This doesn’t feel like you are arguing in good faith.
They see that an identifiable group is under represented and they want to ‘fix’ it. Without any idea what the ramifications of their ‘fix’ is.
Claiming the other side is just ignorant is not a good faith argument. At this point, those in favor of affirmative action are pretty clearly aware of the negative sides of previous incarnations of affirmative action due to these issues being a major topic of discussion for decades now.
All they care about is the demographics of whatever it is they are looking at. All they think about is race.
Literally nobody arguing on either side of this issue ONLY cares about race. Race is a major topic of discussion, but reducing the side opposite your own to ONLY caring about demography and race is just outright misrepresenting their position.
The idea that racism is the way out of racism is simply crazy.
This is the only good point you have made here. I have a question for this point. If we want a more fair and equitable society and we know certain groups (or even just races) are defacto excluded from certain positions in society unfairly, how do you propose we grant them entrance to those positions without doing so based on their group status (or even just racial staus)? Bonus points: What if their group status unfairly puts them into a position where they cannot attain the same qualifications to be in the position in question as other groups?
Of course, you have to realize that the definition of racism can change from an outlook of superiority to power + privilege on a whim too.
Different people define things in different ways. Just because you struggle to cope with complicated/controversial topics from a broad array of people, doesn’t make the arguments of other people inherently wrong or faulty.
The whole progressive mindset is just fucking evil
Is it? I can see how it could come off that way when you go out of your way to misrepresent other peoples positions and arguments as strongly as you are doing. But to me it seems like the only reason you think this is because either: (a) you don’t actually understand what the people you are arguing against are saying or (b) you understand them but feel you don’t have a good enough argument against what they’re actually saying to argue against it without misrepresenting what is being said?
This doesn’t feel like you are arguing in good faith.
Claiming the other side is just ignorant is not a good faith argument. At this point, those in favor of affirmative action are pretty clearly aware of the negative sides of previous incarnations of affirmative action due to these issues being a major topic of discussion for decades now.
Literally nobody arguing on either side of this issue ONLY cares about race. Race is a major topic of discussion, but reducing the side opposite your own to ONLY caring about demography and race is just outright misrepresenting their position.
This is the only good point you have made here. I have a question for this point. If we want a more fair and equitable society and we know certain groups (or even just races) are defacto excluded from certain positions in society unfairly, how do you propose we grant them entrance to those positions without doing so based on their group status (or even just racial staus)? Bonus points: What if their group status unfairly puts them into a position where they cannot attain the same qualifications to be in the position in question as other groups?
Different people define things in different ways. Just because you struggle to cope with complicated/controversial topics from a broad array of people, doesn’t make the arguments of other people inherently wrong or faulty.
Is it? I can see how it could come off that way when you go out of your way to misrepresent other peoples positions and arguments as strongly as you are doing. But to me it seems like the only reason you think this is because either: (a) you don’t actually understand what the people you are arguing against are saying or (b) you understand them but feel you don’t have a good enough argument against what they’re actually saying to argue against it without misrepresenting what is being said?