I’m afraid that fighting oppression and restoring the past oppressed to a level playing field involves finding if actual individuals did indeed suffer from oppression and compensating them for it in some way, a far more difficult task than taking the Fascist’s shortcut of presuming that everybody from a specific race, gender or sexual orientation are equally worthy or unworthy.
What my experience in The Netherlands taught me is that preserving the idea that you can presume things about people (including that they’re “victims” or “discriminated against”) - a.k.a. Prejudice - is a dead-end strategy for fighting discrimination because:
It’s anchored on the very same architecture of presuming things about people based on race, gender or sexual orientation - in other words, Prejudice - as Fascist ideologies are.
Because it is literally Mathematically impossible for such a process to be improved to a point where there is full fairness of treatment for all: that process uses a person’s race/gender/sexual-orientation as an indirect metric to determine something else altogether - if a person has actually suffered due to discrimination - so it has an error rate in the form of people who do belong to a supposedly discriminated against race, gender or sexual orientation but never suffered from discrimination. When such people are helped without deserving it, an injustice is committed, and the more the error rate, the more injustice is being done by helping people who do not deserve that help. The Mathematical impossibility happens because the more that process succeeds at its stated objective of reducing discrimination, the more people of a supposedly discriminated against race, gender or sexual orientation never suffered from discrimination (or in other words, the more the error rate of assuming that race, gender or sexual orientation implies being a victim of discrimination) hence the more injustice that process is committing - the closer the process gets to success the more injustice it is committing, only it’s against people from different races, genders or sexual-orientations.
You can’t Prejudice your way into stopping Prejudiced treatment, not Ideologically and not even Mathematically.
I’m afraid that fighting oppression and restoring the past oppressed to a level playing field involves finding if actual individuals did indeed suffer from oppression and compensating them for it in some way, a far more difficult task than taking the Fascist’s shortcut of presuming that everybody from a specific race, gender or sexual orientation are equally worthy or unworthy.
Wait…so you’re belief system around this is that the only way to address past injustices to a group or demographics is to find out which specific individuals were impacted and help only them ?
That’s delusional, not in an ad hominem kind of way but in a literal “no basis in reality” way.
You don’t seem to understand what fascism means so all the arguments based on a faulty interpretation are going to be faulty.
Real question though
Because it is literally Mathematically impossible for such a process to be improved to a point where there is full fairness of treatment for all
I’d be genuinely interested to see how you got here , because the anecdotal pseudo-explanation isn’t an actual explanation.
There’s so many faulty assumptions in there it’s difficult to take any conclusion you get to seriously.
You’re assuming that prejudice only applies to one side of this argument, If you start off with two groups:
Group A : 20
Group B : 10
Then Taking 5 from A and moving it to B isn’t prejudice against A.
That’s not even a very accurate example because it assumes a closed system with only 2 distinct groups.
It seems your argument is that group B might not all be as affected, ok, so let’s do that one:
Group A1 : 9
Group A2 : 11
Total : 20
Group B1 : 3
Group B2 : 7
Total : 10
Say we do the same thing here and move 5 from Group A to Group B
Group A1 : 8
Group A2 : 7
Total : 15
Group B1 : 6
Group B2 : 9
Total : 15
Do that for any number of sub-groups, down to an individual person.
It seems your understanding of mathematics is about as grounded as your idea of fascism so i don’t think you’re going to see how what you’re saying doesn’t work.
You can’t Prejudice your way into stopping Prejudiced treatment, not Ideologically and not even Mathematically.
You certainly can’t stop prejudice if you don’t understand what it means and when/where it applies.
It’s difficult to see whether or not a mathematical solution can be found if you don’t understand the practical applications of it.
If you can’t even follow the Mathematics of error margins when using one easy to measure characteristic as a stand-in for another harder to measure characteristic which is positively correlated with the former but not by a factor of 1 and whose correlation factor actually changes by the very action you’re justifying, and, even more more sadly, have to resort to calling it “pseudo-explanation”, there is no point in engaging with you using logic because that’s not the level you’re operating at.
Enjoy your quasi-religious relation to your ideological beliefs.
I’m afraid that fighting oppression and restoring the past oppressed to a level playing field involves finding if actual individuals did indeed suffer from oppression and compensating them for it in some way, a far more difficult task than taking the Fascist’s shortcut of presuming that everybody from a specific race, gender or sexual orientation are equally worthy or unworthy.
What my experience in The Netherlands taught me is that preserving the idea that you can presume things about people (including that they’re “victims” or “discriminated against”) - a.k.a. Prejudice - is a dead-end strategy for fighting discrimination because:
You can’t Prejudice your way into stopping Prejudiced treatment, not Ideologically and not even Mathematically.
Wait…so you’re belief system around this is that the only way to address past injustices to a group or demographics is to find out which specific individuals were impacted and help only them ?
That’s delusional, not in an ad hominem kind of way but in a literal “no basis in reality” way.
You don’t seem to understand what fascism means so all the arguments based on a faulty interpretation are going to be faulty.
Real question though
I’d be genuinely interested to see how you got here , because the anecdotal pseudo-explanation isn’t an actual explanation.
There’s so many faulty assumptions in there it’s difficult to take any conclusion you get to seriously.
You’re assuming that prejudice only applies to one side of this argument, If you start off with two groups:
Group A : 20
Group B : 10
Then Taking 5 from A and moving it to B isn’t prejudice against A.
That’s not even a very accurate example because it assumes a closed system with only 2 distinct groups.
It seems your argument is that group B might not all be as affected, ok, so let’s do that one:
Say we do the same thing here and move 5 from Group A to Group B
Do that for any number of sub-groups, down to an individual person.
It seems your understanding of mathematics is about as grounded as your idea of fascism so i don’t think you’re going to see how what you’re saying doesn’t work.
You certainly can’t stop prejudice if you don’t understand what it means and when/where it applies.
It’s difficult to see whether or not a mathematical solution can be found if you don’t understand the practical applications of it.
If you can’t even follow the Mathematics of error margins when using one easy to measure characteristic as a stand-in for another harder to measure characteristic which is positively correlated with the former but not by a factor of 1 and whose correlation factor actually changes by the very action you’re justifying, and, even more more sadly, have to resort to calling it “pseudo-explanation”, there is no point in engaging with you using logic because that’s not the level you’re operating at.
Enjoy your quasi-religious relation to your ideological beliefs.
I provided you with a very basic example in which your “mathematical impossibility” breaks down.
So far you’ve stated that there were only two possible interpretations of a statement and then followed up with “mathematical impossibility”.
You are correct though, you can’t reason with someone who didn’t use reason to get to their conclusions.
Saves me some time, good luck.