[bmh_ca]

> I can't. Totally cannot. 100% can't deal with your argument.

I find it telling that you think it is my argument. What I wrote is neither mine nor an argument. It is a description of a theory.

> Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

Not all discriminations are equal.

To argue that all discrimination is discrimination is to give equivalence to police murdering for traffic violations and being denied the pole position on a job application. Both are wrong, but there are quantitative differences – they can be measured.

> How do we measure wrongs? How do we "undo future wrongs"?

We can measure the effect of discrimination by the number of people affected, and the impact a discrimination has on an individual. It's not an unknown problem; statisticians measure it on jobs, income, applications, promotions, employment types. The data exists or can be gathered, and it can ascribed monetary value ("damages" in law). No formula will be ideal in all cases, but that is not an excusable barrier.

Societies with affirmative action have in essence determined, whether founded or not, that the aggregate of prejudice against classes of victims outweighs the aggregate prejudice of attempting to correct it.

If you want to discredit the theory you must first understand that it is a widely published and peer reviewed theory of many facets of society and not just an argument from some guy on the internet. The theory is founded in the philosophy of law, and touches on many other aspects ranging from the relationship between culture and economics through criminology.

[striking]

I didn't think that first quote was your argument, I just thought it was the dumbest thing you said. I think it's silly that you believe that past wrongs can be rectified and that future wrongs are definitely going to happen, and that that invalidates the argument you presented about discrimination against white people not existing. Theory or argument, that's pedantry.

> Not all discriminations are equal.

Never said that.

I was implying that anything that was discrimination was wrong. Are you arguing the opposite?

> We can measure the effect [etc] and the impact [etc] and it can ascribed monetary value [etc]. No formula will be ideal in all cases, but that is not an excusable barrier. [emphasis mine]

You'll have to inform me then why there's debate on the ballpark percentage of the wage gap or even that it exists in general, just as an example. (not arguing for or against, but that there is a debate) And it is perfectly excusable for someone not to take action, or not to execute a very big action, if it is not the correct action, unless you think justice is necessarily coexistent with wrongful imprisonment.

And how do you pick who gets affirmative action anyway? I'm a Polish immigrant. My ancestors have been fucked 5 ways from Tuesday by just about every major happening in Europe. It was still 1989 when communism fell (only 27 years ago), and it left desolation and despair in its wake. Coming to the US, my parents and I had just about nothing.

And better yet, I'm not going to claim I deserve something. Because the world dealt me and everyone a shitty hand and the best I can do is play it, no matter the odds. Even if someone got a better hand than I did.

[bmh_ca]

As a matter of interest, the school of thought you are describing is the Deontologists. In "Capitalism and Freedom" Milton Friedman captured this as:

> [Antidiscrimination] legislation involves the acceptance of a principle that proponents would find abhorrent in almost every other application. If it is appropriate for the state to say that individuals may not discriminate in employment because of color or race or religion, then it is equally appropriate for the state, provided a majority can be found to vote that way, to say that individuals must discriminate in employment on the basis of color, race or religion. The Hitler Nuremberg laws and the law in the Southern states imposing special disabilities upon Negroes are both examples of laws similar in principle to [antidiscrimination legislation]

This is in contrast with a focus upon either consequence or virtues. Deontological theory falls down on some observed economic scenarios. For example, banker bonuses are generally deontological in nature, and as a result paid out quarterly regardless of performance; a consequentialist or "virtuist" might formulate banker bonuses on practical timelines or overall long-term results, in contrast.

In any case, what I thought was a reasonably balanced emperical study by John Donohue is worth reading [The Law and Economics of Antidiscrimination Law] <http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... (it is the paper from which I drew Milton's quote).

[striking]

Thanks for the well-reasoned reply, and for the excellent link. I apologize for having lost my cool.

Could you link me a paper describing the perspective you mentioned in your earlier comments? I'd like to try challenging my own beliefs.

[bmh_ca]

It's my pleasure, I am glad you are interested in spending more time on the topic.

Here's an reasonable read on the US history and positions: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

I hope that helps and serves as a good starting position.

[malandrew]

That same society at a different time determined slavery, jim crow laws and other prejudicial treatments were once okay just as it did affirmative action. An appeal to authority or populism doesn't make it good or right. It merely makes it lawful and/or socially acceptable.

There are many widely published and peer reviewed theories that turned out to be wrong after implementing them and empirically seeing that they are imperfect. There are scientific theories and there are non-scientific theories and the one you've put forth is squarely in the camp of non-scientific theory, which typically are hypotheses that lack the ability to be disproved.

I would like to think we can do better than replacing one system of prejudices with another. We've seen the pendulum swing both ways enough time now to better predict where the ideas contributing to momentum of the pendulum will lead to an over-correction and novel injustices.