Disingenuous mockery doesn't help.
(If you actually believe that's where people are trying to go then I have worse insults for you.)
(If you actually believe that's where people are trying to go then I have worse insults for you.)
At each stage, the devout proponents of equality will only choose to draw the line further. When students of the 'adversity' quota are unable to get good grades, their grades will be inflated. When they are unable to get jobs, a push will be made for implementing adversity/equality quota in jobs.
Case study: India. In India, every community fights to be included in the backward communities category because the benefits are so frighteningly high. Politicians are elected on the basis that they promise to categorise their communities as backward to improve the opportunities for their children. Other politicians threaten to remove some communities from backward status. Being backward gains you a fantastic advantage towards college admissions, reservation in jobs, and several other free benefits. (including lowered prices, etc). Who will not want to leverage this ?
The US may very well develop the same problem as a natural evolution of this policy with corresponding natural devolution of merit. Where do you draw the final line on adversity ?
If you think this is unrealistic, you are severely mistaken my friend. This simply happens over time. It always starts with "Good Intentions".
The post a level above it in the thread on the other hand makes a reasoned case for why this might not be a good idea, rooted in the actual matter and addressing it directly. With that in mind, it's even harder to imagine what lenkite thought would add to the discussion.
Actually saying that disingenuous mockery doesn't help apparently added to the discussion, though, in that lenkite then responded with a clearly reasoned argument.
Maybe, but in this case I don't think that it was for the reasons that I've previously stated.
> Sounds like you agree.
What makes it sound like I agree? The only opinions I've divulged are on the quality of the post as an entry to the debate.
> Idk why label it a slippery slope, it's pretty cut and dry.
Please offer an opinion on whether its use was legitimate and based on a reasonably likely chain of events, but don't tell me that this wasn't using a slippery slope as a rhetorical device. It's not cut and dry, it's hyperbolic and vague, as bitter sarcasm tends to be.
> SAT scores def do determine who gets to work on your heart.
... and if that argument had been voiced I might have agreed or disagreed, but it wasn't.
Your actual objection seems to be that it's hypothetical when in fact that's the point of the technique.
I think you can understand parent. Why claim a simpler non-sarcastic example on how honest test scores matter was somehow not made?
You can say that, but until you've actually offered an argument that supports your conclusion I have no reason to reconsider my view. There's no question IMO that a sentiment can be useful while being sarcastic, hyperbolic, vague or bitter. I just don't believe that this one was, for the reasons I've previously stated.
> Your actual objection seems to be that it's hypothetical when in fact that's the point of the technique.
No, my objection is that it is hypothetical without reasoning for how the actual matter at hand could form a basis for the hypothesis. To say that because SAT scores are adjusted for adversity, "adversity scores should also be counted towards recruitment in elite military units, selection for senior military leadership and all significant promotions" begs the question: why? The post doesn't answer that question.
> Why claim a simpler non-sarcastic example on how honest test scores matter was somehow not made?
I haven't. Plenty of users have written simpler, non-sarcastic examples on how honest test scores matter. I acknowledged this already, and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.
In the progressive orthodoxy, merely observing that some distribution isn't independent of gender or ethnicity is necessary and sufficient proof of discrimination, and sufficient justification for a power grab too.
I don't assume that, nor would I want to be treated like that.