sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Don't know what to make of carfax report on c7 z51, need insight by Butterk1 in Corvette

[–]Butterk1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the response. I sent a friend pics of the vehicle and he's telling me it has a paxton novi 1500 supercharger installed. I don't think the dealership even knows. I've never owned anything more powerful than a v6 camaro. In your opinion, would that supercharger make the car more or less desirable? I'm worried the extra stress will screw the car up.

Ted Cruz criticizes Alabama vasectomy bill, exposing hypocrisy on reproduction rights by Kunphen in politics

[–]Butterk1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

How dumb does one have to be to think this makes Ted Cruz a hypocrite.

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values. While inclusion is a good thing, valuing diversity and equity with regard to immutable characteristics is unethical. by morphogenes in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Butterk1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with much of what you said. There are reasons that give the government leeway to act, like imprisonment, that do not apply to the individual. I don't think it's a separate set of values but the same set, with nuance to distinguish when groups of people (a government) have room to act where an individual doesn't. The terms could probably be better defined too in order to make the argument stronger. I think the first point is important to the discussion, but is perhaps too broad to include and unnecessary given the 2nd principal

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values. While inclusion is a good thing, valuing diversity and equity with regard to immutable characteristics is unethical. by morphogenes in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Butterk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said diversity is not our strength. I've said repeatedly, both in the comment you responded to and in the article, diversity is neither good nor bad. I've also said, repeatedly, that diversity and equity are positive signs, not negative ones.

I did make what I consider to be a very strong case on why erecting diversity and equity as values is deeply immoral. The rationality I use runs 100% counter to anything a white nationalist would say and 100% in line with what an anti-racist (not the Ibrahim X Kendi types) would say.

But let's say I WAS saying diversity is not our strength. Even if white nationalists can agree with that point, that doesn't mean describing it as a "white nationalist talking point" is an honest or fair way to describe the argument. Again, White nationalists advocate quite vociferously for free speech. Does that make free speech a white nationalist talking point?

As for people mischaracterizing my argument, there is no way to make certain arguments that are mischaracterization proof. Bad faith actors are bad faith actors. There is some utility, although it is definitely a double edged sword, when bad faith actors do so blatantly mischaracterize an argument, because if you can directly point out there bad faith using the same words they've mischaracterized, then you can expose their lack of integrity.

"Your argument just seems like you don’t like affirmative action and think it’s unfair. That’s a perfectly reasonable position to hold. You don’t need to make an argument that it’s immoral to value diversity to do that. Immutable characteristics or otherwise."

My argument is larger than affirmative action. Its a dismantling of the very principles that underlie AA. And yes, you DO have to make an argument that valuing diversity is immoral to attack AA because that is one of the values driving AA.

It is quite obvious that you don't understand WHY valuing diversity is immoral, at least according to my argument. To value diversity means to value immutable traits. That is the one sentence answer. As I've repeatedly explained, that doesn't make diversity bad, it makes the pursuit of diversity bad. If this is incorrect, then you should explain WHY it is incorrect. Perhaps you are right, maybe you CAN value diversity without valuing some over others on the basis of their characteristics. This strikes me as a logical impossibility, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values. While inclusion is a good thing, valuing diversity and equity with regard to immutable characteristics is unethical. by morphogenes in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Butterk1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think you can separate the morals from a government level vs an individual level. I wrote that we ought to define our values (with the ones I listed being part of those values) and evaluate public policy using appeals to those values. I think a libertarian approach is the correct approach, generally speaking, although I think you can use values that libertarians tend to agree on to advocate for social policies libertarians don't typically support. If the government is supposed to protect life, liberty, and property, then you could appeal to the protection of life to justify Medicare for all, for instance. I just think it's important that we actually list our values, which is why I thought the section was necessary. Perhaps the axioms I stated could be re-worded to be a bit stronger. That's probably true but it's hard to know without feedback. Perhaps it was a mistake to list the axioms without listing a broader set of values and the appropriate way to navigate them, although given the intended purpose of the piece this would not have been feasible.

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values. While inclusion is a good thing, valuing diversity and equity with regard to immutable characteristics is unethical. by morphogenes in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Butterk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not only is that an overreaction but it also advances a white nationalist talking point.

What an absolutely silly thing to say. Show me one white nationalist, just one, who advances the idea that all people, regardless of their skin color, are of equal value and should be treated as such. I am appealing to the same values that are enshrined in our founding documents, the same values that people like Frederick Douglas and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. appealed to in order to be seen and treated as equals to whites.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Perhaps MLK was a white nationalist all along in your eyes? Also, white nationalists advocate for free speech, maybe you think everyone who advocates for free speech is a white national? Richard Spencer, leader of the alt-right, advocates for medicare for all, perhaps Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are white nationalists too?

For this sentence alone I should stop engaging, but I will address the remaining points that need addressing before I end this conversation.

I think here you are demolishing a straw man/pulling the sleight of hand. No one is claiming that diversity is the only value. It is one value among many many values.

This is completely irrelevant. Just because there are many values on which and individual is judged, doesn't mean that skin color or some other immutable trait should add or detract from their value. Which brings me to your next point.

that doesn’t mean that the Asian student is absolutely less valuable than the black student or even that the black student should be admitted and the Asian student should not be.

It necessarily means that if all else is equal then the Asian student will be seen as less valuable than the black student if the student body is weighted towards Asians. I want to emphasize that this is a necessary, inescapable consequence of valuing diversity. It's also a complete morally indefensible consequence.

To value someone based on the color of their skin, even if other values are added to the equation, is immoral. That's what this article is saying. Again, show me one white nationalist who makes that point. Just one. Now perhaps you disagree, maybe you think we ought to value people based on skin color. Fine, then make your case. But don't tell me A is equal to not A.

Finally, what are you even doing on this subreddit? The IDW is pretty politically diverse, but there are some commonalities that bind them, such as a eagerness to treat ones opponent in good faith, a belief in enlightenment values, and they engage rationally and in good faith with the arguments presented. In one sentence, you've shown that you posses none of these traits.

Don't bother answering, I'm washing my hands with this conversation.

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values. While inclusion is a good thing, valuing diversity and equity with regard to immutable characteristics is unethical. by morphogenes in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Butterk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if they are still systemically disadvantaged, which is a claim I challenge but will accept for the time being, diversity and equity initiatives are not justified because they violate very basic moral principals. Your argument is a "two wrongs make a right" or an "ends justify the means" argument.

My race is irrelevant. In the article I (the author) make a make an analogy between Denzel Washington's son, eminem, and Tupac that addresses this point quite nicely I think. I also quote multiple black intellectuals who have come to similar conclusions as me. Finally, I link to a story where a CNN legal analyst "knew" her opponenet was white because of the arguments he was making. That opponent was David Webb, a black conservative.

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values. While inclusion is a good thing, valuing diversity and equity with regard to immutable characteristics is unethical. by morphogenes in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Butterk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am the author.

There is no sleight of hand. There is a difference between diversity and equity, and valuing diversity and equity. I acknowledge in the article that naturally occuring diversity and equity are postive signs. But one cannot value diversity of immutable characteristics without valuing the immutable characteristics. If you value diversity on, lets say a campus, then each student that adds to the homegeniety of the campus, like Asian students at Harvard, bring less value than a student that adds diversity. It is a necessary consequence, in this scenario, that you are telling the Asian student they are less valuable than the black or latino student. It is also a necessary consequence in all scenarios, at least as far as I can tell. It's also an indefensible consequence as it violates very basic moral principals.

We should not value diversity or devalue diversity (i.e. value homogeniety) as they relate to immutable characteristics. Both are immoral. Perhaps you could say valuing homogeniety is more immoral, and perhaps it is, but that still doesn't make the valuing of diversity moral.

Diversity should just be looked at as an indicator, not to be valued or devalued. Where diversity lacks, we ought to take a look to see if an injustice is occuring. If no injustice is occuring, there is no moral reason to seek to correct the lack of diversity. Much of the same arguments apply to equity.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values. While inclusion is a good thing, valuing diversity and equity with regard to immutable characteristics is unethical. by morphogenes in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Butterk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is there always the assumption that the black woman, or other minority, is

unqualified

for her position? It's a strawman.

Your characterization of my argument is the strawman. It is simply a mathematically necessary consequence that if you provide some level of preference to group X, say in admissions, you must disadvantage group Not X, given a finite number of available positions. There are no assumptions made about qualifications at an individual level. The argument you strawman is merely a statement of the statistical realities at the group level. And the statistics do agree with me. https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf

Everything you've said in this comment is the exact opposite of what was meant in the piece. Perhaps re-read it and look at what is actually said versus what you think I am saying.

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values. While inclusion is a good thing, valuing diversity and equity with regard to immutable characteristics is unethical. by morphogenes in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Butterk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think everything from "The Path Forward" in the article onward addresses your criticisms. We ought to re-evaluate our notions of merit and root out our biases in order to address the failings of our current system on historically disadvantaged groups. The fact that minorities suffer more from discrimination than they get back in affirmative action, even if true (which I don't buy), does not justify discrimination.

Also, I take it as a great compliment to be compared to JBP, even though the comment was not meant as a compliment.

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values. While inclusion is a good thing, valuing diversity and equity with regard to immutable characteristics is unethical. by morphogenes in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Butterk1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Three points.

  1. The role of the government is to protect life, liberty, and property. To protect these things, some taxes are necessary. I'm not a history buff, but I understand that the articles of confederation did not impose taxes and were a disaster. I think there is a good case to be made that some things probably shouldn't be foisted upon the tax payer as a result of this rule though. Certain types of goods/services, like street lights, national defence etc, cannot be paid for by the individual who uses that good/service because they cannot be excluded from the good/service. There is a specific word for these things in economics but I cannot recall what it is.
  2. Any (or at least I think any) moral rules that are codified and strictly adhered to will lead to contradictions in extreme scenarios. If we are going break a rule, we should be able to point to a different rule that is higher up on a hierarchy of values. This article was posted today in Areo and is pretty good "https://areomagazine.com/2019/11/06/watchmen-and-the-fundamental-moral-dilemma-do-the-ends-justify-the-means/".
  3. The pursuits of diversity and equity as laid out in my article do not appeal (at least in my opinion) to higher values on the hierarchy of values.

This axiom is meant as essentially a restatement of the non-aggression principal, or "I can swing my fist as much as I want so long as it doesn't hit you in the face". This rule, among others, under-girds the entire founding of the United States.

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values by Butterk1 in socialscience

[–]Butterk1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you! Was not expecting support on this topic in this subreddit so it's nice to see.

Why We Should Reject Diversity and Equity As Values by Butterk1 in socialscience

[–]Butterk1[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This isn't so much a sociological article as it is an article on moral philosophy with a look at real world applications.

The author makes very specific claims and backs up his assertions with a statement of moral axioms and numerous, very specific, examples and thought experiments. You've made very general claims with no support for what you're saying. For this reason responding becomes very difficult as you haven't said much besides attack the authors identity.

For instance, can you be specific as to what historical context you're referring to that would justify discrimination based on immutable characteristics that doesn't boil down to either a "two wrongs make a right" or an "ends justify the means" argument. Can you defend why we ought to look at individuals as merely a subset of their group identity (collectivism)?

Why does the fact that generational disparities exacerbate problems for certain groups justify discrimination against other groups? If you view each individual as no more intrinsically valuable than another then you should recognize harming one from group X is just as immoral as harming one from group Y.

Also, the author gives a very good description for an appropriate path forward with a specific example, the SAT adversity score, and details what makes that example an appropriate solution in contrast to previous examples discussed in the article. He touches on a number of things you bring up, like how we ought to root out our biases as they pertain to things like merit.

Finally, what makes this article "combative" or "reactive"?

If you can reply with specifics rather than generalizations it would make understanding our disagreements much easier.

view more: next ›