|
 Originally Posted by boost
I get why, due to imperfect information, people make decisions counter to their own interest-- but your choice to still eat the poisoned cookie while having what you believe to be all the requisite information is a laughably bad justification for your contradictions.
I'm not sure that I understand your point.
It can be the case that you could take advantage of something individually yet the existence of the policy that incentivizes that behavior is bad for a group of which you're a part.
Like, there's a glaring contradiction in your rhetoric. Why are you prescribing solutions to a problem that does not exist? If affirmative action and similar policies are detrimental to blacks, how is it that there is no white privilege?
When we say things like "such and such is bad for blacks", we're describing observations regarding causal relationships in simple terms. "Privilege" doesn't do that. It's just, um, well, a shitty concept. It's virtually undefinable and unfalsifiable. Following the point you made, I could say that because whites don't get the unintended consequences that cause a net negative through special treatment on college admissions, whites are privileged. But how dumb would saying that be?
I don't have a full answer on this topic, which is part of why I made this thread. The concept rubs me the wrong way because one can always point to an inequality and claim a privileged/unprivileged dynamic. Historically, that has been a counterproductive tool and societies have done serious damage to themselves by using it. At least results of things like welfare. "Privilege" can't. It just hangs out in the ether or something.
|