Remix.run Logo
Filligree a day ago

They’re not wrong. The tension is that on average, dark-skinned folk have lower merit — because of racism in the past that limited their educational opportunities, and also because it’s hard for a child to lever themselves into a higher socioeconomic group than their parents.

Among a number of other reasons. Equity vs. equal opportunities; I’m sympathetic to the latter, but what do you do when the opportunities were unequal in the past, and that causes inequitable results in the present?

One might, for instance, attempt to make up for it with targeted education. It’s a pity that the US educational system is such a disaster.

tbrownaw a day ago | parent | next [-]

> limited their educational opportunities, and also because it’s hard for a child to lever themselves into a higher socioeconomic group than their parents.

Is this not what universal state-funded schooling is for. (And please don't forget that state-level funding is anti-correlated with local funding, so the standard "but property taxes!" thing is a red herring.)

> Equity vs. equal opportunities; I’m sympathetic to the latter, but what do you do when the opportunities were unequal in the past, and that causes inequitable results in the present?

I am not aware of anti-dei people having problems with need-based (as opposed to demographics-based) scholarships and such.

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
zer8k a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

mullingitover a day ago | parent | next [-]

> White children who don’t have daddy big bucks backing them (e.g. 90+ percent of them) are left out of important programs, less likely to be chosen for university admission and job placement, etc.

There's a lot of anti-DEI folks who are furious at what they believe DEI is.

First generation college students, veterans, disabled people, including white ones, benefit from DEI programs. Our Vice President benefitted from Yale's Yellow Ribbon program as a veteran! He's a DEI admit!

femiagbabiaka a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> White children who don’t have daddy big bucks backing them (e.g. 90+ percent of them) are left out of important programs, less likely to be chosen for university admission and job placement, etc.

None of this is true, which really problematizes your entire manifesto: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-racial-wealth-gap-fin...

Epa095 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Little Rock Nine is 68 years ago. Several of those screaming women are still alive. It's really not that long ago.

But it's very telling that you keep phrasing it as 'punishment'. The problem when you truly fuck over people for many generations, is that it takes generations to make up for it. Not to punish, but to actually give the children and children's children of the victims a fair chance. Especially in such a hard and competitive society as the American one, where your familys wealth is so indicative of how well you will do.

alabastervlog a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The book “the coddling of the American mind” should be a must read for anyone who takes the societal problem of DEI hysteria seriously.

Hey, look at that, it's an If Books Could Kill alum!

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-coddling-of-the-am...

harimau777 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem with your argument is that's not actually what advocates of DEI actually believe.

Economic inequality is part of DEI so there's no reason why people without "daddy big bucks" backing them would be left out.

In fact, most advocates of DEI want UNIVERSAL social welfare programs. The only reason that the advocate for more targeted programs is because otherwise conservatives start screaming about socialism.

The reason you are likely to get downvoted is because you are substituting personal attacks and rhetoric ("coddling", "hysteria", etc.) for actually engaging with the issues.

Epa095 a day ago | parent [-]

I agree strongly with this comment

  The reason you are likely to get downvoted is because you are substituting personal attacks and rhetoric ("coddling", "hysteria", etc.) for actually engaging with the issues.
I was thinking of writing something similar in my sibling comment, but I did not find a good phrasing. But when I read OP's comment again after writing my comment, I got this sinking feeling of 'there is just no point. This person is already strawmanning everyone else, and has pre-victimized themselves'. But maybe civil discourse is possible and useful?