> Which is racist. It’s good intentioned, but it’s also almost the definition of racism.
I tend to agree with that. I think the idea is that positive discrimination can offset previously encountered negative discrimination to some degree and level the field by doing so. I don't have strong opinion about it, but it seems like the best method we have to make a real impact. Everything else seems too slow.
But it also could brew resentiments that end up making people hate eachother. Affirmative action should help people of a similar socioeconomic background somehow without involving race. People do need that helping hand but if they happen to tick off the wrong boxes they’re out of luck.
Every time affirmative-action comes up for discussion in HN, someone in the comments entirely re-invents european style social-democracy from first principles just to avoid giving any advantage to African American's based on race.
I'm never sure whether to be saddened or hopeful about this phenomenon. Is it a new generation growing up and realizing that race is an outdated social construct and they could just help everyone and anyone with sensible policies, or is it just people repeating "You know who the real racists are?" style talking points, it's hard to tell.
I'm confused as to how asking to be evaluated on one's merits and not race has anything to do with European social democracies. Affirmative action/"positive" discrimination occurs in Europe as well.
The comment I replied to was talking about helping people from a specific socioeconomic background.
The implication, and very sensible one at that, is that just because you are from a poor family, doesn't mean you don't have "merit". Some portion of an Ivy League credential reflects not your merit or potential or contribution to society, but inherited privilege, connections, luck etc.
Meritocracy in such a situation is like having a fair race when one competitor has a motorbike. Yes they are objectively faster than the runners in certain circumstances, but that's not due to their merit as a runner, from a combination of natural aptitude and years of dedicated training and focus, it's because they're on a motorbike.
If you really need something delivered quickly, then the short term solution is to ask the guy with the motorbike. If the aim is to get the human race moving faster in general, then giving everyone a motorbike is the answer, not pretending against all evidence that the people with motorbikes are inherently superior beings and just naturally good at running.
Then you can choose the best motorbike rider and get something that approximates a real meritocracy.
> re-invents european style social-democracy from first principles just to avoid giving any advantage to African American's based on race.
What "just to avoid"? Many people on HN are from such European style social democracies, there is no "just to avoid", we just think that is a much better system than the racialized democracy American democrats wants.
> the racialized democracy American democrats wants.
This doesn't describe anything I recognise as reality and I thought I'd already headed this off by mentioning the "You know who the real racists are?" talking points.
I'm glad we all agree that racism and sexism is bad now, I suppose that's progress of some kind.
I tend to agree with that. I think the idea is that positive discrimination can offset previously encountered negative discrimination to some degree and level the field by doing so. I don't have strong opinion about it, but it seems like the best method we have to make a real impact. Everything else seems too slow.