Claiming that the only way somebody can have a "good faith discussion" on this issue is if they agree to your terms is not exactly a prelude to a good faith discussion.
Incorrect. There has to be some premise we agree on otherwise it will inevitably end in an unfruitful shouting match as we've seen too often both in political debates and on this forum.
Yea, I’m not even sure NBA players have more athleticism. They certainly have greater performance in easily measurable athletic traits. Think NFL Combine. But plenty of other physical traits that are less known/less measured/less measurable.
If equity comes at the expense of fairness, justice and/or freedom, then what does the current inequity cost? You seem to think inequity is preferable to equity, because being equitable causes inequity. Circular logic.
For the purposes of a good faith discussion, it would help if we started by agreeing on the premise that if equity is achieved, it will promote fairness, justice, and freedom. Do you think if I made that demand at the start of the discussion that it would lead to a productive conversation?
No, I'm saying we shouldn't care about equity as an end goal. We should only care about equity as a means to an end (assuming that's even an effective means to that end). Equity at the end-game expense of justice, fairness, and freedom is worthless.
What worth is inequity then? What I’m reading you write is that it is ok to be unfair to minorities, but once we start to infringe upon any unfair advantages that the majority has, we are no longer a free or just society?
No, just like it wouldn't be fair if I expected you to agree with the premise that "racism no longer exists in America." There's reasonable premises to agree on and there's ridiculous ones. We have to agree on something to have a fruitful discussion otherwise we won't go anywhere. For example, you can't have a conversation on math without agreeing 2 + 2 = 4
It's not worth anything. It's like measuring a hitter by how hard the ball comes off the bat. It might be interesting, but if he's hitting everything foul or flying out to center every time... who cares? Now is it better to hit the ball hard? Of course, but that's not the goal of the game. Then you're misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not saying racism or prejudice is okay. I'm saying they're evils that will never be completely eliminated. And there comes a point where attempts at eliminating them will yield far worse outcomes than leaving good enough alone. Equity is not fairness. It's just equity.
2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical fact. You're demanding people accept your opinion. There's a difference. And you're not even offering specificity around your opinion, so it's unclear what terms they'd be accepting. For example, are you arguing that requiring equity of outcome is problematic? Or are you arguing that equity of opportunity would be problematic? And if it is outcome, how are you measuring that? Are you doing so in a simplistic sense (ex. Race A must have the same proportionate wealth as Race B) or in a more complex sense (accounting for other variables, the races as an aggregate must achieve equitable outcomes)? When you discuss freedom, justice, and fairness, who is included? Who is excluded?
I reject that premise, and you demanding that I accept that premise is not exactly a prelude to a good faith discussion.
Ha. If you think your opinion is the equivalent to 2 + 2 = 4, I don't see any real opportunity for a productive discussion. Enjoy your day.
You can't even be consistent on the same page of the same forum. You disagreed with this comment: Now you're claiming that because I won't agree to your premise, we can't have a productive discussion. It took you less than a page to agree with me. You're just mad now and you're taking your ball and going home.
What you’re asking for agreement on is unpalatable to the other side. But, let’s look at it philosophically… you are saying that an end-state of equity will lead to unfairness. But it’s kind of irrelevant and a red herring, because 100% equity is impossible to achieve. Is that even the desired end-state? I don’t want the majority to be treated unfairly. I also don’t think it’s ok to do nothing.
It might be impossible, doesn't mean everybody thinks so. And it's worth noting that if a state cannot achieve 100% equity, then by the standards of CRT, racism will always be tethered to our institutions. I don't think so, but you tell me. The reason I'm asking for an end-game is because every failed Communist state started with the exact premise that we have a ruling class and an oppressed class (on the basis of inequity), and "we need to do something." I don't need to be a prophet, I just need to look at history.
I don't know if he's racist and don't care that I don't know. I'll just let his actions speak for themselves. 'Ye shall know them by their deeds.'
So you're disagreeing with this premise: "there comes a point where equity can only be achieved at the expense of fairness, justice, freedom or some combination of the three?"
Well, I wasn’t taught CRT, so I’m not really an expert on it. What I can say is that our institutions do have racism in them.
