• Asafum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is that people were NOT being treated equally and so we had to try to force institutions to accept people they’d otherwise discriminate against. This isn’t going to bring any equality, we’re going to go back to marginalized groups and historically discriminated groups being left out again and rich white people will be back “on top.”

    I say this as a white guy with all the advantages society gives me so I’m not some rando asking for a leg up on anyone. It’s not about me.

      • BOMBS@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. But if in this context, the harmful impacts of race aren’t addressed, only the beneficial impacts, then it’s just engaging in further harm.

        Say Population A is constantly having their things stolen from Population B. The government steps in and says, “Ok, we will give Population A a certain amount of money to make up for what is constantly stolen.” While it isn’t enough to make up for their loss, it helps Population A mitigate the impact of the theft. Population B then says, “That’s not fair. They shouldn’t get anything just because they’re Population A. That’s populationist.” Meanwhile, Population A is still getting their things stolen by the same population that are claiming the policy is unfair, and now the policy that was implace to help mitigate that is being removed. The real immediate solution would be for Population B to stop stealing from Population A, and ultimately stop dividing the entire population into A & B. However, the latter isn’t going to happen until the former stops.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How is that so many are unable to get themselves out of that little box of thinking were people are supposed to be categorized by genetics and then deemed as a whole as deserving/worth or undeserving/unworthy?

          “Population A”

          “Population B”

          WTF?!

          Do it based on the poverty and you’ll find that you’ll end up correcting most of the discrimination since nowadays the main mechanism (by a huge margin) through which discrimination hurts and even harms people is economic. As an added benefit you’ll also correct the actual effects of tons of more subtle discrimination that doesn’t neatly match whatever categorisation is fashionable at the moment.

          What kind of communal brainwashing has made “lets categorize people on genetic characteristics they were born with and then help them by category” the only option considered rather than “lets help people based on the need they have for help”.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But if in this context, the harmful impacts of race aren’t addressed, only the beneficial impacts, then it’s just engaging in further harm.

          Affirmative action actively and deliberately keeps asians down purely due to the race of the asian individual applying. It isn’t some secondary effect, but a primary facet of Harvard’s race-based admissions. Why are you defending a system that keeps a minority down by specifically targeting their race? How is that not active harm?

    • dustojnikhummer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Disadvantaging certain groups now doesn’t fix what happened in the past. Arguably it makes it even worse