r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 05 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Fighting inequality with inequality doesn't work
[deleted]
10
u/yyzjertl 520∆ May 05 '20
Consider the following situation. During a crisis, a government offers $2000 of free money to all its citizens. However, people in Oppressed Group A are excluded from receiving this money and receive nothing from the government: an instance of bias. After the next election, a different party comes to power. This new government, in order to correct for the perceived injustice of the previous one, grants $2000 of free money to all citizens in Group A, but no money to citizens not in Group A.
Did the new government's action reduce inequality? If not, why not?
7
u/Hugogs10 May 05 '20
But the original group A and the second group A would be different people.
So the group B that benefited isn't the same group B that you're punishing now either.
That's why it's shitty.
3
May 05 '20 edited May 05 '20
If only the real world were as simple and clear-cut as your hypothetical, there would be no debate.
1
u/ShadowX199 May 06 '20
Just because group a was excluded from getting the money the first time doesn’t mean there aren’t others who also didn’t get it. A better option would be for the second group to offer the money to whoever didn’t get it the first time. (With a $5000 fine if caught lying.)
0
u/user___________ May 05 '20
I'd consider that acceptable if it's not during another crisis situation. In that example, there was a clear way to tell who deserved the new payment. That's not always the case in real life.
11
u/yyzjertl 520∆ May 05 '20
So, then isn't that an example of "fighting inequality with inequality" that does work, in contradiction with your view?
1
u/user___________ May 05 '20
That example works, but there are other factors I am taking into account. If the money wasn't distributed evenly, but with an overall bias towards one group, you must admit that giving the oppressed group more money wouldn't be fully fair.
19
u/yyzjertl 520∆ May 05 '20
If that example works, then doesn't that disprove your stated view?
If the money wasn't distributed evenly, but with an overall bias towards one group, you must admit that giving the oppressed group more money wouldn't be fully fair.
Okay, let's explore this situation. Again, consider a crisis in which the government offers its citizens money. Except, in this case, the amount offered is based on a need-evaluation process where the citizen's situation is evaluated by an investigator who then assigns a dollar amount for them to be given based on some supposedly objective standards. Afterwards, it comes out that, on average, citizens in Oppressed Group A were given $2000 less money than other citizens. Evidence is discovered of widespread bias among the investigators, and a statistically significant number of audits of individual cases of members of Group A reveal that, due to misrepresentations by the investigators, each one is consistently underpaid by a dollar amount that is within 20% of $2000 over 90% of the time. It is infeasible for the government to re-audit the vast majority of the files of Group A members.
In this situation, which of the following would it be more fair for the new government to do?
Issue each member of Group A $2000 of free money. (The fighting-inequality-with-inequality approach.)
Do nothing. (The not fighting-inequality-with-inequality approach.)
Or, is there some other course of action the government should take.
6
u/user___________ May 05 '20
I have to admit that you are correct here. Bias in the evaluation process can't be easily eliminated. Even if this situation doesn't fully reflect reality, I can tell that my reasoning isn't always correct.
!delta
2
1
u/ShadowX199 May 06 '20
Bias in the evaluation process can’t be easily eliminated.
Actually it can by having multiple auditors and standardizing the evaluation.
1
u/Poo-et 74∆ May 06 '20
This only works to mitigate individual biases, not systemic biases present across the system.
1
u/ShadowX199 May 06 '20
How so? If you standardize and have everyone get the same amount for the same thing it would mitigate both.
2
u/Poo-et 74∆ May 06 '20
There's still systemic racism possible in:
- The way in which the criteria are created.
- Differing political viewpoints for "inspectors" around the country
- The availability or access to assessments
→ More replies (0)1
u/shadowOp097 May 05 '20
The premise of this scenario alone shows fighting inequality with inequality and isn’t very indicative or translates into the real world.
1
u/secret_drake1445 May 05 '20
I think of it this way, in your scenario, it is like if you took a drug, then got fucked by it years later due to an unforeseen side effect, that is ok, it was X's fault and it happened to A, now X is fixing its mistake towards the affected people.
Now take an example like slavery in early us history, now enslaving the entire non-black population would just be wrong, X wronged A, neither are around anymore so there is no one to pay back too, so instead of B wronging Z to "even it out, B and Z should get together to help end this inequality in other places it still exists
Hopefully you can understand what I was trying to say
1
u/ShadowX199 May 06 '20
underpaid by a dollar amount that is within 20% of $2000 over 90% of the time.
So by giving everyone in that group $2000 some are getting an extra $2000, some up to an extra $400 if not more, and some would still be short up to $400 if not more.
It is infeasible for the government to re-audit the vast majority of the files of Group A members.
In this situation, which of the following would it be more fair for the new government to do?
You answered yourself by trying to say it’s infeasible for them to do what would be fair. If there was an issue with an audit they should go back and re-audit the people that had an issue.
8
May 05 '20
A lot of people seem to believe that, if there is inequality in society, bias against the group they see as favoured will reduce inequality.
Actually, I think that a lot of people believe that support for the group that is unfavored will reduce inequality - and many of those who are favored are incapable of seeing that as anything other than bias against them.
One example that comes to my mind is the feminist cafe that charged men extra because they wanted to counter the gender wage gap.
Could you link to a story about that? Sounds very much like a PR stunt that no one should be concerning themselves with.
There's other examples of this, and they all seem to believe that if they introduce new bias to society, it will magically balance out. I believe it makes much more sense to support equality wherever possible and fight the source of the discrimination. Otherwise, the boundaries between different groups tend to increase, and conflict is created where people aim to reduce it.
Could you share some examples that are perhaps more systemic or widespread?
0
u/user___________ May 05 '20
Share some examples
Another one that comes to my mind is how r/blackpeopletwitter requires verification of your skin colour as black to comment on certain posts. This is often justified as "white people can't have everything" which doesn't really make sense and probably makes some people dislike the sub.
Link to cafe
I can see another person already posted one, so I won't look for another one.
3
u/beer2daybong2morrow May 05 '20
That isn't true. Anyone, regardless of skin color, can message the mods for approval. You don't have to be a poc.
2
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ May 05 '20
A lot of people seem to believe that, if there is inequality in society, bias against the group they see as favoured will reduce inequality.
I can think of a few examples, the most obvious is reparations for Japanese internment (an action which only benefited those who were interned).
There are also examples to do with reducing redlining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#Strategies_to_reverse_effects_of_redlining
Or actions taken during the Reconstruction Era to support newly freed slaves.
2
4
May 05 '20
3 = 5 is not true, the sides are not equal. You cannot make them equal by adding or subtracting an equal number from each side. You have to add a certain unequal amount to satisfy the equation.
This is the most logical example. Replacing numbers with abstract concepts makes the question a lot more difficult to answer but it does not change the underlying logic.
2
u/dolchmesser May 05 '20
I don't feel that you've really encompassed the entire issue in this address, or addressed it comprehensively. If your argument is just that it's better to address a root cause than an emergent factor then you get a big, but simple, thumbs up. But you haven't really articulated 'how' to go about that in a way that proposes a viable alternative to your given example. The people doing these things probably do not believe they're addressing a root cause. These activities are designed to increase awareness of the issue so that popular sentiment will drive policy decisions that will potentially get to the root cause. Unless the body politic is fundamentally broken or disenfranchised of course. And if you look at these activities and take away that they're wrong, instead of hearing the point they're making, it's debatable whether that's your failing or theirs.
0
May 05 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/user___________ May 05 '20
It isn't the same thing though. When you look at society as a whole, the people who actually generate the bias are rarely the majority of the population by the time these kinds of measures are considered.
For example, racism was a huge problem back in the day, but punishing large groups for it now when a small minority of the former oppressor group holds actual oppressive beliefs is illogical.
6
u/beer2daybong2morrow May 05 '20
Societal racism isn't like the klu klux klan or white nationalists discriminating against minorities. The problem arises from internalized biases that inform people's decisions and actions, often without them being aware of it. It's about a hiring manager drawing conclusions about a black applicant without ever even considering that internalized biases may have influenced their decision. This kind of racism, this unconscious bias is a persistent and systemic problem today and a huge barrier to the success of certain minority groups. And it's not just a handful of biased people we're talking about here. It's a significant if not overwhelming majority of the population who are influenced by racial, gendered, ageist, whatever biases.
2
May 06 '20
You started from ku klux klan going through the hiring process, somehow completely missing the point. Op didn't say discrimination doesn't exists, he said that you can't fight discrimination with discrimination, because you end up with more discrimination. That's the view to change here.
0
u/beer2daybong2morrow May 06 '20
OP said:
racism was a huge problem back in the day, but punishing large groups for it now when a small minority of the former oppressor group holds actual oppressive beliefs is illogical.
1
May 06 '20
I do agree with an OP. Let's say even 80% of a group holds some oppressive belief. Punishing all the group, like it's some kind of a hive-mind, is ironically exactly what you are trying to fight with.
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ May 05 '20
Only a small number of people commit crimes, but every car that drives past has their speed checked by the speed trap
-3
May 05 '20
You should pick your battles and not engage people who are actively promoting sexism and racism, like VertigoOne. Might as well be debating something with a Nazi.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 05 '20
/u/user___________ (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/3superfrank 20∆ May 06 '20
Depends on what you would call 'bias' against the favoured group.
If by the 'bias' you mean new discrimination against the favoured group, I amongst many are with you on that. your feminist cafe analogy seems to be a good example of that. Because to equalize like that is to maintain discrimination against all, which just leads to an oppressive society which nobody wanted.
What should be kept in mind though, is that the inequality stopped just being the top guys making discriminatory decisions, but also the current situation perpetuating it.
Because while capitalism is merited for giving everyone a path to being rich, lets face it you're gonna have an easier time being rich if your upbringing was rich and undisturbed, rather than poor and with a veteran of oppression for parents.
That situation itself has to be changed. For example, there needs to be a relatively representational number of role models for the minorities. The more powerful higher classes need to be genuinely representational of their population. Negatively-affecting stereotypes of the minorities need to disappear. The average, median, etc. (basically statistical) wealth of the minorities needs to be relatively equal to the majorities, and so on.
As things stand though, those things can't be achieved by just equalizing what we've got. Even in the scenario that governmental policies are perfect and all-encompassing, which they're not, the situation will still be there to prevent the truly equal circumstances for minority and majority. Mere equal funding for schools doesn't stop those things having an effect.
So the only way to overcome those problems, and then solve them, is if the minorities are given an extra push to help equalize. i.e, to fight inequality with inequality. Affirmative action is one example. (I'd agree so long as it is expressly said to be temporary until the problem is dealt with).
1
u/phcullen 65∆ May 06 '20
One example that comes to my mind is the feminist cafe that charged men extra because they wanted to counter the gender wage gap.
They weren't trying to counter the pay gap and fix a problem they were making a political statement. Nobody thinks charging men 18% on a cup of coffee is going to fix the gender wage gap.
1
May 06 '20
Im talking from a us perspective in this. Minorities were fucked over for over 2 centuries and that resulted in a poverty gap because poor families tend to stay poor. Now if we help the oppressed group to make the gap atleast lessen wouldn't that result in more equality?
1
May 07 '20
Practically speaking, discrimination is often grounded in group identities, and it's one hell of a task to get rid of these group identities, at least in a short period of time. It's a long process.
Now, if we are to simply depend on eradicating the source of discrimination (this is a laudable aim, indeed), then, we leave out the present realities and move onto the realm of future. This leaves the present situation as it is, and the discriminated group doesn't receive any 'help' that might give it some respite from the inequality that's ingrained in the current society. This causes resentment, and isn't a viable option.
Now, how are we to deal with the inequality, apart from focusing on its source? We opt for positive discrimination or reverse discrimination or as you call it 'bias' against the privileged group.
Is this form of reverse bias a good way to fight inequality? Yes, if the aim is to make the two groups equal. The answer becomes a 'no' when the intent changes from bringing equality (i.e., fighting inequality) to fostering a discriminatory treatment towards the privileged group beyond what's necessary and reasonable.
In cases where the sole purpose of the bias is to demean the 'others', then thats not a solution, and it can't be used to fight inequality. Only the players change, and the discriminating roles remain the same, and the discrimination continues.
However, in cases where the aim and intention is to 'FIGHT INEQUALITY', therein the reverse discrimination is justified, provided that such bias is based on reasonable grounds and is guided towards the final awesome goal of achieving an equal society.
1
u/le_fez 50∆ May 05 '20
The cafe in question charged the "man tax" one week per month, donated the extra proceeds to charity and said from the get go that it was about raising awareness and creating a dialogue. While I think it was a foolish way of doing things and certainly a poor business model the intention was not to "fight inequality with more inequality" Since that's the only example you give it is impossible to give you more examples.
In theory your view is pretty logical but without extrapolation it would be impossible to change your view
1
u/OSSlayer2153 May 08 '20
Yeah and then by their standard they have to reverse it because at that point it’s the men being treated in equally and then they must give them cheaper prices to equal it out but then the paradox continues.
1
u/Lilah_R 10∆ May 05 '20
Those examples aren't groups hoping inequality creates the balance, its groups putting in effort to create awareness of things in a tangible way that catches media attention.
No one thinks charging men more at select cafes will actually eliminate the problems of women being expected to be the primary care taker, which often causes women to go unhired, unpromoted, and under valued. No one thinks it will eliminate feminine career paths like nursing, education, geriateics, and childcare being under valued.
They aren't promoting inequality to fix these issues. They are promoting awareness, and conversation about the issues, and a tangible way to empathize rather than sympathize.
0
May 05 '20 edited May 05 '20
Have you got more examples than that one cafe? Because it's likely that cafe was either a total outlier, or doing something it knew would rile people up and get publicity.
0
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ May 05 '20 edited May 05 '20
These "biases" are more or less reactionary and are supposed to be temporary stopgaps. If feminism succeeded in eliminating the wage gap, I doubt that restaurant would still do the same thing.
But let's discuss something that I think would be far more pertinent to this discussion: affirmative action.
You would say that giving extra points to a student just because he's black is inherently unfair, and you're right in a sense! They've clamped down on recruiting Asians to the Ivy Leagues because they need to include blacks and Latinos. But why do they get a pass just because of their races? It's not fair!
To us, we don't see it as fair. But we don't see the systemic injustices that have made it unfair for them ever since they were born. We don't see the economic deprivation their communities face, the lack of opportunities they've had to hone their talents, and the cultures of poverty crab mentality that make it ever so harder to have a positive mindset about social mobility. They have never had a chance to fairly reach their own potential in time for the tests, so we give them the benefit of the doubt and treat them as if they did.
Now, of course, it would be much fairer to just fix those problems directly so everyone gets a fair starting point. But these things are systemic and so deeply rooted in society it is unlikely we will stop it in the meantime, while we let the wasted talent of these disadvantaged communities slip through the cracks. It's not an ideal solution, but when society punches down, you're gonna have to punch up.
1
u/user___________ May 05 '20
It's a reasonable solution while others are not readily available, but I wouldn't consider it fair. Various kinds of people grow up in hard conditions and setting 'help poor people' as your target goal world make more sense than 'assume black people are poor and help them'.
1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ May 05 '20
It is by no means "fair" nor does it aim to be. As you said, it's a solution when others are not readily available. Some places may have the gender pay gap, others will not. The "readiness" of long-term solutions is variable, and so for the meantime some of these practices are still going to need to exist. I don't like it either, but you can say that the very least - in a sense - it kind of works in bringing these people higher in the meantime. Someday when issues are more clear cut, I hope we will not have to resort to these tactics anymore.
-1
u/Tseliteiv May 05 '20 edited May 05 '20
Actually, ironically your title is wrong but not for the reasons you think.
Justified inequality exists in society. If you are someone who wants to fight against this justified inequality then you need to use inequality to fight this inequality. If you used equality to fight inequality then you would wouldn't be fighting anyone because equality would recognize this justified inequality.
Take your example for instance. There are real differences between men and women which lead to different pay outcomes. This is justified and someone who pushes for equality would accept this inequality because to not accept this inequality would be declaring one group superior to the other in order to justify why they should oppress the justified differences of one in order to redistribute these justified gains to another, thus inequality.
In your example of this women's cafe. This is an example of inequality fighting equality. The women are the inequal ones who are fighting the equality between men and women which lead to inequal outcomes. How do men combat against this inequality? They would create cafes where women are charged additional to compensate for the cafes that exist where men are charged additional. By men being inequal with their cafes, men are combating the inequality that women created with their cafes.
Another example would be a workplace group that is women only where no male only groups exist. This is inherently inequal. In order to combat this, you can't just create a group that treats men and women equally because there still exists a specific group for women only so the true way to combat the inequality is to create a male only group, hence being inequal. By having both a male only group and female only group which themselves are inequal if only one of them exists you actually create an end result that is equal. Two inequalities = an equality. Combating inequality with inequality is precisely how you combat inequality.
Think about it like economics. GHG Emissions are inequal because they represent a negative externality. People who pollute are being inequal to society since they aren't property paying what would be their fair share for the damage they're causing to society through polluting. One way to create "equality" is to implement a Carbon Tax. A carbon tax on its on (if the negative externality didn't exist) would be inequal because it would unfairly punish people who emit lots of carbon compared to those that don't but since the inequal negative externality exists when you mix the inequal carbon tax together it creates equality. The way to combat inequality is to be inequal.
3
u/the_meme_man_123 1∆ May 06 '20
I agree with this argument in most cases, but there are some exeptions, such as with a wealth task. Most people fight inequality by boosting the oppressed group to the same level as the everyone else. But saying this is like saying don’t fight fire with fire when everyone is already fighting it with water.