Is tolerance intolerant?

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, we're reading it differently, but it's pretty clear what the authors are saying here. You just choose to read it the way you want to suit your own position. Affirmative action doesn't mean that a couple token black students should be chosen irrespective of whether they're academically qualified or not.

Of course it means that.  If not, you'd just have the rule I suggested-- that the students with the best scores are accepted to the best schools.

The problem is that the best scores don't generally mean most qualified, rather best scores often mean the most privileged in a lot of cases. That's what affirmative action is trying to address, and that's the kind of problem you keep denying because of your racial bias in favor of white people. You don't seem to like that black people have to overcome obstacles (that white people don't typically get to face) in order to be just as successful as white people.

[tackattack]

And a cradle to grave approach with affirmative action would help overcoming. I'm not against nurturing potential. I not against a fair an even playing field. What I'm against is unmerited discrimination, which happens when you put affirmative action into action with a bunch of biased people running the show. There are biases on both sides with white privilege and being x in America (fill in gay, trans, black, asian, a woman, whatever). Here's where the practical application fails:
1. People have not been treated equal
2. Overcome inequality with discrimination
3. pendulum swings the other way.
4. repeat

It's a never ending cycle and doesn't look like it's a fix but a perpetuation of discrimination. The best scores/qualifiers are based on abilities, potential, and knowledge. I just don't agree that the color of a person's skin or their life history (where it doesn't inform a related opinion) is worth anything more then me qualifying a person for their hair or the color of shirt they wore.

Possibly a side topic but, How can you support standardized testing, and not see a gap for equality there? If the underprivileged can prove they're underprivileged why not weight their test scores, or give them tests specific to their abilities? Because then the test isn't standard, and there is no equanimity.

If affirmative action was promoting (in action) better tests and better qualifiers I would agree with it a lot more, instead it just fuels the race debate. I just consider that it is not real problem solving but equivalent to feeding the trolls. I do want to see the better side of affirmative action. Please let me know why affirmative action in practice is more good than bad or point out where's I'm off in my reasoning and I'll try an open second approach.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not what fuels the race "debate"...lol.

[Angrboda]

I recently read an article in which it pointed out that it was better to be rich than gifted.

"The least-gifted children of high-income parents graduate from college at higher rates than the most-gifted children of low-income parents."

A revolution in genomics is creeping into economics. It allows us to say something we might have suspected, but could never confirm: money trumps genes.

Using one new, genome-based measure, economists found genetic endowments are distributed almost equally among children in low-income and high-income families. Success is not.

The least-gifted children of high-income parents graduate from college at higher rates than the most-gifted children of low-income parents.

First, consider the people whose genome scores in the top quarter on a genetic index the researchers associated with educational achievement.

Only about 24 percent of people born to low-income fathers in that high-potential group graduate from college.

That’s dwarfed by the 63 percent college graduation rate of people with similar genetic scores who are lucky enough to be born to high-income fathers.

Contrast that with a finding from the other end of the genetic scoring scale: about 27 percent of those who score at the bottom quarter of the genetic index, but are born to high-income fathers, graduate from college. That means they’re at least as likely to graduate from college as the highest-scoring low-income students.

(Washington Post)

[GrandizerII]

What I'm against is unmerited discrimination, which happens when you put affirmative action into action with a bunch of biased people running the show.

If you're against unmerited discrimination, then you should be for affirmative action (not against). No affirmative action means continued unmerited discrimination whereby the privileged continue to be favored when it comes to preferable things such as top university admissions and high-status positions.

And being biased against unmerited discrimination isn't a bad thing. The problem is that there are people who are doing whatever they can to get rid of affirmative action and trying to feed people (with the help of conservative media) all sorts of falsehoods about it.

There are biases on both sides with white privilege and being x in America (fill in gay, trans, black, asian, a woman, whatever).  Here's where the practical application fails:
1. People have not been treated equal
2. Overcome inequality with discrimination
3. pendulum swings the other way.
4. repeat

Where is the failure exactly? The expectation is that the pendulum eventually settles in the middle. Of course, success isn't going to happen overnight. But these issues need to be addressed for any real change to occur.

It's a never ending cycle and doesn't look like it's a fix but a perpetuation of discrimination.

Stop kidding yourself, man. This ain't discrimination what you're referring to. Reversing discrimination isn't itself discrimination.

The best scores/qualifiers are based on abilities, potential, and knowledge.

The "right" academic knowledge is often times culturally biased.

I just don't agree that the color of a person's skin or their life history (where it doesn't inform a related opinion) is worth anything more then me qualifying a person for their hair or the color of shirt they wore.

What you don't seem to understand is that perceived skin color has been in the way of many minorities in attaining the same chances of success as those not affected societally/academically/occupationally by their perceived skin color.

Possibly a side topic but, How can you support standardized testing, and not see a gap for equality there? If the underprivileged can prove they're underprivileged why not weight their test scores, or give them tests specific to their abilities? Because then the test isn't standard, and there is no equanimity.

These standardized tests are geared toward white students. Something does need to be done about that, and that's where affirmative action plays an important part. But it isn't just about tests, but also about better opportunities in life.

If affirmative action was promoting (in action) better tests and better qualifiers I would agree with it a lot more, instead it just fuels the race debate.

The race debate is necessary because people aren't race-blind like you and bennyboy like to think. Racial minorities don't enjoy the benefits as much as the privileged white majority exactly because we - as a society - subconsciously (if not consciously) identify people by race and skin color and such. To act like racism will just go away if we just blind ourselves to race is a little disingenuous, at best.

[tackattack]

Gae, then enlighten me, because I clearly laid out how it does fuel societal discrimination. Do you think practicing affirmative action, as practiced, does't fuel race wars?

Jor, time and time again, better is very subjective. While we can all agree that money might make us happy, it doesn't prove itself out irl.
The least-gifted children of high-income parents graduate from college at higher rates than the most-gifted children of low-income parents, might very well be true. That doesn't make them more successful or happier. Nor does a college degree equate to more intelligent (emotionally or intellectually).

Now if you're equating college degrees with privilege then it is perfectly logical why the least-gifted children of high-income parents graduate from college at higher rates than the most-gifted children of low-income parents. So give the poor more money and the opportunity to spend it and see what they prioritize with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gae, then enlighten me, because I clearly laid out how it does fuel societal discrimination. Do you think practicing affirmative action, as practiced, does't fuel race wars?

Probably has something to do with racial apathy and antipathy.......you know..just a shot in the dark, lol.

So give the poor more money and the opportunity to spend it and see what they prioritize with it.

Ultimately the same things that the privileged do...but that's an aside...what you're describing is welfare. Something tells me that "the blacks are gonna get it", and we'll be back on the merry go round of conscious and subconscious racism.

[tackattack]

---

What I'm against is unmerited discrimination, which happens when you put affirmative action into action with a bunch of biased people running the show.

If you're against unmerited discrimination, then you should be for affirmative action (not against). No affirmative action means continued unmerited discrimination whereby the privileged continue to be favored when it comes to preferable things such as top university admissions and high-status positions.

And being biased against unmerited discrimination isn't a bad thing. The problem is that there are people who are doing whatever they can to get rid of affirmative action and trying to feed people (with the help of conservative media) all sorts of falsehoods about it.

There are biases on both sides with white privilege and being x in America (fill in gay, trans, black, asian, a woman, whatever).  Here's where the practical application fails:
1. People have not been treated equal
2. Overcome inequality with discrimination
3. pendulum swings the other way.
4. repeat

Where is the failure exactly? The expectation is that the pendulum eventually settles in the middle. Of course, success isn't going to happen overnight. But these issues need to be addressed for any real change to occur.

It's a never ending cycle and doesn't look like it's a fix but a perpetuation of discrimination.

Stop kidding yourself, man. This ain't discrimination what you're referring to. Reversing discrimination isn't itself discrimination.

The best scores/qualifiers are based on abilities, potential, and knowledge.

The "right" academic knowledge is often times culturally biased.

I just don't agree that the color of a person's skin or their life history (where it doesn't inform a related opinion) is worth anything more then me qualifying a person for their hair or the color of shirt they wore.

What you don't seem to understand is that perceived skin color has been in the way of many minorities in attaining the same chances of success as those not affected societally/academically/occupationally by their perceived skin color.

Possibly a side topic but, How can you support standardized testing, and not see a gap for equality there? If the underprivileged can prove they're underprivileged why not weight their test scores, or give them tests specific to their abilities? Because then the test isn't standard, and there is no equanimity.

These standardized tests are geared toward white students. Something does need to be done about that, and that's where affirmative action plays an important part. But it isn't just about tests, but also about better opportunities in life.

If affirmative action was promoting (in action) better tests and better qualifiers I would agree with it a lot more, instead it just fuels the race debate.

The race debate is necessary because people aren't race-blind like you and bennyboy like to think. Racial minorities don't enjoy the benefits as much as the privileged white majority exactly because we - as a society - subconsciously (if not consciously) identify people by race and skin color and such. To act like racism will just go away if we just blind ourselves to race is a little disingenuous, at best.

---

I don't think it's disingenuous at all. In my daily dealings, I rarely see the person I'm talking to, so their skin color doesn't matter. I can appreciate that it's difficult for some, in some places to "walk down the street being black". I can appreciate that people are classifying machines and tend to categorize people based on biases. What you are shouldn't matter, but it does. That's my prevailing point. People don't have to be race-blind to choose how they react to people. I'm not race blind, I'm white. I see a black person and I don't automatically lock my doors or say "Wat UP my homie". I don't treat them any different than I do anyone else and I don't act differently because of their color or mine. You can see race and NOT factor that into your behavior. You can see underprivileged and have compassion and NOT factor that into your value assessment of that person. None of us know the entirety of people we talk to. I could have a conversation with a woman stranger who is a rape victim, or lesbian, or trans and it wouldn't make one bit of difference in how I act towards that person, or rate them for a job. The difference is between identity and value assessment. I can identify race and inequality without giving it a weighted value. Reversing discrimination using discrimination is discriminatory, which I illustrated above. Reversing discrimination with understanding, justice and compassion doesn't have to be discriminatory.

[The Grand Nudger]

The above describes part of the reason that you don't realize how or why you're expressing racist memes and talking points.  You don't see yourself that way, and the subconscious inference is that your comments then, could not possibly be coming from a racist place. For that matter, you don't understand that these racists memes and talking points actually -do- amount to "treating them differently".

You are nowhere near as invested in the welfare of those underprivileged groups as you are in maintaining the status quo of privilege through funhouse mirror objections. Chances are this has some web of entanglement to a personally valued x, whatever the thing was that got you wondering whether tolerance was intolerant in the first place.

I know..I know. Im wrong, wholly and utterly wrong. Just culture warring you. Consider the irony in that reaction...and then read the above again.

[Angrboda]

Jor, time and time again, better is very subjective. While we can all agree that money might make us happy, it doesn't prove itself out irl.
The least-gifted children of high-income parents graduate from college at higher rates than the most-gifted children of low-income parents, might very well be true. That doesn't make them more successful or happier. Nor does a college degree equate to more intelligent (emotionally or intellectually).

I never said that collegiate success equates to happiness, nor would I. What I did not note is that this study leaves open many questions, such as what it is about being born poor which contributes to this result, and likewise for the rich. I think one would have to answer many of those questions before one went about drawing any implications for policy from this study. But it does suggest that there is an important and significant issue to be explored. You seem to be suggesting that I was drawing certain conclusions from this article. I was not. I simply posted the article. If you interpreted that in a specific way, well so be it, but I haven't drawn any conclusions from it, much less implied that college success is a metric for happiness. I might do so, but I didn't. And as I've bowed out of this discussion, I'm not going to explore the possible inferences and implications any further. I simply thought it relevant and useful information. What you choose to do with it is your own business.