No, plus the question is a kind of false dichotomy...they present it as either you're college educated and productive/capable/smart or you aren't...it turns out you can be very productive/capable/skilled/smart without ever having gone to college.

What are you reading? Can you link one comment that presented it that way?

Specifically, ggp that you're referring to was expanding on reasons why education is good beyond it's connection to the job market.

> "Do you want poor, unskilled, uneducated customers, vendors, employees, neighbors, and fellow citizens? Or skilled, prosperous, educated ones?"

Exactly. Neither that comment nor its parent said degrees are necessary for education. Both were defending the value of education that extends beyond it's signal to the job market.

The only extent to which people are conflating degrees and education is the empirically obvious observation that most people don't get much actionable education beyond their time in degree programs, individual counterexamples notwithstanding.

They didn't say explicitly...but you have to look at the context of the conversation...perhaps I misread it

A recent reading of Nietzsche made me view what is currently going on socially through the lens of his master/slave morality...it makes watching the "Oppression Olympics" more entertaining anyway...you can really see the "resentment" play out in full view.

"Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an enemy, a cause that can be 'blamed' for one's own inferiority/failure. Thus, one was thwarted not by a failure in oneself, but rather by an external 'evil'...Ressentiment comes from reactiveness: the weaker someone is, the less their capability to suppress reaction. According to Nietzsche, the more a person is active, strong-willed, and dynamic, the less place and time is left for contemplating all that is done to them, and their reactions (like imagining they are actually better) become less compulsive. The reaction of a strong-willed person (a "wild beast"), when it happens, is ideally a short action: it is not a prolonged filling of their intellect." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment#Kierkegaard_and_N...

> "My "race/culture" is navy submariner, and I always enjoyed watching the few sailors who hadn't had their background racism washed out of them at boot-camp realize that getting the job done well was what mattered, some sailors came in with some bad biases but within a year those issues usually had been resolved by working in a meritocracy, if a very authoritarian and hierarchical one."

+100

I think a lot of submariners can relate to this (I'm also a submariner). I do remember when I was a senior sailor, and one of my division's nubs was this smart and hard-working kid from bumfuck nowhere Georgia (he was from a small town of <500 people)...well, we were sitting on crews mess and getting GMT on gays in the military and this kid was like "there's no way i'm working with some fag"...to which I, and pretty much ever person senior to him were like "shut the fuck up nub, you most certainly will work with someone who is gay, in fact you already do (we had a gay guy in our division but he was pretty hush-hush about it), and that 'fag' as you called him, might be in a position to one day save your life, so you better drop whatever bullshit prejudice you may have...and get quallified"....he dropped some of his outwardly shitty behavior pretty quick...like you said, it didn't matter what your background or sexual orientation was, the only thing that mattered was coming together to get the job done...and you totally saw this during any kind of emergency...sometimes I do miss the "togetherness" we had as a crew...just not the unpaid overtime.

I loved that book! Excellent recommendation. If you want a good intro to non-PWR nuclear power technologies, I'd highly recommend "SuperFuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future" by Richard Martin.

I'm not sure what to make of his statements...they could be correct assessments of his military's capabilities, or they could be completely false...who really knows?

TLDR:

"With advances in communications and artificial intelligence, it’s not at all impossible to imagine scenarios in which SSN motherships deploy a lethal force of killer torpedoes, capable of remaining on station for days — or longer — while waiting for a victim."

1. Discrimination is bad.

2. Minorities have faced discrimination the most.

3. Let's discriminate against Whites/Asians to correct #2, even though we accept the truth of #1.

I don't get this thought process at all..."lets fight discrimination with more discrimination!"

What's your proposal for a solution that doesn't discriminate? Do nothing?

Can you fix the existing imbalance without doing something?

What if the affirmative action were only temporary, and was designed to stop once balance is reached -- is it still discrimination?

The solution can't be to do nothing, doing nothing is why we are where we are, doing nothing is why discrimination exists. We need to fix #1 and #2 on your list before we can fix #3.

I would love to hear of an alternative thought process, please please suggest something better than affirmative action that might fix discrimination.

Punishing the grandchildren for the wrongdoings of the grandparents.

I though we left that behind a 100 years or more ago?

That's an ideal to strive for, but if society as a whole seems hellbent to keep punishing people who have neither themselves nor had their grandparents do anything wrong, then shifting it to people whose grandparents did can be a better solution than doing nothing.

Original sin is a heinous concept, and so are blood feuds, and this sounds like both. If your father was a violent degenerate and arsonist, would you comfortable paying society back for a portion of his crimes? It seems like that is what you are asking of people as 'better than nothing'. I'm not being hyperbolic either, your logic, applied to criminal law would condemn me to suffer due to the actions of a person I have ever met once.

You seem to be happy to ignore that the larger context is this:

Non-white people are discriminated against because society as a whole accuses their parents as a whole of being degenerates.

> If your father was a violent degenerate and arsonist, would you comfortable paying society back for a portion of his crimes?

I'm a german. Ask me about the amount of paying back my entire life has consisted of.

--

You're also veering very off-topic from the fact that op made the claim "more discrimination is being proposed as the solution" to which i replied by disagreeing that it is more, and claim it is the same amount of discrimination, just moved around.

> "...i replied by disagreeing that it is more, and claim it is the same amount of discrimination, just moved around."

How is this an acceptable solution??

So its more like "discrimination is bad, but only against some groups, if we discriminate against this other group though, its okay"...I still don't how this is "fair" or "just" in any sense

It is not acceptable in the sense of "ok, we can stop now."

It is however an improvement, unless you think it is fair to discriminate one group massively and one not at all.

I don't think it is fair to discriminate against anyone at all and certainly don't think that this "shifting discrimination around" game is going to work well at all in the long run...

I just wrote:

> It is not acceptable in the sense of "ok, we can stop now."

That means: It is not supposed to work well in the long run.

Just to be clear, holding modern Germans accountable for the actions of the third reich is also absurd, and and I would speak to defend you from those sorts of attacks.

The sins of the father should not condemn his children.

I appreciate the thought. However i do think that it has ultimately made germany as a whole a better country, so i don't entirely agree. Then again i also don't wholly disagree. There are plenty situations and cases where children absolutely should not suffer for parents' sins. I think it must be considered in each case, and especially so if the children derived benefits from the sins.

> "She's gone now, instantly, after working there for 20 years and rising to senior executive VP. What is going on in our industry?"

Her crime was not having ideological purity...

Its also systemic bias when you won't even interview men...

I have first hand experience with this. As a normal working-class white guy with poor parents and no connections (I worked my way through school), I had a hard time even landing an interview at first. As a social experiment, I changed my name/sex from Joe/male to Joanna/female, kept everything else on my resume the same, and reapplied to all the jobs that didn't want me previously. Every single company that rejected Joe was overjoyed when Joanna applied. In every case I got a email within the week wanting to meet and interview me. It was kind of eye-opening. I didn't follow through as "Joanna" because the sexist hiring policies were enough to put me off working at these companies entirely. I eventually found an employer that wasn't sexist and have been happy with them so far...

> "Often I can't really tell the difference between affirmative action and reverse racism."

There is a good reason for that...its because there isn't a difference. You have to do a lot of linguistic gymnastics in order to somehow come to the conclusion that affirmative action isn't racist.