racial and sexual inequality (was Re: various bits)
John M. Klassa
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:52:03 -0400
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, "Brad" == Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Brad> What right do you have to say something like that? How do you
Brad> know what I need to worry about in my life?
I guess you misinterpreted what I said (which may have been my fault,
for having written it the way I did). My point was this... You said
that white men need something real to be pissed off about. I was making
the point that *I*, at least, have plenty to be pissed off and worry
about as it is, without people telling me (implicitly) that I don't.
My apologies if I offended you. That wasn't my intention. My intention
was to convey some of what you just conveyed, in reverse :-)... That is,
how dare you tell me that white men have nothing real to be pissed off
So, again, sorry if I didn't say what I said clearly enough.
Brad> The point I was making before I was told I was "too young to
Brad> understand" was that lots of white men are making up this whole
Brad> affirmative action;
I didn't say you were too young, did I (seriously; I don't remember
doing that)? I have no idea how old you are.
Brad> I never said you were a cretin. Please, let record show that.
This is getting into silly name calling. I never said you did. I was
calling myself one for not having the vocabulary to keep up with you. I
was, in fact, complimenting you by demonstrating (and admitting) my
me> At heart, AA still amounts to government-backed discrimination.
Brad> No, it doesn't. See myth #7 at http://www.socialpsychology.org/affirm.htm
me> No amount of reforming will change this basic part of what AA is, so I
me> don't think I'll ever agree with it.
Brad> AA already isn't that. Have you read the resources I have posted, and
Brad> already dismissed them?
Here's Myth #7:
> Myth #7: You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.
> The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word --
> discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job
> discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas
> affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment
> through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of
> exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion,
> which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of
> affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a
> nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy
> person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or
> even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance,
> supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.
This is a crock. If you want to call it "inclusion", fine. What
it *means*, though, is that you're *discriminating* against the
non-minority in that you're *always* including the minority when
all else is equal. Sure it's "inclusion" for the minority -- but
it's *exclusion* for the other person.
[ I hope (seriously) that you don't get the impression that I'm an
asshole... Like I said earlier, I try to stay out of this kind of
thing because I hate to piss people off. My intention has never been
to piss you off or to belittle your life and what it entails. Life is
hard for everybody. My apologies if I've come across otherwise. ]
John Klassa / Alcatel USA / Raleigh, NC, USA