cmdrjones comes out and says [group] shouldn't have the same protections under the law, aren't really people, etc. then I'll join you in calling him a [category]ist. Until then, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. (And no, "CONFEDERATE PATRIOT RAAAAGH!!!11one" isn't a sufficient "admission of guilt" for me.)

I've actually said quite the opposite. Metahive doesn't like me, boo-fing-hoo. Here's the problem he's missing: to state that those differences DON'T EXIST is just silly. That's where he doesn't get it. Of course Black people should be equal, under the law, but to DO that many of the things SJWs cherish such as affirmative action would have to go. Women OTOH can BE citizens, but until they start filling out selective service cards, they are not LEGALLY equal. Now, of course this begs the question of whether all of these groups are equal in other ways, such as, oh i don't know, in the eyes of God?
absolutely! but many on his board get all twitchy when I bring that up, so I try not to get too wrapped around the axle about it.
AS for all the rest of those past arguments he and I have had, suffice it to say his summations of my opinions are gross exaggerations at best and laughable at worst, but if you're interested, I can go over all of that one more time.

[Covenant]

That's not actually begging the question about god and other forms of equality. The copy-paste first example of question begging is: "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

What is begging the question is the assertions that differences exist between people because society makes distinction between them. Sorry to be pedantic but this the kind of critical thinking term which masquerades as a colloquialism.

In any case, in the examples given, there is a big difference in making the statement that inherent and immutable differences exist ("women cannot be fighters!") and that societal standards or situations exist which create differences in a class of individuals ("women are not drafted to be fighters because they do not fill out selective service cards, nor does our government generally opt to send willing and qualified women into fighting despite the presence of women in other Nation's fighting services now and in the past").

Dismantling systems like Affirmative Action and making things like selective service universal would not offend the portion of the population that feels women and minorities are mistreated. What would be offensive is dismantling a system designed to protect at-risk portions of the population while they are still at-risk of unfair exploitation and disenfranchisement... as opposed to the normal level of fair exploitation we all face.

For example, if you took away equal protection marriage clauses and anti-discrimination laws (special protections!) during a time when nationally there is a huge pushback against gay marriage, that's not equality under the law. The law does have an obligation to be just, and justice requires some essential freedoms from ignorant persecution. Justice should also want to help those who had been, through a cruel institution of this nation's economic and social enslavement, deprived of generations of economic, social, and educational well-being.

Affirmative Action is a loaded term, like "Politically Correct" since there is no single rule about diversity inclusivity that every state agrees upon. But from a philosophical perspective, taking someone who inherits nothing, and someone who inherits a greal deal, and placing them on equal footing, is not fair. Without going down the rabbit hole too far, something like Affirmative Action is a simple method of correcting a grave miscarriage of justice that has done demonstrable damage to the commonwealth. It is also easy to continue justifying inclusivity mandates when finding a "Confederate Flag Rally" is still something you can do outside of reenactment circles.

Some people do make a good-intentioned argument that maintaining special protections keep bigotry in place, infantilizes communities, and sets up a divide of hate between groups that perpetuates the systemic racism is seeks to combat. That, at least, is an argument that could be examined with weight of evidence. Not every social experiment is successful. But there's no doubt that most of the people who support Affirmative Action do so because they too share a good-intentioned desire to see justice done, or because they believe that bigotry weakens the more people you meet and forge relationships with, or because they feel that it is hard to talk about a meritocracy when individuals are given such unfair starting positions.

[cmdrjones]

That's not actually begging the question about god and other forms of equality. The copy-paste first example of question begging is: "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

What is begging the question is the assertions that differences exist between people because society makes distinction between them. Sorry to be pedantic but this the kind of critical thinking term which masquerades as a colloquialism.

In any case, in the examples given, there is a big difference in making the statement that inherent and immutable differences exist ("women cannot be fighters!") and that societal standards or situations exist which create differences in a class of individuals ("women are not drafted to be fighters because they do not fill out selective service cards, nor does our government generally opt to send willing and qualified women into fighting despite the presence of women in other Nation's fighting services now and in the past").

Dismantling systems like Affirmative Action and making things like selective service universal would not offend the portion of the population that feels women and minorities are mistreated. What would be offensive is dismantling a system designed to protect at-risk portions of the population while they are still at-risk of unfair exploitation and disenfranchisement... as opposed to the normal level of fair exploitation we all face.

For example, if you took away equal protection marriage clauses and anti-discrimination laws (special protections!) during a time when nationally there is a huge pushback against gay marriage, that's not equality under the law. The law does have an obligation to be just, and justice requires some essential freedoms from ignorant persecution. Justice should also want to help those who had been, through a cruel institution of this nation's economic and social enslavement, deprived of generations of economic, social, and educational well-being.

Affirmative Action is a loaded term, like "Politically Correct" since there is no single rule about diversity inclusivity that every state agrees upon. But from a philosophical perspective, taking someone who inherits nothing, and someone who inherits a greal deal, and placing them on equal footing, is not fair. Without going down the rabbit hole too far, something like Affirmative Action is a simple method of correcting a grave miscarriage of justice that has done demonstrable damage to the commonwealth. It is also easy to continue justifying inclusivity mandates when finding a "Confederate Flag Rally" is still something you can do outside of reenactment circles.

Some people do make a good-intentioned argument that maintaining special protections keep bigotry in place, infantilizes communities, and sets up a divide of hate between groups that perpetuates the systemic racism is seeks to combat. That, at least, is an argument that could be examined with weight of evidence. Not every social experiment is successful. But there's no doubt that most of the people who support Affirmative Action do so because they too share a good-intentioned desire to see justice done, or because they believe that bigotry weakens the more people you meet and forge relationships with, or because they feel that it is hard to talk about a meritocracy when individuals are given such unfair starting positions.

I mostly agree, but we weren't debating fairness, we were debating equality. Making the circumstances different for one group or another in order to balance a historical inequity is the very definition of INequality. Hence why I said that Equality doesn't exist. Is that ideal? No. MLK's version of America is the one I hope for, I just don't think that applying pressure to one side of the pole that guy on the high wire is using isn't the best way to go about arriving at that idea..

[cmdrjones]

Oh, and to get more back on topic this here:

http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/ ... ogroup.org

is one of the reasons why so many people are reacting against the "SJW" way of doing things. It's intrusive, arrogant, and totalitarian.

I daresay that among those who are disgusted with this kind of thing are more than a few trump supporters. For each action there is an equal and.... well, y'know the rest...

[Metahive]

O man, this thread is a veritable treasure trove of reactionary dishonesty.

Sorry, but the equality sought after here are things like black people not getting treated like fair game by the police, not being punished more and severely for the same crimes as white people, women not getting on average less pay than men at the same job and not being treated like objects or children. That there's not such a massive income gap between the upper 10% and the rest of the population. Do these intentions sound like silly fairy tales? Yeah, for those who approve of the current status quo. Of course, gotta' equivocate "equality" as meaning "complete biological congruence", because it's not like that is totally not deliberately missing the point by several zip codes.

It's funny this thread complains so loudly about the "outrage culture" of the left when it's the right-wing which is constantly expressing dismay at something or another. Like someone pronouncing spanish words correctly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/la ... .html?_r=0
Yeah, but it's only the left who are whiny and should suck it up.

Also, have those who use "Social Justice Warrior" as some sort of slur ever thought about what that makes them who oppose it? Warriors for injustice, plain and simple. Isn't injustice something worth resisting?

[lPeregrine]

Oh, and to get more back on topic this here:

http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/ ... ogroup.org

is one of the reasons why so many people are reacting against the "SJW" way of doing things. It's intrusive, arrogant, and totalitarian.

I daresay that among those who are disgusted with this kind of thing are more than a few trump supporters. For each action there is an equal and.... well, y'know the rest...

In what bizarre world is "don't be an asshole, and since every asshole is also an amateur lawyer here's a specific list of things you shouldn't do so you can't say 'but I didn't know it was wrong'" considered "totalitarian"? Or did you forget that this is a code of conduct for private communities, not a government censorship program? The kind of person who would object to those standards of behavior is the kind of person that should be removed from a group until they can learn to behave like a reasonable adult.

[Grumman]

And I'm more concerned about people trying to quash discussion of why "Black Lives Matter" is a borderline subversive remark rather than a mind-blastingly obvious one. Because frankly, people getting shot is a bigger deal than people acquiring a bizarre sort of temporary Internet anti-celebrity.

"Black Lives Matter" is a borderline subversive remark because the organisation makes it very easy to read their motto as "Michael Brown Was Murdered". Anyone who is not an absolute pacifist recognises that there are times when the use of lethal force is justified, and BLM's unwillingness to put a robber who assaults and tries to steal a cop's gun and then later runs at that cop rather than surrendering peacefully on the far side of that line throws away a lot of goodwill.

[cmdrjones]

O man, this thread is a veritable treasure trove of reactionary dishonesty.

Sorry, but the equality sought after here are things like black people not getting treated like fair game by the police, not being punished more and severely for the same crimes as white people, women not getting on average less pay than men at the same job and not being treated like objects or children. That there's not such a massive income gap between the upper 10% and the rest of the population. Do these intentions sound like silly fairy tales? Yeah, for those who approve of the current status quo. Of course, gotta' equivocate "equality" as meaning "complete biological congruence", because it's not like that is totally not deliberately missing the point by several zip codes.

It's funny this thread complains so loudly about the "outrage culture" of the left when it's the right-wing which is constantly expressing dismay at something or another. Like someone pronouncing spanish words correctly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/la ... .html?_r=0
Yeah, but it's only the left who are whiny and should suck it up.

Also, have those who use "Social Justice Warrior" as some sort of slur ever thought about what that makes them who oppose it? Warriors for injustice, plain and simple. Isn't injustice something worth resisting?

that doesn't follow. those who oppose "SJWs" aren't advocating for INjustice they are advocating to be left alone. If black people are treated by the "contents of thier character" (see MLK) and are STILL arrested disproportionately for crimes, then in that case it wouldn't be because of wrongdoing by the police it would be because of the CONTENTS of thier character (i.e. their chosen actions). As for women and pay, well, there is some disagreement about the reasons for the so-called pay gap, but to paraphrase Bill Burr: "it's because if the titanic starts sinking I gotta stand there with the guy playing the cello while you get to get on the lifeboat. $1 an hour surcharge honey." Women and men are different andheld to different standards, its not a double standard. that is for two like things, not two unlike things.
The left is seeking to alter the status quo, yes, and as i said above if YOU want to do so in your life and in your community, then within the bounds of the law you are free to do so and I am free to say (quoting the great chris rock) "nigga, I wouldn't do that shit if I wuz you, that shit is five to ten!"

[Metahive]

[
that doesn't follow. those who oppose "SJWs" aren't advocating for INjustice they are advocating to be left alone.

No. Not buying that for a minute. Those who oppose "SJW"s like the GamerGaters are actually quite actively harassing the people they don't like, which includes borderline criminal stuff as well.

If black people are treated by the "contents of thier character" (see MLK) and are STILL arrested disproportionately for crimes, then in that case it wouldn't be because of wrongdoing by the police it would be because of the CONTENTS of thier character (i.e. their chosen actions).

Well, they're not treated according to the "contents of their character", they're treated according to the color of their skin and the stereotypes associated with it.

When the Social Injustice Gang complains about how they can't use racial slurs or perpetuate stereotypes about black people without being criticised for it, what they are fighting for is not to be left alone (huhu, good one) but the right to force their convictions on others. "I like to make use of racist tropes and everyone should suck it up", that's the SIG mantra.

As for women and pay, well, there is some disagreement about the reasons for the so-called pay gap, but to paraphrase Bill Burr: "it's because if the titanic starts sinking I gotta stand there with the guy playing the cello while you get to get on the lifeboat. $1 an hour surcharge honey." Women and men are different andheld to different standards, its not a double standard. that is for two like things, not two unlike things.

Woman are paid less doing the same work as men. That's statistically proven and there's no way to argue against it. Why should that be? Because they have an uterus? Is there some secret tax on it and that's why? Please explain what differences between the genders necessitate women to be paid less than males in the same position.

The left is seeking to alter the status quo, yes, and as i said above if YOU want to do so in your life and in your community, then within the bounds of the law you are free to do so and I am free to say (quoting the great chris rock) "nigga, I wouldn't do that shit if I wuz you, that shit is five to ten!"

The Left seeks to make the world a less shitty, more inclusive place. Why do you want the world to remain in a shitty state? Explain!

Also, if you wish to be left alone, why participate in these debates anyway?I don't care about The Walking Dead, so I don't chime into debates of that show just to proclaim my disinterest.

[Simon_Jester]

that doesn't follow. those who oppose "SJWs" aren't advocating for INjustice they are advocating to be left alone. If black people are treated by the "contents of thier character" (see MLK) and are STILL arrested disproportionately for crimes, then in that case it wouldn't be because of wrongdoing by the police it would be because of the CONTENTS of thier character (i.e. their chosen actions). As for women and pay, well, there is some disagreement about the reasons for the so-called pay gap, but to paraphrase Bill Burr: "it's because if the titanic starts sinking I gotta stand there with the guy playing the cello while you get to get on the lifeboat. $1 an hour surcharge honey." Women and men are different andheld to different standards, its not a double standard. that is for two like things, not two unlike things.

The left is seeking to alter the status quo, yes, and as i said above if YOU want to do so in your life and in your community, then within the bounds of the law you are free to do so and I am free to say (quoting the great chris rock) "nigga, I wouldn't do that shit if I wuz you, that shit is five to ten!"

You know, you didn't really address anything he said.

Let's take those points one at a time. Basically, you're claiming or acting as if you claim:
1) Blacks are getting arrested more often because of the contents of their character.
2) Women get paid less but deserve it because men are willing to take greater risks
3) The left shouldn't 'impose' social changes on you.

Let's address those questions one at a time.

---

1) Are black people getting arrested more often because of 'the content of their character?'

No. They're getting arrested more often in the face of the same evidence, with all else being equal. They're getting beaten up more by police, they're getting sentenced more. The only white people who are getting treated anything like this shittily are very poor whites, because being treated shittily by the justice system is a poverty thing on top of being a race thing. Sure, there's evidence to indicate the actual crime rate is higher among blacks- but it's higher among all poor communities.

Meanwhile, having a large percentage of 'white' in your ancestry will not make you much likelier to stay out of jail if you are black. Having a white parent with actual money might or might not be helping, but I'm not familiar with the results on that. Whereas you'd expect that if there was something genetic, something intrinsic to the nature of blacks that makes them commit crimes, that it would be proportionately less common among blacks who have interbred with non-blacks.

This suggests that the answer to "hey, why do blacks seem to go to jail so much" is "blacks are poor and are discriminated against by the law" not "there's some kind of weird gene in black people that makes them all criminals."

In which case we can not only remove this very bad situation, but also fight crime, by the simple expedient of making black people not be stuck being poor forever just because they're black.

And it's foolish to claim that we shouldn't do that because it's 'discrimination' or 'reverse discrimination.' There is basically NO reason why blacks 'should' be poorer than whites in modern America EXCEPT for the discrimination that happened in the past. They were brought here as slaves, held here as slaves until the 1800s, and then treated like third-class citizens subject to random lynchings for getting 'uppity' for a hundred years after that, and still treated like second-class citizens who much of our population secretly thinks are stupid useless un-educable criminals.

It beggars the imagination to try and come up with a way blacks could be anything other than a poor underclass in our society after that... and yet it is a stupid, insulting joke to claim that any of that treatment was the blacks' fault, or that they earned even one tiny fragment of it.

So that in a very real sense, all we are trying to do with 'affirmative action' is to cancel out the effects of a long, carefully planned, government-orchestrated program by which white Americans MADE black Americans into the underclass that many of them are today.

---

2) Are women getting paid less because they're immune to certain risks, and rightfully 'pay the price' for them?

I'm going to go with 'no.'

For one, because the claim 'women can count on being protected by men in the event of an emergency' becomes something of a bad joke when the odds of a relevant emergency are basically zero, and we're asking the woman to sign over 10% or 20% of her salary for her whole life in exchange for that 'privilege.'

I mean seriously, would you buy insurance on those terms? 20% of your income in perpetuity, in exchange for the privilege of getting treated as men treat women in modern America? Would you make that deal? I wouldn't. It might be worth one percent, maybe, but it's damn sure not worth twenty.

Moreover, the 'women get special protection and have to pay for it with less economic opportunity' claim didn't work so well back in the day either.

The 'protection' women got from men prior to women's lib was very much overrated. Men could do nothing for the leading cause of death among women (childbirth). Many men abandoned or cheated on their wives and left them to support themselves anyway. It was basically legal for a man to gamble away property the woman had legally owned before the marriage, or for the man to beat his wife.

Hell, even the 'lifeboats' thing... didn't emerge until the late Victorian era. And quite a lot of men trampled women in their rush to board the lifeboats on sinking ships during that time even so. If you want a serious example of "women and children first" you have to look at cases like the Birkenhead... and those weren't just any men, those were Royal Marines.

Women were still getting raped, still being left to raise children out of wedlock, and so forth.

And to get even that level of protection, which was rather full of holes, women had to give up ANY access to political power, ANY hope of high-paying jobs, ANY respect or prestige within society. Had to submit to being beaten or committed to a mental asylum on their husband's say-so. Had to submit to a lifetime of humiliation if they should happen to commit the 'crime' of living without a male 'protector,' too.

All in all, I don't think that was a very good deal.

Nowadays, of course, women have stopped paying such a steep price. And the odd thing is, they're not significantly less safe now than they were then. Maybe men's protection was being grossly overcharged for all along? Maybe we were overestimating how much it was worth. Let's try NOT flattering ourselves into exaggerating the value of what we do for them for a generation or two, and see what society looks like with FEWER lies rather than more of them.

---

3) How about 'the left shouldn't impose social changes on you?'

Thing is, we all live in the same society. And it's not just your society, either. It's the society the women you interact with live in. It's the society the blacks you interact with live in. It's the society the gays you interact with live in- and if you claim not to live with gays I'm going to point to the Kinsey reports and laugh.

Their right to not be miserable trumps your right to not have to worry about whether you're making them miserable. Just as their right to not be slaves trumps your right to keep owning the 'property' that is a bunch of slaves.

[Wild Zontargs]

O man, this thread is a veritable treasure trove of reactionary dishonesty.

[snip]

It's funny this thread complains so loudly about the "outrage culture" of the left when it's the right-wing which is constantly expressing dismay at something or another. Like someone pronouncing spanish words correctly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/la ... .html?_r=0
Yeah, but it's only the left who are whiny and should suck it up.

Also, have those who use "Social Justice Warrior" as some sort of slur ever thought about what that makes them who oppose it? Warriors for injustice, plain and simple. Isn't injustice something worth resisting?

OK, back up. Being opposed to "Social Justice Warriors" would mean being opposed to "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society" [from the Wiki] or the tactics of the "Warriors" campaigning for them.

In the first case, one could, in perfectly good faith, point out that enacting social justice would necessitate other forms of injustice, which seems to be cmdrjones' argument.

In the second case, one could argue in good faith that [insert campaign / tactic here] is counterproductive, even from the point of view of someone who supports social justice.

As for the left/right argument, remember that the entire political field can't be adequately described by that one axis. For example:


I am left-wing, but I'm also libertarian (green quadrant). I support increased economic equality, but not through telling individuals "no, you can't do that", and not through penalizing individuals due to their categorizations.

[Covenant]

One of the problems with libertarian social justice is that some degree of force is required to prevent people from undoing the benefits of an unrestricted social marketplace of ideas. There are clearly some especially stubborn ideas about social ordering and power distribution between the entirely invented categories of people which still have not gone away on their own. Or if we assume the marketplace of ideas is slowly favoring egalitarianism (which it seems to be) it is doing so slowly enough that some degree of correction is still going to feel necessary for generations. These biases cause long lasting systemic problems which need addressing in one way or another, and should be anathema (even more than word policing in response to these biases) to a libertarian ethic.

On the other hand, we do know that people who interact and form positive social bonds with members of a disliked group will soften their opinions of that group, because we are at our heart an emotional creature and not a logical one. Combating prejudices with workplace and neighborhood friendships is one of the more effective methods of reducing the effect of these negative biases. Any way you achieve it, reducing bias to near zero is the best way to let individual merit drive whatever metrics of success you prefer.

I think it should be very hard to argue, by comparison, that libertarian systems are healthy when repressive biases exist. This is not to argue with Zontargs in specific, just putting out there that unless someone (from whatever side of whatever spectrum) decides to make a case that these repressive systems are good for the commonwealth (or that they don't care about the commonwealth, which is a valid if monstrous opinion) there's really no better way to address the problem, in a hands off sort of way, than simply encouraging people to change their minds by having them forge social connections with people they had biases against.

[cmdrjones]

that doesn't follow. those who oppose "SJWs" aren't advocating for INjustice they are advocating to be left alone. If black people are treated by the "contents of thier character" (see MLK) and are STILL arrested disproportionately for crimes, then in that case it wouldn't be because of wrongdoing by the police it would be because of the CONTENTS of thier character (i.e. their chosen actions). As for women and pay, well, there is some disagreement about the reasons for the so-called pay gap, but to paraphrase Bill Burr: "it's because if the titanic starts sinking I gotta stand there with the guy playing the cello while you get to get on the lifeboat. $1 an hour surcharge honey." Women and men are different andheld to different standards, its not a double standard. that is for two like things, not two unlike things.

The left is seeking to alter the status quo, yes, and as i said above if YOU want to do so in your life and in your community, then within the bounds of the law you are free to do so and I am free to say (quoting the great chris rock) "nigga, I wouldn't do that shit if I wuz you, that shit is five to ten!"

You know, you didn't really address anything he said.

Let's take those points one at a time. Basically, you're claiming or acting as if you claim:
1) Blacks are getting arrested more often because of the contents of their character.
2) Women get paid less but deserve it because men are willing to take greater risks
3) The left shouldn't 'impose' social changes on you.

Let's address those questions one at a time.

---

1) Are black people getting arrested more often because of 'the content of their character?'

No. They're getting arrested more often in the face of the same evidence, with all else being equal. They're getting beaten up more by police, they're getting sentenced more. The only white people who are getting treated anything like this shittily are very poor whites, because being treated shittily by the justice system is a poverty thing on top of being a race thing. Sure, there's evidence to indicate the actual crime rate is higher among blacks- but it's higher among all poor communities.

Meanwhile, having a large percentage of 'white' in your ancestry will not make you much likelier to stay out of jail if you are black. Having a white parent with actual money might or might not be helping, but I'm not familiar with the results on that. Whereas you'd expect that if there was something genetic, something intrinsic to the nature of blacks that makes them commit crimes, that it would be proportionately less common among blacks who have interbred with non-blacks.

This suggests that the answer to "hey, why do blacks seem to go to jail so much" is "blacks are poor and are discriminated against by the law" not "there's some kind of weird gene in black people that makes them all criminals."

In which case we can not only remove this very bad situation, but also fight crime, by the simple expedient of making black people not be stuck being poor forever just because they're black.

And it's foolish to claim that we shouldn't do that because it's 'discrimination' or 'reverse discrimination.' There is basically NO reason why blacks 'should' be poorer than whites in modern America EXCEPT for the discrimination that happened in the past. They were brought here as slaves, held here as slaves until the 1800s, and then treated like third-class citizens subject to random lynchings for getting 'uppity' for a hundred years after that, and still treated like second-class citizens who much of our population secretly thinks are stupid useless un-educable criminals.

It beggars the imagination to try and come up with a way blacks could be anything other than a poor underclass in our society after that... and yet it is a stupid, insulting joke to claim that any of that treatment was the blacks' fault, or that they earned even one tiny fragment of it.

So that in a very real sense, all we are trying to do with 'affirmative action' is to cancel out the effects of a long, carefully planned, government-orchestrated program by which white Americans MADE black Americans into the underclass that many of them are today.

---

2) Are women getting paid less because they're immune to certain risks, and rightfully 'pay the price' for them?

I'm going to go with 'no.'

For one, because the claim 'women can count on being protected by men in the event of an emergency' becomes something of a bad joke when the odds of a relevant emergency are basically zero, and we're asking the woman to sign over 10% or 20% of her salary for her whole life in exchange for that 'privilege.'

I mean seriously, would you buy insurance on those terms? 20% of your income in perpetuity, in exchange for the privilege of getting treated as men treat women in modern America? Would you make that deal? I wouldn't. It might be worth one percent, maybe, but it's damn sure not worth twenty.

Moreover, the 'women get special protection and have to pay for it with less economic opportunity' claim didn't work so well back in the day either.

The 'protection' women got from men prior to women's lib was very much overrated. Men could do nothing for the leading cause of death among women (childbirth). Many men abandoned or cheated on their wives and left them to support themselves anyway. It was basically legal for a man to gamble away property the woman had legally owned before the marriage, or for the man to beat his wife.

Hell, even the 'lifeboats' thing... didn't emerge until the late Victorian era. And quite a lot of men trampled women in their rush to board the lifeboats on sinking ships during that time even so. If you want a serious example of "women and children first" you have to look at cases like the Birkenhead... and those weren't just any men, those were Royal Marines.

Women were still getting raped, still being left to raise children out of wedlock, and so forth.

And to get even that level of protection, which was rather full of holes, women had to give up ANY access to political power, ANY hope of high-paying jobs, ANY respect or prestige within society. Had to submit to being beaten or committed to a mental asylum on their husband's say-so. Had to submit to a lifetime of humiliation if they should happen to commit the 'crime' of living without a male 'protector,' too.

All in all, I don't think that was a very good deal.

Nowadays, of course, women have stopped paying such a steep price. And the odd thing is, they're not significantly less safe now than they were then. Maybe men's protection was being grossly overcharged for all along? Maybe we were overestimating how much it was worth. Let's try NOT flattering ourselves into exaggerating the value of what we do for them for a generation or two, and see what society looks like with FEWER lies rather than more of them.

---

3) How about 'the left shouldn't impose social changes on you?'

Thing is, we all live in the same society. And it's not just your society, either. It's the society the women you interact with live in. It's the society the blacks you interact with live in. It's the society the gays you interact with live in- and if you claim not to live with gays I'm going to point to the Kinsey reports and laugh.

Their right to not be miserable trumps your right to not have to worry about whether you're making them miserable. Just as their right to not be slaves trumps your right to keep owning the 'property' that is a bunch of slaves.

Disagree with the first point, if blacks are arrested at all it should be because of their actions which one could argue flow FROM the contents of their character. remember MLK had ideals, and so far they are still that, ideals. If Cops are abusing blacks because of prejudice, that is wrong, but guess what? So is affirmative action then. If YOU want to give money to blacks or give them positions in your organization to make amends for past abuses, go right ahead. I just don't agree with using government force to accomplish this goal. mainly because is doesn't work, and it doesn't work because it is immoral.

As for women, the emergency example was just that AN example there are far more benefits, such as preferential treatment before the courts, heathcare drives for female specific diseases, the entire planned parenthood thing, WIC, alimony, etc etc etc, not to mention the plain social deference women are shown on a regular basis. i.e "there is NEVER a reason to hit a woman!" and so on.

i agree with your positions in theory, but i fall into the lower right portion of the political diagram and thus can't support government programs aimed at attaining even laudable goals.... how many years have we been having the 'war on poverty'? 60 years?
FAIL.

[Channel72]

As for women, the emergency example was just that AN example there are far more benefits, such as preferential treatment before the courts, heathcare drives for female specific diseases, the entire planned parenthood thing, WIC, alimony, etc etc etc, not to mention the plain social deference women are shown on a regular basis. i.e "there is NEVER a reason to hit a woman!" and so on.

You're basically talking about modern "chivalry" here - which is pretty hard to quantify. In general, I agree that there is an overall social compulsion, amongst men, to treat women in a way that indicates they are more fragile. This is manifested in simple every day interactions, like holding a door open for a woman, giving up your seat on a crowded subway to a woman, offering to carry things, toning down the vulgarity of your jokes when women are present, etc. etc. The fact that we even have the phrase "woman and children" as a means to indicate the weaker, more vulnerable elements of society that really must be protected at all costs, says a lot, I think.

But I suppose that this isn't really a problem per se, and furthermore, the benefits that women receive via this hazy and inconsistent notion of de-facto modern "chivalry" really don't even come close to outweighing the negative effects they experience in the job market, to say nothing of the historical abuses they've suffered at the hands of a justice system that highly favored male opinions.

I mean, I really don't see any problem with a society where this vague notion of "chivalry" still exists and has effects, but women are also treated entirely equally in the job market.

[Wild Zontargs]

As for women, the emergency example was just that AN example there are far more benefits, such as preferential treatment before the courts, heathcare drives for female specific diseases, the entire planned parenthood thing, WIC, alimony, etc etc etc, not to mention the plain social deference women are shown on a regular basis. i.e "there is NEVER a reason to hit a woman!" and so on.

You're basically talking about modern "chivalry" here - which is pretty hard to quantify. In general, I agree that there is an overall social compulsion, amongst men, to treat women in a way that indicates they are more fragile. This is manifested in simple every day interactions, like holding a door open for a woman, giving up your seat on a crowded subway to a woman, offering to carry things, toning down the vulgarity of your jokes when women are present, etc. etc. The fact that we even have the phrase "woman and children" as a means to indicate the weaker, more vulnerable elements of society that really must be protected at all costs, says a lot, I think.

But I suppose that this isn't really a problem per se, and furthermore, the benefits that women receive via this hazy and inconsistent notion of de-facto modern "chivalry" really don't even come close to outweighing the negative effects they experience in the job market, to say nothing of the historical abuses they've suffered at the hands of a justice system that highly favored male opinions.

I mean, I really don't see any problem with a society where this vague notion of "chivalry" still exists and has effects, but women are also treated entirely equally in the job market.

It goes further than that. In Western cultures, if men don't treat women as weak, pure creatures, they're considered sexist.

Two studies demonstrated that lay people misperceive the relationship between hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS) in men, but not in women. While men's endorsement of BS is viewed as a sign of a univalently positive attitude towards women, their rejection of BS is perceived as a sign of univalent sexist antipathy. Low BS men were judged as more hostile towards women than high BS men, suggesting that perceivers inferred that low BS men were indeed misogynists. Negative evaluations were reduced when men's rejection of BS was attributed to egalitarian values, supporting the hypothesis that ambiguity about the motivations for low BS in men was partially responsible for the attribution of hostile sexist attitudes to low BS men.

Benevolent sexism can be further broken down into three subcomponents. Protective paternalism dictates that men should protect and care for women, such as rescuing them first in disasters or providing for them financially. Complementary gender differentiation allows women to compensate for their lower social status by ascribing positive traits to women in domains that do not challenge male authority, such as viewing women as being morally superior or having a more sophisticated sense of culture. Heterosexual intimacy romanticizes women as objects of admiration to be placed on pedestals and renders men as incomplete unless they have the love of a good woman.

Being sexist against women is bad. Being too sexist in favor of women is bad. Not being sexist enough in women's favor is also, apparently, bad.

[lPeregrine]

If Cops are abusing blacks because of prejudice, that is wrong, but guess what? So is affirmative action then.

Are you seriously trying to argue that affirmative action is equivalent to abuse by racist police? That's what your words seem to say, but I can't believe that anyone could really be stupid enough to make that claim.

If YOU want to give money to blacks or give them positions in your organization to make amends for past abuses, go right ahead. I just don't agree with using government force to accomplish this goal. mainly because is doesn't work, and it doesn't work because it is immoral.

WHY is it immoral? Is there any reason besides idiotic libertarian "anything the government does is wrong by definition" ideology? Do you even understand the reasoning behind affirmative action policies?

As for women, the emergency example was just that AN example there are far more benefits, such as preferential treatment before the courts, heathcare drives for female specific diseases, the entire planned parenthood thing, WIC, alimony, etc etc etc, not to mention the plain social deference women are shown on a regular basis. i.e "there is NEVER a reason to hit a woman!" and so on.

And, right on schedule, the standard right-wing nonsense about how women really have all of the advantages. Let's go through your list:

Preferential treatment in court: nope. You're probably thinking of the usual cliche about "women always get custody of the kids", but it's a blatantly dishonest argument. Women get custody more often because men are less likely to seek custody of their kids. If you only consider cases where men seek custody then the "bias" in favor of women disappears and IIRC even swings to favor men.

Healthcare drives for female-specific diseases: I think it says a lot about you that you consider "people care about things that could kill you" to be an exceptional privilege.

Planned parenthood, alimony, etc: these also benefit men. WIC doesn't (though it does benefit male children), but that's not a very compelling argument when men can't be pregnant and suffer the nutritional issues WIC is intended to help with.

Social deference: sure, but it's a double-edged sword. Most of that deference is based on sexist stereotypes like "women are weak and can't hurt a man, so even hitting a woman in 'self defense' is wrong" or "women can't have real careers so the man should pay for everything". So I don't think you should be talking too much about the supposed privilege of a social structure that forces women into second-tier status and then hands them condescending "benefits" in exchange.

i agree with your positions in theory, but i fall into the lower right portion of the political diagram and thus can't support government programs aimed at attaining even laudable goals.... how many years have we been having the 'war on poverty'? 60 years?
FAIL.

First of all, like most people who proudly claim to be in the lower right portion of that diagram, you're an idiot. Opposing government programs simply because they're government programs is the sign of a blind zealot, not a reasonable person. What you really deserve is to be forced to live in the society you desire, without the wealth to be one of the few elites that would benefit from libertarian policies.

Second, your argument sucks for two very obvious reasons:

1) You're setting an unrealistic target and ignoring the entire concept of a control group. Is it unfortunate that we haven't fixed all of our problems with poverty yet? Yes. But here's the question that really matters: have we made things better over the past 60 years? Is the world in which we've had 60 years of the "war on poverty" better than one in which we had 60 years of the government ignoring the problem and hoping that private charity will magically make it go away?

2) You're ignoring the efforts of people like you to hinder government efforts to end poverty. When right-wing and libertarian zealots aren't outright dismantling social programs they're busy opposing taxes that might be required to pay for them, inventing long lists of reasons why people "deserve" to be poor and shouldn't get any help from the government, etc. So yeah, we haven't fixed the problem yet, but how much of it is because the left-wing approach isn't working and how much is because it hasn't been given a chance?

[Benny the Ball]

I mean, I really don't see any problem with a society where this vague notion of "chivalry" still exists and has effects, but women are also treated entirely equally in the job market.

I diagree; I think there is still a problem with a society like this, even if it's far preferable to historical sexism or even what we have right now. That very notion of chivalry and its effects is frequently used by social conservatives as an argument (though certainly not the only one) to keep women from taking on dangerous jobs, especially the military. Because of course women are helpless, delicate creatures who must be protected on the same level as children are, they obviously have no place in combat any more than child soldiers do. I'm reminded of this arch-conservative blog post about the first Canadian female soldier to be killed in combat, which can be paraphrased as 'wimminz have no place in war because childbirth and manliness!!!1!1!!'

So basically, I believe that very social deference is just another means of stifling women, and has no place in a modern society any more than unfair treatment in the job market does. Which is why it gets pretty silly when it's present in works that are supposed to be set in the future where all forms of sexism should be dead, including chivalry. I vaguely remember on Babylon 5 where the highly badass Commander Susan Ivanova used the phrase 'woman and children' to refer to civilian casualties at least once over the course of the show, which was a major facepalm moment for me. My reaction at the time was to think at her "well, if that's how you feel, then get back into the kitchen, you helpless babymaker, and leave the fighting to the men!" Or in David Weber's Honor Harrington novels, set far in the future where complete sexual equality has long been won and men and women join the military and fight and die in combat in roughly even numbers, yet civilian casualties were still called 'women and children' in one of the books, another major eyeroller moment for me. (granted, that line was probably written by another author who was collaborating with Weber on that particular book, but the fact that Mr. Gender Equality Weber didn't veto it is pretty odd...or an indication of just how far such attitudes permeate society if he didn't think to question it)

Hmm, I guess I'm one of those 'low BS' people in the study Wild Zontargs referenced.

[Benny the Ball]

i agree with your positions in theory, but i fall into the lower right portion of the political diagram and thus can't support government programs aimed at attaining even laudable goals.... how many years have we been having the 'war on poverty'? 60 years?
FAIL.

Actually the war on poverty was making pretty good headway...then Ronald Reagan happened.

[Wild Zontargs]

Are you seriously trying to argue that affirmative action is equivalent to abuse by racist police? That's what your words seem to say, but I can't believe that anyone could really be stupid enough to make that claim.

[snip]

WHY is it immoral? Is there any reason besides idiotic libertarian "anything the government does is wrong by definition" ideology? Do you even understand the reasoning behind affirmative action policies?

A large source of disagreement here is that progressives and conservatives are generally operating under different ethical systems. Progressives tend to be more about consequentialism, while conservatives tend to operate under rule-based or duty-based systems. While you're busy with figuring out what has the best outcomes in each individual case, they're debating what rules, when applied to everyone equally, will have the best outcomes most of the time.

If you believe that any differential treatment of a member of a group based on generalizations about the group as a whole (other than that necessitated by things like biology, etc) is inherently wrong, then affirmative action is wrong for most of the same reasons as racist policing. Physical abuse goes above and beyond that, making it wrong for two reasons, but the principle is the same for the general case.

You're saying "affirmative action helps disadvantaged people, so doing it is good". They're saying "hiring one person over another based on their skin color is wrong; affirmative action does that; therefore affirmative action is wrong". It doesn't require being an ignorant racist to be opposed to it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

They're saying "hiring one person over another based on their skin color is wrong; affirmative action does that; therefore affirmative action is wrong". It doesn't require being an ignorant racist to be opposed to it.

Maybe not, but it DOES require a deliberate refusal to acknowledge the practical reality of the situation in this country and the problems affirmative action is expressly designed to address. Note that it IS possible to present a reasoned argument against affirmative action, but that would have to be one based on the numbers and whether or not is can be shown to be beneficial. This is very different from dismissing a distorted simplification of what it means.

[lPeregrine]

A large source of disagreement here is that progressives and conservatives are generally operating under different ethical systems. Progressives tend to be more about consequentialism, while conservatives tend to operate under rule-based or duty-based systems. While you're busy with figuring out what has the best outcomes in each individual case, they're debating what rules, when applied to everyone equally, will have the best outcomes most of the time.

I disagree with this. Conservatives don't care about having the rules be as broad and consistent as possible, they care about not changing stuff. In my experience they're happy to make special-case rules as long as the outcome is in line with conservative ideology.

Also, anyone who really believes that supposed conservative ideology is an idiot. It doesn't matter what system, when applied equally in a perfect world, produces the best theoretical results. You can't just ignore the fact that the starting point is not equal, or that very often the rules are technically equal but blatantly unequal in practice. It's the same reasoning behind the argument that "separate but equal" segregation was ok, because everyone was technically equal under the law.

If you believe that any differential treatment of a member of a group based on generalizations about the group as a whole (other than that necessitated by things like biology, etc) is inherently wrong, then affirmative action is wrong for most of the same reasons as racist policing. Physical abuse goes above and beyond that, making it wrong for two reasons, but the principle is the same for the general case.

I understand that conservatives often have a very black and white view of the world, but that doesn't make it a good argument. Even if you buy the argument that affirmative action is about inappropriate generalizations then there's still a pretty clear difference between generalizing to help someone and generalizing to hurt them.

But why should we buy the argument that affirmative action is racism? It pretty clearly isn't. It's simply a recognition of the fact that inequality exists, and past attempts to fix that inequality by being "color-blind" and ignoring the problem were not enough to overcome the biases built into the system. It isn't saying "minorities are less qualified for this job and need help", it's saying "qualified minorities are turned down at disproportionate rates, therefore we need to actively work to un-bias the system". There is no generalization about individuals based on the groups they belong to.

You're saying "affirmative action helps disadvantaged people, so doing it is good". They're saying "hiring one person over another based on their skin color is wrong; affirmative action does that; therefore affirmative action is wrong". It doesn't require being an ignorant racist to be opposed to it.

Except this is only true in the straw man version of affirmative action where employers always choose the best candidate for every job and affirmative action means hiring a weaker candidate just to meet a race quota. In the real world it doesn't work that way. Employers are already hiring people based on their skin color, the only difference is that they're hiring white people because of their skin color and turning down qualified non-white candidates at disproportionate rates. Even when there's no deliberate racism involved the hiring decisions are still influenced by unconscious stereotypes and the end result is the same. There is no magical "color-blind" world where racial discrimination doesn't exist.

So the choice is not "should we hire people based on their skin color", it's "we hire people based on their skin color, what should we do now". The conservative answer is "do nothing and let the free market handle it", which in practice means "accept the existing bias in favor of white people". The progressive answer is "assume that there are sufficient qualified non-white candidates to meet a reasonable quota (a good assumption in most cases) and make a conscious effort to hire some of them".

[ArmorPierce]

Woman are paid less doing the same work as men. That's statistically proven and there's no way to argue against it. Why should that be? Because they have an uterus? Is there some secret tax on it and that's why? Please explain what differences between the genders necessitate women to be paid less than males in the same position.

http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap
Women appear to actually make more than men until around 30, at which point they start to make less, which happens to be around when they begin to start having children.

For the same job position, the difference appears to be in the single digit percentages.

I am a feminist and pro affirmative action, but I also think that white men would rather hire women than minority males. The percentage difference in pay for black and hispanics is far larger than the women pay gap, and it does extend to same job, education, and application responses.