Equal opportunity or equal outcome?

What are your thoughts on the subjects?
Is it always one (or the other); or does it depend on the circumstances?

Equal opportunity.

“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks”



...was something Ginsburg had said during her first oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the 1973 case of Frontiero v. Richardson (which contested a U.S. Air Force policy of providing benefits to dependent spouses differently based on sex). But when Ginsburg did so, she was quoting the words of Sarah Moore Grimké, a 19th century abolitionist and women’s rights activist.

Equal opportunity.

Always? Why?

Retarted question.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on November 19, 2021, 05:52:58 AM

Equal opportunity.

Always? Why?

How to you make outcomes equal? If you give everyone the same opportunities, there will be different outcomes, because not everyone will use their opportunities the same. In order to make the outcomes the same, I don't know what it would take. Would you have to take some opportunities away from some people, or give extra opportunities to some people? I'm not against giving some people extra opportunities, but I am against taking them away.

It depends on the circumstances/exactly how you look at it; but for the most part it should be equal opportunity/equal access.

Where this simple view can fail would be like getting access to a building. If you only have a set of stairs you are technically giving everyone equal opportunity to go up the stairs. But this has the effect of giving unequal opportunity to get into the building for those who can't use stairs.

Likewise, if someone has a test, but is unable to make it due to circumstances beyond their control; you can try to claim that they had the same opportunity to take it as everyone else, and should get 0, but they didn't really have the opportunity to take it.

Equal outcome can also be quite hard to define.
Lets say a company is hiring 10 people. 45 male applicants apply and 5 female applicants apply.
Do we want an equal outcome based on successful applications, with 5 successful male applicants and 5 successful female applicants?
Or do we want an equal outcome chance based upon portion applying and we have 1 successful female applicant and 9 successful male applicants?
Or should it be based upon the current number of people employed, so if the company has too many males they need to hire only the females?

But regardless of which you pick, you are literally discriminating on the basis of sex. Something which should have no impact on the role they are doing (and that even applies in cases which require athleticism). That is entirely unfair, and likely means the company wont get the best people for the job.

Should everyone be able to go to the Olympics and get a gold medal, even if they didn't bother training or anything of the like?

 But heres where your last example comes into the grey zone.

If the firm has a high male populationa nd boys club mentality and their will be an underlying bias to hire another dude so as to fit the office "culture".

Flip this from sexism to racism and there is undeniable prejudice towards jaykwalia and a-a-rons of the world.
Expermients shown that swapping names with the same credentials shows bias.

So afirmative action is a temporary fix to shift hiring culture.

Whether the individual performs, is on their own merit.

It being a "temporary fix" doesn't make it any less discriminatory or unfair.
You have already indicated switching names has an effect, and this provides a different, and far less discriminatory method.

Why not set up the hiring process so the ones making the decisions/providing opinions never deal directly with those who are being potentially hired (instead going through proxies or through computer systems), and all things which could be used to discriminate such as names and sex and the like are hidden.

The real grey area are those who are old and have been disadvantaged for a large portion of their lives.
But affirmative action for that would require specifically hiring the old people, and I am yet to hear of one that does that.

Temproary fix so that the culture can become acustomed to a new culture.
To when Black-Jack and Jack (the white one) just become jackY and JackX or when you dont have to watch what you say becuase making sexual jokes just isnt common.

Sort of like always having a few gay people on tv.
First it was new.
Now its just oh ya there they are.




Blind noname is wnother method thats come up.
But theres no incentive if to happen on its own.
Govts job is to do that.


Hiring old people is tough for a 60yo who gets laid off/ replaced with a 25yo.
Hopefully decently packaged out.
Whos going to hire someone for the last 5-10yrs of their working life?
Probably govt should be taking these guys on as field inspection experts or something to check up on the young people.
Private sector doubtful will invest unless its a big management level position.

Aaaahah some govt drone who cant think critically or do things besides check boxes:


An award-winning Canadian scientist said he has been refused two federal government grants for his research on the grounds of “lack of diversity” — even though he is originally from India and has repeatedly suffered racism.



'I don't care about the colour of your skin. I'm interested in hiring someone who wants to work on the project and is good at it,


As scientists, he said, “we don’t believe in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI). We believe in merit, fairness and equality. You should be fair in your procedures and treat people as equals.”

However, “if I want to focus on merit, fairness and equality, then you get called out as a racist or sexist and I refuse to let that happen to me,” Kambhampati said.

“I actually get called a racist constantly by white university students who believe that prejudice plus power equals racism. And as a result (they say), I have internalized racism. So, if you are a minority who thinks that the racism of the woke left is overstated they say you have internalized racism.”



https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/minority-professor-denied-grants-because-he-hires-on-merit-people-are-afraid-to-think/wcm/a203cfa4-04df-47ed-839a-02e8dafc8c28/amp/

And this just shows the problem.

If you are not blatantly racist and/or sexist, you get accused of being racist/sexist, just because you want equality.

Its all grey.
Not black white.
Hes also a specialized field and needs specialized people.
But in general some business out there needs this affirmative action intervention to break office culture barriers to entry.


Like any good PID correction model there are overcorrection swings in the process by the sjw wpkeness and the alt right concervativeness

Its all grey.
Not black white.
Hes also a specialized field and needs specialized people.
But in general some business out there needs this affirmative action intervention to break office culture barriers to entry.


Like any good PID correction model there are overcorrection swings in the process by the sjw wpkeness and the alt right concervativeness

Like I said, affirmative action is not the appropriate way forward.
All it does is increase racism.
Then anyone who opposes it gets labelled a racist.
And even better, it means people who work there can grow to resent the person who was hired because of their race rather than because of their merits.

Also, a good PID controller can get to the setpoint without any significant overshoot. But the bigger problem with that idea is the idea of trying to force a desired outcome based upon race instead of just trying to oppose racism.

Affirmative action is nothing more than blatant racism, and anyone who supports is racist as they think people should be hired based upon their race.

Some jobs should absolutely be merit based. Science, research anything technical - you can't just prop up a know nothing and put someone in a high risk or high responsibility position on account of their sexuality, melanin content or which sky fairy they subscribe to. In fairness they should 'aspire' to try and capture these groups with merit but that can't always happen especially if your area has a limited pool of people interested and available for the job

But let's take a mundane job like stacking shelves or manning a checkout at a supermarket. In Oz's Northern Territory, some areas have 1 or more in 5  people as aboriginal.

Now if the supermarket was staffed by 99% white people..... Something stinks there. Affirmative action that requires the supermarket to raise the level of employment of indigenous people to closer to 20% is fair. Not that they MUST have 20% aboriginal employed but they should have the places open. That absolutely helps the societies everyone lives in. A supermarket can have 100+ people on the books but you only see a few dozen people at a time. Just manage the rosters accordingly.

As with everything - judge it based on its merits.

Now if the supermarket was staffed by 99% white people..... Something stinks there. Affirmative action that requires the supermarket to raise the level of employment of indigenous people to closer to 20% is fair. Not that they MUST have 20% aboriginal employed but they should have the places open. That absolutely helps the societies everyone lives in. A supermarket can have 100+ people on the books but you only see a few dozen people at a time. Just manage the rosters accordingly.

That would be even more racist.
Hire a bunch of people to act like you aren't racist but then don't actually employ them for any significant amount of time.

Some might also suggest it is racist expecting a different culture that feels invaded to be working at our supermarkets.

Quote from: Shifter on November 24, 2021, 11:24:50 PM

Now if the supermarket was staffed by 99% white people..... Something stinks there. Affirmative action that requires the supermarket to raise the level of employment of indigenous people to closer to 20% is fair. Not that they MUST have 20% aboriginal employed but they should have the places open. That absolutely helps the societies everyone lives in. A supermarket can have 100+ people on the books but you only see a few dozen people at a time. Just manage the rosters accordingly.

That would be even more racist.
Hire a bunch of people to act like you aren't racist but then don't actually employ them for any significant amount of time.

Some might also suggest it is racist expecting a different culture that feels invaded to be working at our supermarkets.

I think you don't know what the point of affirmative action is. It's not about pretending to not be racist or exclusionary.

Put your shoe on the foot of the people currently being excluded and discounted and ask yourself if it's right that they continue to be denied employment opportunities.

If no indigenous people apply for the job at all, fair enough and  I'm not talking about jobs that require qualifications.

I've been to job interviews where a number of positions were deliberate 'affirmative action' positions for women and abiriginals. These are usually open in addition to everyone else.

If you have a problem with these initiatives then maybe check your own privilege and ask yourself why you hate the idea that groups who by societal design have been placed last and looked down on, actually get the opportunity to prove themselves just like you do.

Their employment and opportunities does not come at the expense of yours and they have every right to a fair go rather than always start with the odds stacked against them.

Now you wouldn't put a scrawny unqualified woman deep in a mineshaft operating heavy machinery she's never had an interest in and responsible for dozens of people's safety. That isn't what affirmative action is doing.

I think you don't know what the point of affirmative action is. It's not about pretending to not be racist or exclusionary.

It sure seems to be.

Put your shoe on the foot of the people currently being excluded and discounted and ask yourself if it's right that they continue to be denied employment opportunities.

And put your shoe on the foot of people who are excluded based upon affirmative action. What have they done to deserve that?
Replacing racism with racism doesn't make you less racist.

If you have a problem with these initiatives then maybe check your own privilege

Or perhaps you can check the privilege of jobs being explicitly for particular groups.

Just what is wrong with having a problems with initiatives which by their very nature are sexist or racist?

ask yourself why you hate the idea that groups who by societal design have been placed last and looked down on, actually get the opportunity to prove themselves just like you do.

I would be fine if that is all it was, but it isn't.
It is them getting advantages which other people do not get.

Their employment and opportunities does not come at the expense of yours

As they have jobs made available to them which I can't apply for, they most certainly do.
And that is blatant racism or sexism, depending on the group being targeted.
And that means those who support it are racist and/or sexist.

If it was about equal opportunity, then the opportunity would be equal, not restricted to a certain group.

Quote from: Shifter on November 25, 2021, 02:07:45 AM

I think you don't know what the point of affirmative action is. It's not about pretending to not be racist or exclusionary.

It sure seems to be.

Quote from: Shifter on November 25, 2021, 02:07:45 AM

Put your shoe on the foot of the people currently being excluded and discounted and ask yourself if it's right that they continue to be denied employment opportunities.

And put your shoe on the foot of people who are excluded based upon affirmative action. What have they done to deserve that?
Replacing racism with racism doesn't make you less racist.

Quote from: Shifter on November 25, 2021, 02:07:45 AM

If you have a problem with these initiatives then maybe check your own privilege

Or perhaps you can check the privilege of jobs being explicitly for particular groups.

Just what is wrong with having a problems with initiatives which by their very nature are sexist or racist?

Quote from: Shifter on November 25, 2021, 02:07:45 AM

ask yourself why you hate the idea that groups who by societal design have been placed last and looked down on, actually get the opportunity to prove themselves just like you do.

I would be fine if that is all it was, but it isn't.
It is them getting advantages which other people do not get.

Quote from: Shifter on November 25, 2021, 02:07:45 AM

Their employment and opportunities does not come at the expense of yours

As they have jobs made available to them which I can't apply for, they most certainly do.
And that is blatant racism or sexism, depending on the group being targeted.
And that means those who support it are racist and/or sexist.

If it was about equal opportunity, then the opportunity would be equal, not restricted to a certain group.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how affirmative action works. Again, it is not to tell a qualified white man to flap off. It's not 'taking' jobs away from these people. It simply encourages and leaves open placements for the downtrodden groups.

For groups like indigenous Australians, affirmative action is designed to break the circle of poverty. You live in the same society as these groups. It benefits you as well to have them succeed. It takes pressure off social welfare systems when instead of being a burden on taxes always taking, they can actually be people putting money into the tax system

You need to look at the overall bigger picture and I think you need to stop listening to shock jocks who don't know what they are talking about. Why don't you go out and understand what affirmative action is before you trash it

Maybe it is a stupid system in other countries. But I think Australia in my experience with it and reading about it, it's a net positive overall

And when I say my experience, I mean having applied for jobs that also had an express pathway and opening for women and aboriginals. Because no matter how you want to frame it, they do have the odds stacked against them, even qualified

The racists knowningly or unknowingly are hiring based on race.

The sjw are mislabeling, like in my example, those who are hiring based on merit.

The racists sexists will resent those who feel displace them.
Typically white male - "dey dook our jooorbs!"

But
In theory once the culture dynamic  has changed and "others" dont appear to be "others" and have earned rheir merit and right to be there, then it has worked.

Is it perfect?
No
Because its grey
No one size fit.
But big govt can only apply a one szie fit.

Affirmative action also helps to get rid of cronyism which is a huge problem in the public service. It's not what you know that matters. It's who you know. The argument that affirmative action doesn't get the best people is nonsense in this respect.

In our government a few years ago we had one guy (Tony Abbott) whose views on women were a shout out to the 1950s. He appointed himself 'minister for women'

I'd lol if it wasn't so f'ed up

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how affirmative action works.

No, I don't.
It is about discriminating on the basis of race or sex to hire people not because of their merits, but because of their membership of a particular group.

Again, it is not to tell a qualified white man to flap off. It's not 'taking' jobs away from these people. It simply encourages and leaves open placements for the downtrodden groups.

So you think the company will just make up unneeded jobs, more jobs than they would have without affirmative action?
If so, you are delusional.
It has jobs specifically for a targeted group, taking away the opportunity from others.
That is nothing more than blatant discrimination.

For groups like indigenous Australians, affirmative action is designed to break the circle of poverty.

If it was to break the cycle of poverty, it would be targeting based upon socioeconomic status, not race.

And when I say my experience, I mean having applied for jobs that also had an express pathway and opening for women and aboriginals. Because no matter how you want to frame it, they do have the odds stacked against them, even qualified

I am yet to see any systematic stacking against them.
But I have seen plenty of systematic stacking for them.

In theory once the culture dynamic  has changed and "others" dont appear to be "others" and have earned rheir merit and right to be there, then it has worked.

And while they continue to openly discriminate, it wont. They will be the "others" hired because they are the "others" rather than based upon their merit.

the 2nd "others" being the next gen of others, no longer others, just people.

I haven't thought a lot about when affirmative action is a good thing and when it isn't, but the one place I think it is good is in education. Not just fancy university, but more every day education like trade schools.

the 2nd "others" being the next gen of others, no longer others, just people.

And that could have been the case, if there weren't so many racist and/or sexist policies, making them the "others", giving them advantages over people not of those races or sex.

i.e. in order for them to not be considered "others" you need to have racist and sexist hiring policies/entrance policies end.

yes
that's the point!
oh well
guess we'll have to leave it at that then.

I haven't thought a lot about when affirmative action is a good thing and when it isn't, but the one place I think it is good is in education. Not just fancy university, but more every day education like trade schools.

that's tough though
to survive the school or just be passed through for the sake of passing htem.
it's like rich kids who get passed through.

an unqualified student will be pressure out if they can't do the work.
will the teachers grade them more harshly or less harshly?

who knows.
are their tests to get in or is just an application?


Definitely breeding out low quality PS and HS is a big help in general.

No, affirmative action wouldn't let them be passed for the sake of passing. It would mean making sure they can get in. The rest is up to them.

But if il prepared its a setup for failure

So? Life is full of failures.