Bruh, you know how I feel about you right?
View attachment 48265
Derec, jokes aside, I appreciate your engagement. The issue of privilege is nuanced, and I think it’s important to recognize that affirmative action and similar programs were designed to correct longstanding imbalances.
But they were something that at most could affect the symptoms (different outcomes), not the underlying causes. And as AA became more entrenched, the more the underlying causes got ignored. And now we have >60 years of AA and huge resistance to doing away with it.
These programs provided minorities with access to institutions they were historically excluded from, but this doesn't erase other systemic barriers they face outside education—like historical bias in the workforce & housing.
Original AA executive order did that, but what AA came to mean in the decades since has been to give members of certain groups access at terms better than the access given to others. That not only does not fix the underlying causes, it breeds resentment. I think it is a not negligible part of why the Democratic Party, which clings to racial preferences for dear life, is not more popular than it is.
Instead of lifting black achievement up gradually, AA sets a lower bar for blacks and Latinos. That is fundamentally the wrong approach. At most it should have been a very temporary band aid, and not something that had become a fixture of our education system for over half a century.
While privilege in this context often gets reduced to a single area like education, it’s really about the broader impact race has across multiple aspects of life.
I think it mostly gets discussed in terms of education because it is easiest to analyze in that setting, and because 18 year olds entering college are clearly not at fault for what happened decades or centuries before. So why should they be punished?
Regarding criminal justice, it’s true that Black communities see disproportionately higher crime rates, but that statistic alone doesn’t tell the full story. We can’t ignore the role systemic factors—like poverty, over-policing, and lack of opportunity—play in increasing the disparities.
Many people lack opportunities. It is not an excuse to steal, rob or murder. And what is your solution? The "soft on crime" approach in evidence in many lefty jurisdictions like LA does not work. If retail theft is high because the DA won't prosecute shoplifters, it is people in the neighborhood who suffer when stores shut down because they can't make a profit. If burglaries are up, it is the people in affected neighborhoods that suffer. If teenagers steel cars and get released to their parents over and over again instead of being locked up, hard-working people that need their cars to get to work suffer.
I agree that we should address underlying causes of crime as well, but not at the expense of not prosecuting criminals and incarcerating them if appropriate.
We also need to rethink what should be illegal. I support legalizing weed nationwide. Same with consensual sex-work.
But if you steal, if you are drunk and disorderly, if you literally break windows, that should not be tolerated even if they are relatively low-level crimes.
At the same time, I reject this idea that low-level crimes, or quality-of-life crimes should not be policed at all. That police should not make most traffic stops as is now the rule in many lefty cities. That's swinging too far in the other direction.
It’s not that Black people inherently commit more crime, but their circumstances often increase the likelihood of interaction with the justice system.
Not inherently, but they do commit more crimes. It's not just more interactions because where they live. The black homicide rate is not 5x that of whites because blacks get caught more.
Tackling the root causes of this issue—inequality in education, economic opportunities, and biased policing—is key to finding solutions. And let’s not forget how slavery disrupted the Black family structure in ways we’re still recovering from today.
Slavery in the US ended in the 1860s, a long time ago. While horrible, many peoples had it rough around that time too. Irish occupied by the British, Indians under the British Raj, South Slavs driving out the Ottoman Turk occupiers out of the Balkans, Chinese suffering under the Opium Wars. You guys are not the only ones who suffered.
I agree that we shouldn't assume conditions today are the same as they were decades ago. However, systemic barriers don’t disappear overnight. While we’ve made progress, the lingering effects of past discrimination—in housing, employment, and education—are still felt today. Disparities persist not only because of history but also because current systems continue to subtly perpetuate inequality.
But the solution is not to give preference to certain people and disadvantages to other people because of the color of their skin or the language they speak or their ancestors spoke.
I think that is counterproductive - it perpetuates "the soft bigotry of low expectations". Ask yourself: why is all this so slow to change? Could it be that the US took a wrong turn at Albuquerque in the 60s? That preferential treatment, from access to education/employment/city contracts to more informal things like what language or hair styles are appropriate for people based on what race they are, is contributing to these effects lingering?
Let's talk about the wealth disparity. Is it due to past discrimination making it less likely black great-grandparents and grandparents could leave assets to their offspring? Partly. Is it due to blacks on average earning less money? Partly. But it is also partly a question of culture that values conspicuous consumption from fancy sneakers to luxury cars over things like investing.
Not exactly the most recent data, but I have found this:
Wharton said:
To examine spending by racial groups, Roussanov and his colleagues studied data collected from 1986 to 2002 for the Consumer Expenditure Survey conducted by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Blacks and Hispanics spend up to 30% more than whites of comparable income on visible goods like clothing, cars and jewelry, the researchers found. This meant that, compared to white households of similar income, the typical black and Hispanic household spent $2,300 more per year on visible items. To do that, they spent less on almost all other categories except housing, and they saved less.
Conspicuous Consumption and Race: Who Spends More on What
It is also consistent with what I have observed living in Atlanta.
This emphasis on flash in the black culture hampers their ability to build generational wealth. Even if two people make a good six figure salary, one can build wealth and the other can live paycheck to paycheck. Today I think this plays a lot bigger role than what happened 80 years ago.
And no, I absolutely do not believe things are as bad as there were in the "good ole days" /s.
I am not the one who thinks "old days" were 100% better, but I do not fetishize change for the sake of change either. I think some things were indeed better in the 80s and 90s - don't remember stuff before then. I think our society was more free in many ways, but that is for another thread perhaps.
the doubts we harbor about our own worth.
That last thing is made worse by the larger society holding to lower standards though.
I think the solution for more black doctors is not to lower standards for black applicants but for more blacks to meet the same standards we expect from whites and Asians applying to med schools.
Peer pressure, too, plays a role—when you’re told you're ‘playing into the oppressor’s hands’ by cooperating with authority, it creates internal conflict. These behaviors and mentalities are still very much alive in parts of our community today.
You also have to realize that changing your culture to, for example, not see authorities such as police as the enemy, has to come from within the community. That attitude is harming blacks as they are most of the victims of black criminals.
I agree with you that we shouldn’t generalize, but I’d argue that most people advocating for reparations or racial preferences aren’t looking to punish white Americans. They’re seeking redress for historical wrongs and trying to level a playing field that remains skewed, in their view.
You say they do not look to do it, but that is what these policies are. It is skewing the playing field now because it was skewed the other way in the past. But the young people today weren't the oppressors. They weren't the oppressed. In many cases, they are not even the descendants of those who were. The son of Nigerian immigrants and the daughter of Russian immigrants have zero to do with American slavery or with Jim Crow one way or the other, and yet they are caught up in the perverse game of institutions such as universities effectively assigning collective victimhood and guilt through racial preferences.
I tend to agree with this because it seems America has done more for other historical wrongs than it has for its treatment of Black Americans. There’s certainly debate about the best way to achieve fairness, and while I agree racial preferences are no longer the ideal solution, it’s important to recognize that real activists are attempting to address imbalance, not seek retribution.
How do you define "real activists". And what do you mean by "balance"? Equal outcomes?
Take the wealth example above. Should it really be the role of government to "balance" wealth by race even if there are differences, on average, how blacks and whites choose to spend their money? Or take criminal justice. Should incarceration rates be "balanced" regardless of actual crime rates?
Unfortunately race activists see injustice and "racism" in any disparate outcome that does not favor blacks. More blacks in prison? Racism. More Asians in med school? Racism. 90% of NBA is black? No problem. They never want to balance where they are ahead.
You raise a great point in distinguishing between equality and equity. Equity recognizes that some groups, due to historical and systemic barriers, may need more support to truly have a fair shot. You’re right that the focus should be on improving education and building better pathways to success. However, racial preferences were never meant to create a shortcut but rather to address the unfair disadvantages that Black students from less privileged backgrounds often face.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
So let's assume their intentions were not to create a shortcut. Fine, but that's what AA did. That's all giving preferences could do. And that became the dominant paradigm for the last 60 years. It's also a crude instrumernt. The son of a black Coca Cola vice president gets access to the shortcut. The daughter of a white West Virginia coal miner does not, and neither does the son of a Korean shopkeeper in Los Angeles.
Moving forward, I think we should tackle the root problems—like early childhood education and access to resources—while ensuring no citizen is negatively impacted in the process (like what some applying affirmative action have done some cases).
Agreed.
www.cbsnews.com
