|
 |
On 1/2/2011 6:16 AM, andrel wrote:
> Note that I am not a proponent of positive discrimination. Yet, I
> understand why under some circumstances some people think society as a
> whole would profit on the long term if some measures were implemented.
> That is perhaps a bit abstract, but it means that I am willing to
> support measures that I think are wrong.
>
To toss in my two cents, I both am, and am not. It may be necessary to
take corrective steps to fix a real problem, but not necessary to
maintain those steps once the problem is no longer significant. The
difficulty in the US is that there is *ample* evidence, some of it from
the very people crying about such positive discrimination, that the
original problem is a few generations away from being no longer
relevant. This is due to some "local" individual interactions still
being *very* racist, or hugely sectarian, just to name two such issues,
to the extent that the only thing curtailing certain acts are those laws
that make it punishable to act on such a bias. In those places, the
"individual" interaction issues are systemic macro level problems,
still. Ironically, easing the law someplace where there is less of one
would simply have the effect of moving the people from where they are,
to someplace they imagine they are more open, and legally allowed, to
act on those systemic biases.
Worse, we see a similar, unintentional, one with, for example, schools.
You have failing schools most commonly in places where certain people
live, less money sent to those places, because politicians tend to be
more concerned with getting elected than helping people that may not be
voting at all, or worse, in this case, many of the people in those
areas, lacking secular foundations on which to survive, like education,
turn to churches, and those tend to... well, not exactly side with
rationality, or encourage voting for people willing to fix problems,
instead of just be "godly", what ever the F that means. And, on top of
that, when church fails, you get crime instead. So, we end up with a
multi-level imbalance. You can't fix the crime, or the reliance of
fantasy, instead of jobs, or the job problem, or *anything* else,
without fixing the education system, and you can't do that without
biasing, someplace, the system in favor of helping those people more
than someone else.
You could try, but.. attempts to fix the problems without addressing the
core causes are generally dismal failures. And, of course, for every one
person we have saying, "We need to fix these things.", we have another
saying, "What is there to fix? If they didn't want to live like that,
they would move someplace else." Hmm.., where exactly, and how, without
the parents *choosing* to step away from all the stuff helping them
fail, instead of just moving to some place where all the same crutches
are present? And, for that matter, how, if they don't have the resources?
You need a bottom up solution, and most of them are top down that get
tried. But, a bottom up solution requires "recognizing" who you are
talking about, and giving them more help than you would someone from a
good neighborhood, with a good school, parents with decent educations,
sufficient money, etc.
Mind, top down solutions do have one benefit... Eventually the effect is
to actually land more and more of the people who where *not* in the
category being discussed in the same boat, until nearly everyone is
equally poor, uneducated, and prospect-less. We see that starting to
happen too now, in the US. And, obviously, you no longer need "racial"
equality opportunity laws, if everyone is screwed equally by the system
anyway, and the problem is purely one of *no one* having good schools,
college, or any chance at a job paying more than poverty levels.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
