141–150 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean there was no extreme poverty amoung marginalized groups before affirmative action?
The poster I was replying to said "gang violence, intense poverty, substance abuse, neglect, and trauma" These, by and large, were not systemic problems before the introduction of affirmative action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I agree with you, I get the impression that someone who doesn't think affirmative action should exist even after learning about the gang violence, intense poverty, substance abuse, neglect, and trauma that surrounds children growing up in housing projects and "bad neighborhoods" -- even after all of that, if someone still says no, then you could probably trace this back to the Big Bang and they'll still say…
The problems you mention were not problems until after affirmative action was implemented.
I think this is a great answer to people who ask why we still need things like affirmative action. Here you have a continuing demographic phenomenon that can be traced directly back to slave ownership patterns hundreds of years ago. It should be noted also that the black belt is also a terribly poor stretch of the country. Unfortunately, it appears that socioeconomic patterns are imprinted more deeply than anyone wou…
Although I agree with you, I get the impression that someone who doesn't think affirmative action should exist even after learning about the gang violence, intense poverty, substance abuse, neglect, and trauma that surrounds children growing up in housing projects and "bad neighborhoods" -- even after all of that, if someone still says no, then you could probably trace this back to the Big Bang and they'll still say…
That's the problem with it - whatever its intentions, it just doesn't help the people it truly needs to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe your chronology is correct: affirmative action was first implemented in the U.S. in 1961, with widespread implementation not until the late 1960s, but there were already many poverty-ridden black ghettoes in the 1950s. (And the areas talked about in this article have been full of grinding poverty for their entire existence , with most of their inhabitants being slaves prior to the 1860s, and then desp…
Maybe I'm leaning too much on the 'benefit of the doubt' side, but I parsed the prior post to mean that all those things existed, but they weren't considered problems by, say, white people, or people in power, prior to the 1960s. The alternative is that some (presumably intelligent) poster on HN stating something completely at odds with the facts, and perhaps even informally suggesting that affirmative action was lik…
Asserted without evidence.
The argument makes perfect sense to me. What part of it do you think is false?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's accept that rational; but that does leave one question: when does this end? If we have no way to measure the damage then how do we measure the resolution of the damage? Do we continue this for 5, 10, 50, 100, 500 years? Or do we simply never end it? Do we try to "correct" it so there are literally no poor people of a particular ethnicity? How realistic is that?
How about until there no longer is any significant racism that systematically disadvantages black people?
We just had a black man elected to his second term as president, so I think that's a pretty good sign we aren't that racist. This wouldn't have happened a few decades ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with affirmative action is that it is based on race. It is racist. In fact it isn't just based on race, it is based on skin colour - since some mixed black-white people with white skin can be discriminated against. America needs to put race on the sidelines and start thinking in terms of class. You should help the disadvantaged or poor regardless of their great great grandparent's struggles. Affirmative a…
The justification and rationale for race-based affirmative action is somewhat different from anything favoring people of low socioeconomic class generally. It has to do with correcting specific and massive historical wrongs in which our government was complicit, not lifting up disadvantaged people generally. Conflating the two is a little silly. If I destroy your house, you're not going to be happy if I make amends t…
Baring some large redistribution of wealth the most effective thing we can do is to remove all the barriers that we can and encourage improvement.
There are many people who are direct descendants of slaves who don't qualify for affirmative action and there are people who's families moved here in the 70s who do qualify.
We need to stimulate the black belt, the effects of racism are highly geographical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problems you mention were not problems until after affirmative action was implemented.
I don't believe your chronology is correct: affirmative action was first implemented in the U.S. in 1961, with widespread implementation not until the late 1960s, but there were already many poverty-ridden black ghettoes in the 1950s. (And the areas talked about in this article have been full of grinding poverty for their entire existence , with most of their inhabitants being slaves prior to the 1860s, and then desp…
There is poverty. And then there is
"gang violence, intense poverty, substance abuse, neglect, and trauma"
I am asserting that these became systematic problems after the introduction of affirmative action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problems you mention were not problems until after affirmative action was implemented.
Was it the flight of money, mostly in the hands of white people, out of the cities and into the suburbs around the time institutional segregation started to crumble, or was it affirmative action? I'm not leaning toward the latter.
Are you basing this leaning on study and contemplation of the facts, or because it makes you feel better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm leaning too much on the 'benefit of the doubt' side, but I parsed the prior post to mean that all those things existed, but they weren't considered problems by, say, white people, or people in power, prior to the 1960s. The alternative is that some (presumably intelligent) poster on HN stating something completely at odds with the facts, and perhaps even informally suggesting that affirmative action was lik…
> completely at odds with the facts Asserted without evidence. The argument makes perfect sense to me. What part of it do you think is false?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is racist by the fact that it is based on race. Worse, it continues to reinforce thinking along racial lines rather than circumstancial ones thus perpetuating the idea that we should classify based on race. It would be much better to stop saying "you get this because you are this colour" and start saying "you get this because it looks like you could use a hand." Racism exists, but trying to fight it with more raci…
> It is racist by the fact that it is based on race. Your definition is too simplistic. Racism isn't just prejudice based on race. Racism requires a power imbalance. Acting to counteract an institutional imbalance caused by racism is not "just anotehr kind of racism."