USA Politics (redux)

[Madiel]

If you need a brain surgeon, then you want one that is in the job because of merit only. Of course everyone has the potential to do it, no matter their sex or ethnicity. But fixing disparities by quotas (equity) is mostly a bad idea in many ways and for many reasons.

This is a completely false notion as to what quotas are about. Give me evidence that people getting assisted by quotas do not also have merit.

People other than white males are not getting to become brain surgeons in spite of a lack of ability. People with the ability to become brain surgeons are now getting to become brain surgeons in spite of not being white males.

[Fëanor]

... This kind of social engineering of the left is part of a whole program that seems anti-liberal. I think that it's not only bound to fail, it will damage the left's future prospects. Trump was a warning and one that's been unheeded. yeah, the left just gives the working class away. If it's dumb to be that kind of bumpkin you're talking about then isn't it just as dumb to let the right grab working class values? Liberty and democracy are both foundations. It's interesting that you kind of spit on liberty and call it conservative and anti-progressive. This is telling.

I recently heard a poli-sci professor draw a distinction between "liberty" and "human rights".  She thus defined 'liberty' as protection from the state in one's personal life;  the 1st Amendment being the prime example.  By contrast 'human rights' as she defined pertains to protections given by the state to individuals.  The US Constitution pretty much neglects human rights.  In fairness, the Left puts more emphasis on human rights than on liberty;  (I don't call that "social engineering" myself).

I'm not against either let me hasten to say.  But in the US in the eyes of many "liberty" is conflated with individualism license, laissez faire, private enterprise, and state non-interference including protecting the human rights of the disadvantaged.

This is the liberal mythology that economic conservatives leverage to pry mainly white, rural, less educated Americans away from progressivism and the Left, (such as it is).

[DizzyD]

I recently heard a poli-sci professor draw a distinction between "liberty" and "human rights".  She thus defined 'liberty' as protection from the state in one's personal life;  the 1st Amendment being the prime example.  By contrast 'human rights' as she defined pertains to protections given by the state to individuals.  The US Constitution pretty much neglects human rights.  In fairness, the Left puts more emphasis on human rights than on liberty;  (I don't call that "social engineering" myself).

I'm not against either let me hasten to say.  But in the US in the eyes of many "liberty" is conflated with individualism license, laissez faire, private enterprise, and state non-interference including protecting the human rights of the disadvantaged.

This is the liberal mythology that economic conservatives leverage to pry mainly white, rural, less educated Americans away from progressivism and the Left, (such as it is).

I don't want to comment on politics specifically, but I think that's a little inaccurate. The framers of the US Constitution believed in *inherent* human rights. They never believed that the state confers any right.

[Fëanor]

This is a completely false notion as to what quotas are about. Give me evidence that people getting assisted by quotas do not also have merit.

People other than white males are not getting to become brain surgeons in spite of a lack of ability. People with the ability to become brain surgeons are now getting to become brain surgeons in spite of not being white males.

It is a fact, however, that various US "affirmative action" require that positions, etc., be awarded to "qualified" minority members before equally or even better qualified non-minority persons, (including, say, poor Whites).  Personally I'm against such so-called affirmative action because it is discriminatory.

Also in general I believe the USA, (and some other countries), ought to emphasize mitigating the effects of poverty more than of minority status -- of course minorities will benefit disproportionately which is fair given they are disproportionately poor.

[Fëanor]

I don't want to comment on politics specifically, but I think that's a little inaccurate. The framers of the US Constitution believed in *inherent* human rights. They never believed that the state confers any right.

... Certainly not to slaves.  (Property rights trump human rights.)

[DizzyD]

... Certainly not to slaves.  (Property rights trump human rights.)

No, not at the moment of ratification with slavery still existing, but it did leave the door wide open for the antislavery amendments. That's why there was the compromise counting slaves as 3/5 of a person. The South wanted 5/5 for representation purposes, in which case there might've been slavery in perpetuity. I get a little weary of the "the Constitution says black people are only 3/5 human" trope.

[Madiel]

It is a fact, however, that various US "affirmative action" require that positions, etc., be awarded to "qualified" minority members before equally or even better qualified non-minority persons, (including, say, poor Whites).  Personally I'm against such so-called affirmative action because it is discriminatory.

Also in general I believe the USA, (and some other countries), ought to emphasize mitigating the effects of poverty more than of minority status -- of course minorities will benefit disproportionately which is fair given they are disproportionately poor.

It's not discriminatory in a legal sense. Discrimination involves taking irrelevant considerations into account. That someone is from a group that has been persistently under-represented is a relevant consideration.

You can't have it both ways. Either people from different races are, at a population level, equally likely to have the necessary skills, or white people are inherently better at something and hence that's why more of them are 'better qualified'.

But if race is not really a determiner of the skills, then the skew in who is "better qualified" is a reflection of other advantages. Advantages that you are explicitly refusing to do anything about.

There are 2 main political parties in Australia. One of them, after intense internal fighting, decided to implement quotas for putting women candidates in winnable seats. The other insisted that women would get to equality by merit. The first party has seen the number of females elected steadily increase over a couple of decades. The other has seen the number of females elected not budge.

Isn't it funny how only ONE of those parties consistently found lots of men who were better qualified than women?

[DavidW]

This is a completely false notion as to what quotas are about.

Multiple posters have no idea how increasing diversity actually works.  They just project what they think is happening.  DEI considerations for hiring are usually done by employing an organization that enhances or broadens the candidate pool.  The search committee then considers the candidates without knowing who responded to the ad and who was headhunted.  They decide on the ideal candidate based on the qualities for the position and the community.  Not based on gender or race.  The process is not as blatantly discriminatory as one might assume.

Many people don't even realize how harmful it is to also constantly accuse a woman or person of color in the work place of being hired to fill a quota and are unqualified for their job.  How would that feel to constantly feel the need to prove yourself knowing that you'll never be accepted?  People at the top are blind to racism and sexism because they don't personally experience it.

[Herman]

This is really totally missing the point. Maybe one should ask you what you think his point was exactly?

The point was: paid work equals fire fighting.
Women aren't good fire fighters due to lack of muscle.
Women better stay home.

[milk]

You can't have it both ways. Either people from different races are, at a population level, equally likely to have the necessary skills, or white people are inherently better at something and hence that's why more of them are 'better qualified'.

That is an obvious false dichotomy.

[Madiel]

That is an obvious false dichotomy.

Um, either race inherently affects skill or it doesn't. Please tell me what middle option between Yes and No I've missed out.

[milk]

The point was: paid work equals fire fighting.
Women aren't good fire fighters due to lack of muscle.
Women better stay home.

You're messing with me. 
Fool me twice. You can't get fooled again!

[Gurn Blanston]

You're messing with me. 
Fool me twice. You can't get fooled again!

Actually I don't think he is.  If that wasn't the point,  then he used totally the wrong words to express what the point is!   

🤠😎

[milk]

Um, either race inherently affects skill or it doesn't. Please tell me what middle option between Yes and No I've missed out.

Here's your quote:

You can't have it both ways. Either people from different races are, at a population level, equally likely to have the necessary skills, or white people are inherently better at something and hence that's why more of them are 'better qualified'.

It could be that poverty, schools, crime, parenting, lack of parenting, cultural forces, leaded paint, social policy, drugs, racism, etc. lead to deficiencies that have nothing to do with anything inherent, if I'm understanding what exactly you mean the word. I came across something somewhere recently about Asian families and how family honor played a big part in how well their children did in academia. I'm not even saying this is a good thing because I'm not teaching my kids that they have to do well in school to honor the family. To me, it's nuts. But I digress.
I think there are a lot of reasons to put the breaks on this fad of Equity (which is a code word for quotas). One reason is that it pits people against each other, and I'm not talking about white kids. Another reason is that it demeans the groups of people it is targeting. Also, it's a bandaid. Instead of fixing the broken education and social systems that are likely the cause of poor academic performances, it just accepts it cannot do better and promotes or admits people who may do better elsewhere.
I wouldn't rule out all affirmative action programs. It seems to have worked in the military, for example. But I worry it's creating an untenable situation in the States.

[DavidW]

Actually I don't think he is.  If that wasn't the point,  then he used totally the wrong words to express what the point is!   

🤠😎

I didn't see Greg's nonsense about firefighters before.  Women started becoming firefighters decades ago.  All firefighters, regardless of gender, must pass the CPAT.

They need to demonstrate the following items, or they are not going into a burning building:

    Rescue drag.
    Forcible entry.
    Carrying heavy equipment.
    Climbing stairs.
    Fire hose operation.

So Greg's hypothetical has no basis on reality.

[milk]

Actually I don't think he is.  If that wasn't the point,  then he used totally the wrong words to express what the point is!   

🤠😎

Maybe I'm on a different planet. I thought he was saying that quotas mean promoting people who aren't necessarily qualified. So, there are many fields of medicine in the U.S. right now that are dominated by women. Gastro, pediatrics, OB, etc. one could reach down for men with lower text scores. But just not for treating my kids please.

[Herman]

So Greg's hypothetical has no basis in reality.

Of course it doesn't. 

[drogulus]

     The lack of qualifications is assumed, against the evidence that only the qualified are considered. The assumption is that you can't broaden the outreach without lowering standards.

I didn't see Greg's nonsense about firefighters before.  Women started becoming firefighters decades ago.  All firefighters, regardless of gender, must pass the CPAT.

They need to demonstrate the following items, or they are not going into a burning building:

So Greg's hypothetical has no basis on reality.

     They could have a basis in some cases. That would not justify lazy assumptions that they just are.

     A guy on the internet told me once that you should never accept a claim because a "guy on the internet" tells you. He must be right.

[Gurn Blanston]

Maybe I'm on a different planet. I thought he was saying that quotas mean promoting people who aren't necessarily qualified. So, there are many fields of medicine in the U.S. right now that are dominated by women. Gastro, pediatrics, OB, etc. one could reach down for men with lower text scores. But just not for treating my kids please.

To be precise he was saying that women aren't physically qualified to be firefighters,  and that 'giving' them a 'quota' of jobs takes opportunities away from men,  who are certainly stronger.  I first heard this argument 10 years before Greg was born.  It didn't hold water then,  either.

[Todd]

In the US in 2020, 4% of career firefighters were women.