The 1st speaker (on strongly disagree) makes a good point about how discrimination can create a vicious cycle. It also creates a bad incentive structure that rewards a victim mentality. One other point I haven't seen raised yet in this series is the idea of weighing trade-offs, especially if you go past the issue of affirmative action in university admissions. Say, for example, imposing equity in matters of criminal justice. You may reduce disparities in prison populations, but likely at the expense of public safety.
This is more or less the way our legal system works. For example, if you own a company that produces a widget, 100 people buy the widget, and the widget ended up being defective and killed eight people, the remedy is to discriminate (it's happening to you, not anyone else). You would pay damages to the families of the people who died from your widget and recall the rest of them.
Obviously, it doesn't change the past, but it is the only remedy we have available. And the issue at hand, as you mentioned, is that there needs to be clear evidence that 1) your widget was defective, and 2) that it caused those deaths.
A remedy like the one Kendi describes would result in inconsistent outcomes. It asks too many theoretical questions. They're hard to prove. It's hard to scale those assertions. There's no evidence the remedy would actually have the desired outcome.
When it comes to Kendi I find it harder and harder to believe that he is operating in good faith. I suspect he knows how specious his arguments are (as evidenced by refusing to debate or even engage with detractors or critics), but there are strong incentives for him to continue forward. He isn’t interested in remedying anything other than his bank account.
Booker T. Washington noticed this over 100 years ago.
“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
Very nice. Thoughtful, open conversations.
The 1st speaker (on strongly disagree) makes a good point about how discrimination can create a vicious cycle. It also creates a bad incentive structure that rewards a victim mentality. One other point I haven't seen raised yet in this series is the idea of weighing trade-offs, especially if you go past the issue of affirmative action in university admissions. Say, for example, imposing equity in matters of criminal justice. You may reduce disparities in prison populations, but likely at the expense of public safety.
Remember in the movie The Incredibles? The only thing that could kill the robot was the robot. I'd love to connect.
This is more or less the way our legal system works. For example, if you own a company that produces a widget, 100 people buy the widget, and the widget ended up being defective and killed eight people, the remedy is to discriminate (it's happening to you, not anyone else). You would pay damages to the families of the people who died from your widget and recall the rest of them.
Obviously, it doesn't change the past, but it is the only remedy we have available. And the issue at hand, as you mentioned, is that there needs to be clear evidence that 1) your widget was defective, and 2) that it caused those deaths.
A remedy like the one Kendi describes would result in inconsistent outcomes. It asks too many theoretical questions. They're hard to prove. It's hard to scale those assertions. There's no evidence the remedy would actually have the desired outcome.
When it comes to Kendi I find it harder and harder to believe that he is operating in good faith. I suspect he knows how specious his arguments are (as evidenced by refusing to debate or even engage with detractors or critics), but there are strong incentives for him to continue forward. He isn’t interested in remedying anything other than his bank account.
Booker T. Washington noticed this over 100 years ago.
“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
-Booker T. Washington
I think it's a wise decision to be skeptical of people who go around blocking everyone who challenges them on something.