Plenty of level-headed people on the right see things exactly that way too.

What kills us, or at least me (I'll identify for the purpose of this argument), is trying to figure out why people "on the left" are so focused on fixing the symptoms by way of "reverse discrimination" (i.e. affirmative action) instead of focusing on ensuring that we continue to see people as unique individuals instead of–what we feel is the socially destructive and in fact anti-diverse approach of–reducing people to their least common denominator group membership and treating them accordingly (identity politics).

The reason is because you really can't change hearts. "Metoo" is the sort of thing that is slowly changing attitudes around sexual assault, but such movements aren't easy to enact. Changing hearts is hard. Black slaves were liberated at the end of the civil war, but after the reconstruction, we had to wait almost 100 years before the civil rights movement ended Jim Crow, and even today, there are persistent racial issues. You can't easily change social attitudes that have existed for hundreds of years over a handful of decades. And those attitudes have readily observable effects on real people.

You can't change the hearts of people easily, although attitudes slowly change over time. When you can't change people's attitudes, the best you can do is make laws, rules, and policies that alleviate some of the ills, until we reach a place where we achieve a more equal society.

Those two are different on very relevant aspects, though.

Practically no one supports sexual assault. We abhor it, that's why the legal punishment for rape is so severe, why many lynchings of black men were about rape accusations, etc. Sexual assault has thrived in some places - like parts of Hollywood - despite that, not because of it.

Equality for black people was completely different from that: 100 years ago, very few people believed black people were equal or could be equal. It's only recently that the majority position sees things that way, and there are still notable minorities who disagree.

And that's why "changing hearts" isn't the issue here. You already have the hearts of the public, which sees rape as evil. What MeToo achieved was to show that that thing we all hate exists in more places than we thought.

To make this concrete: Weinstein had enough influence in Hollywood and the media to quash stories about his crimes. But once enough women spoke up, the public became aware, and quickly hated Weinstein. The problem was awareness, and the victims fixed that.

I disagree with "practically no one supports sexual assault", because otherwise, it wouldn't be so prevalent in society. They may not "support" it, but they definitely perpetuate it and turn a blind eye to it. That, and they don't treat it as a serious issue. For example, people have used the promiscuity of people as a way to minimize the rape of individuals, they don't believe women, etc. The fact is society's attitude towards rape and sexual assault is all hush-hush and gives passes to people who commit it. That's the whole point the movement is making.

MeToo isn't just Harvey Weinstein. He is just one creep who is representative of a larger problem in society.

Why affirmative action? Because if one person takes everything from another person, is it fair to say "you know, that was bad, and it shouldn't have happened, but since that's in the past we should just make sure that we treat both of them the same now"?

(I will also note that all the work I see being done to end 'regular' discrimination, a.k.a get to the state where we do see people as individuals and don't act based on racial biases, is being done by the left. The arguments that affirmative action is a bad distraction from our current utopian racial blindness that we should 'continue' are based on a baffling disregard for all the evidence for the current existence of racism).

Eye for an eye punishment is not very left-wing. If one person takes everything from another person by killing them, is it left politics to do collective punishment based on class, race or gender? No. We punish the guilty as humanely as possible and accept that there will always be some number of bad actors and those individuals should be addressed.

Utopian racial blindness is good when dealing with crime. We don't want police to look at race and do affirmative action. We don't want insurance or bankers looking at race or gender and do affirmative actions. We even have explicit laws forbidding judges to look at race when determining recurrence risks (through what they use now has some major flaws that acts as proxy for race).

Discrimination is wrong. Like theft and murder it need to be stopped and have the guilty charged and judged. Discrimination is a crime. We would be abhorred if affirmative action was openly (officially) used to address any other crime, so why should discrimination be any different?

>I will also note that all the work I see being done to end 'regular' discrimination ... is being done by the left.

Disclaimer: I am a random person on the internet so have as much faith in my anecdotal evidence as you have in humanity.

I think the issue with what you are seeing is confirmation bias. Because the left and right have different views on what causes the disparity between whites and blacks they go about trying to fix it different ways.

Those on the left see it as a systematic issue and want a systematic fix. There is implict bias in the system against blacks so if we add explicit bias for blacks it will come out about equal. Add the bias for long enough the system will correct for past injustice and everything will be fine.

This contrasts strongly with the view I was raised with, that the difference between whites and blacks is because of different cultures that place value on different outcomes or fail to instill positive traits into members of the culture. Some of the big ideas that are not valued is hard work, respecting property, valuing education, disdaining violence and avoiding having children until you can afford to support them.

The fix for this is to teach these values to those that do not have them. I grew up in a small very white community. Yet, when a black student at my highschool aged out of foster care. My family took him in for the rest of the school year. This let him get his diploma. While he understood most of these values, my father worked with him to control his temper.

Another example is a camp in rural Midwest that is for kids of prisoners even though it is close to a mostly white town the drive black children in from the major city because they want to help them and give them hope.

I guess all of this is to make the point that just because some opposes affirmative action does not mean they hate PoC. I won't denie some people are like that. But I think the majority of those against AA see it as fighting fire with fire and don't expect good to come from it.

The problem with your perspective is it's wrong. I don't mean to be mean to you, but it just isn't correct. The difference isn't culture, it's simply access to capital.

Here's an enlightening video[0], a 12-minute video about the representation of black families in media. It touches on the myth of black fathers not being involved with their kids, which is a good example of false attitudes that lead people to blame "culture" rather than systemic inequalities.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q21XGV2z7hw

I will be honest. I haven't watched the video yet, I will make another comment when I do. But a quick Google and I find[0] that 25% of white children and 67% of black children are raised in single parent homes. That seems like a lot if it is only access to captial and not culture.

[0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/...

Get back to us with some stats on relative likelihood of a black man and a white man going to jail when found with some weed, and see if you can figure out why that could be related to both lack of capital and single parent homes.

A person is not the same as a group. You want some individuals punished for what other people did. There's no justice there.

Don't you think its a bit odd to try to compensate for implicit bias with explicit bias? To me it seems unlikely that bigotry, sexism and racism will be fixed by more of the same.

Not particularly. We do it all the time when the free market misses some context. I see no major difference between a carbon tax and an affirmative action policy.

In both cases, the naively optimal action misses some important context, so the system is then tweaked to modify the outcome to take the external factors into account.

Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action?

The better alternative would be to improve the situation where the original injustice occurs, not sometime later in the pipeline.

E.g. affirmative action in university admissions assumes that members of traditionally underprivileged groups did not have the opportunity to display their full potential and will have higher peak performance than their current scores suggest.

While this is true on average and affirmative action is the best you can do if you are limited to influencing this single funnel in the pipeline, it also ends up unfairly benefiting privileged members within unprivileged groups.

If more wide-reaching changes are possible, e.g. ensuring that everyone has the same chance to actually learn something in school, affirmative action would soon become redundant, since the difference it aims to correct would not exist any more.

It would be a better alternative, but we can't go back in time and stop the Dred-Scott v. Stanford or just generally stop the enslavement of Africans in America. Also, things like universal free college, more funding of public schools, end to segregation would do a lot to "fix things," and that's why I fight for such things.

Affirmative action is one of the weakest things we can do, but it's what we have now and I support doing what you can.

Btw, your point about AA helping privileged members in unprivileged groups rings true, which is part of why I think it's the weakest thing we could do.

The question no longer seems to be whether it can and does help, but more about asking when we stop punishing the other groups of people (the groups AA biases against). Ideally we all want an equal playing field. But the field will never be equal so long as we continue to measure it based on the outcome of the game.....

>The better alternative would be to improve the situation where the original injustice occurs, not sometime later in the pipeline.

Well...yes. No where did I say that affirmative action policies are the only or a permanent solution, and I'd be suspicious of anyone who did. But they are an immediate bandaid that at least in theory stops the feedback loop.

In other words, I agree, but I'm asking in the context of "is there anything that can be done in that funnel that is superior to affirmative action", and it appears that you also agree that the answer is no. In which case, it comes down to whether or not the outsized[1] benefit to privileged minorities is worth it.

[1]: And depending on your opinions of privilege, there's compelling arguments to be made that the benefit to otherwise privileged minorities isn't outsized, they'd just be even more successful. Also that often you don't care about the most privileged since they'd all "pass" anyway, but the marginal group. But that's a bigger discussion.

> The better alternative would be to improve the situation where the original injustice occurs, not sometime later in the pipeline.

So, go back in time and ban redlining, to allow black families to live in the areas with better schools and build wealth through home ownership? Sweet bro.

> Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action?

Possible alternative:

We need to embrace that all decisions we make are emotional, even the rational ones [1], and create a process that facilitates the desired change. I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. These teams should not only be that minority as you in a truly inclusive system can't define people by a trait.

Since its a minority you probably have to do some extra legway in facilitating matching these teams well to problems the the team members find interesting and that there are growth opportunities. However, that is an ongoing conversation you should be having at any rate.

By these teams being competent they will through normal work-conversations and collaborations open minds on how successful people look like. Very suddenly it will be clear that both nerdy and pretty girls as well as anyone in between can code well, and that people that talk and walk in ways that make you uncomfortable might actually be competent and give you a unique perspective if you truly include them in your conversation.

Yes, it is not flashy and won't make great campaign posters. However, it empowers individuals while helping those individuals deal with being a minority without it being a zero sum game. And then we can watch history unfold, like how asians went from being railroad grunt work to model immigrants.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-eboo... [2] suggested action by feminists and researchers like Francis Frei, although I am not sure they support this full proposal

So, as an alternative to affirmative action, your proposing we create teams that are essentially ghettos for minorities, and suggesting that this will improve their respect amongst their peers?

Read my comment again; in no way this is a ghetto for minorities as the teams are not entirely comprised of minorities and this team structure is supported by research that shows that it feels socially isolating to be the sole representative of your minority in your daily life. Maybe even a majority is not a minority on the team.

To be honest this kind of comment that makes any alternative proposal into a cartoon while attacking points clearly not made is whats wrong with american discourse. I think we can do better.

But I'm not making it into a cartoon. You're suggestion is to take minorities and segregate them into specific majority-minority teams. Here's a definition of "ghetto" from a Google search:

> put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group

That is absolutely what your proposal entails. Consider the outcomes of this proposal:

> I'm sorry, we don't have any $minority teams working on $area_of_expertise right now, so I don't see a good fit for you.

Note that now your minority group is explicitly a marker of what you can or cannot work on. Whether or not you intended it, your proposal creates a racially defined hierarchy, much in the same way that we already have stereotypes about "women work in frontend/ui roles", you'll only support those stereotypes and make them systematically ingrained. Further, without minority advocates and voices at the level of people picking the "minority" teams, minorities will be less likely to access those projects that are considered more interesting/challenging/prestigious.

And note that the more reasonable "make all teams minority majority" is not possible unless your population is also minority majority, and even then its artificial and perhaps too strict.

Please don't object to my calling a spade a spade. I've provided a reason that your suggestion is flawed, and instead of defending it on its merits, you've objected to my word choice.

> segregate them into specific majority-minority teams

Again, you mischaracterize what I said:

"I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. These teams should not only be that minority as you in a truly inclusive system can't define people by a trait."

Where I in the follow up comment say:

"... the teams are not entirely comprised of minorities and this team structure is supported by research that shows that it feels socially isolating to be the sole representative of your minority in your daily life. Maybe even a majority is not a minority on the team."

> put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group. That is absolutely what your proposal entails.

Because of the preceding comments I disagree with this characterization. These teams are an acknowledgement that many find it hard to feel like they are the sole representative of their minority in their daily life.

It is a tool that should only be applied at discretion and when appropriate, and to make it work it needs support.

> Consider the outcomes of this proposal: I'm sorry, we don't have any $minority teams working on $area_of_expertise right now, so I don't see a good fit for you. Note that now your minority group is explicitly a marker of what you can or cannot work on.

> Whether or not you intended it, your proposal creates a racially defined hierarchy, ..

This was addressed in the proposal: "Since its a minority you probably have to do some extra legway in facilitating matching these teams well to problems the the team members find interesting and that there are growth opportunities. However, that is an ongoing conversation you should be having at any rate."

I never said it was easy and that we wouldn't have to have extra support to make this work. That support requires staffing, training, recruiting etc etc that spends extra effort to make this very difficult thing happen.

> Please don't object to my calling a spade a spade. I've provided a reason that your suggestion is flawed, and instead of defending it on its merits, you've objected to my word choice.

To my points above these are clearly mischaracterizing of what I am saying by at best not carefully reading the proposal. I am asking you for the same respect in this discourse that I am giving you, and I believe that is fair.

Edit: @joshuamorton I am sorry, I can't keep pointing to the same quotes showing how you interpret what I say is different from what I actually said with no progress in our discourse. I think we just have to agree to disagree.

>I can't keep pointing to the same quotes showing how you interpret what I say

Pointing to quotes cannot do this. You need to explain how what I'm saying is a mischaracterization. To be clear, your suggestion is

> hiring competent minorities into teams, where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team.

My claim is that is that

(1). This means hire minorities solely into majority-minority teams.

(2). Hiring minorities solely into majority-minority teams is a form of segregation.

Just restating your original suggestion does not address either of these claims, you need to do something to show that (1) or (2) is false. I believe the reason that you have not done this, and have instead resorted to restating your original claims is because you are unable to reject either of these claims. Instead you are attempting to obfuscate this fact.

I'm familiar with the research about the harms of being a minority and the impact it can have on performance, but as far as my claims about segregation go, those arguments are irrelevant. And that's why I previously said that they were a distraction. If you want to show how my interpretation of your claims is false, you need to show that either claim (1) or (2) is false, and so far you have not done that, you've simply restated your thesis.

> I'm familiar with the research about the harms of being a minority and the impact it can have on performance, but as far as my claims about segregation go, those arguments are irrelevant.

I strongly disagree. You have to respect the human in the equation if you want to facilitate inclusion, and make sure that you do everything to facilitate the change you desire. Otherwise you risk filtering for people that check the right boxes that happen to be similar to the people already working there.

Research from 2007 to 2015 in [1] indicates that what we are currently doing is not working:

- The number of black women in the industry declined by 13%, the study found.

- There was also an increase in Latino executives, but the overall representation of Latinos declined from 5.2% to 4.8% and they still represent a very small fraction of corporate leaders.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/03/silicon-v...

> Hiring minorities solely into majority-minority teams is a form of segregation.

I never proposed solely recruiting minorities for these kind of teams. I said: "It is a tool that should only be applied at discretion and when appropriate, and to make it work it needs support."

Also, the definition of segregation is:

- the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart.

which does not appropriately describe a team that is mixed and where some members come from one or more minorities. Also, I would again like to point out that minorities can still choose to work on any team as this is a tool applied at discretion.

Of cause, as I stated you need to do extra work to make sure that minorities can choose opportunities freely and be supported appropriately after the choice is made.

The definition of ghetto is:

- a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups.

Which for the same reasons does not properly describe the proposal.

Note: I think I've shown here that you've used historically loaded terms like segregation and ghetto inappropriately to describe parts of my proposal. This is a very dirty rhetorical trick when the proposal is intended to apply to minorities, and it is not appreciated.

You've cherrypicked definitions of segregation and ghetto. I'll repeat the original definition that dictionary.com provided:

> put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group

And here's a merriam webster definition of segregation:

> the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area

Does, or does your proposal not put or restrict minorities to certain projects and teams?

Does, or does your proposal not separate or isolate minorities into restricted teams?

As for your cherrypicked definitions:

>which does not appropriately describe a team that is mixed and where some members come from one or more minorities

It does if those minorities are prevented from accessing other teams (or even if it is just more difficult).

>Which for the same reasons does not properly describe the proposal.

Replace the word 'city' with 'company' and it absolutely does!

>I strongly disagree. You have to respect the human in the equation if you want to facilitate inclusion, and make sure that you do everything to facilitate the change you desire. Otherwise you risk filtering for people that check the right boxes that happen to be similar to the people already working there.

This is irrelevant to whether or not your proposal is essentially segregation. Like I'd previously said, this may make it segregation that you feel is scientifically backed, and morally better than what we are doing now, but that doesn't make it not a form of segregation. You appear to believe that if something is better than the system we have now, it cannot be segregation, and that view just doesn't make any sense at all.

>It is a tool that should only be applied at discretion and when appropriate, and to make it work it needs support.

This is a cop out. It basically can basically be rephrased as "we should only use segregation when it makes sense". If you want to make that argument, that's fine, but its still segregation.

I made some clearer objections in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16092706, and you handwaved them away. In essence, when faced with objections to this proposal, your response has been either "I don't like your words" or "yes you have to be judicious and thoughtful when using this strategy", but that just handwaves any of the potential problems away behind magic "judicial and thoughtful"ness. Unless you can craft a strategy beyond the vague "judicious and thoughtful" one you've proposed that materially prevents this proposal from descending into a form of segregation and causing outcomes like the one I suggested previously and will repeat here:

> I'm sorry, we don't have any $minority teams working on $area_of_expertise right now, so I don't see a good fit for you.

I will continue to call your proposal exactly what it is: a strategy of segregating minorities into minority-majority teams in an effort to reduce some of the negative effects of being a minority.

Now to change gears a bit: note that I've never said that this strategy is morally wrong, only that it is a form segregation. You appear to resist that characterization, my goal here has been to show why there are flaws in alternative approaches to affirmative action, and why any such policy is going to be easy to characterize in an unpalatable way.

In other words, while I do personally disagree with your proposal, I was taking on a bit of a devil's advocate stance. In the same way that you find it very easy to attack affirmative action policies as a form of "reverse racism", its pretty easy to similarly attack your majority-minority team proposal as segregation. You seemed to take this very personally, and I apologize for that.

And to be clear, I actually think that a slightly less extreme, but similar proposal to yours is a good idea. Namely, softly enforcing teams with minorities having >1 minority to at least alleviate some of the minority threat you get. However this too is flawed, both from the perspective of it doesn't help minorities as much as some proposals, and because it can be easily characterized as a racial quota.

As an aside, there's another flaw in both of these proposals that isn't simply an issue of branding: they don't address the sourcing issue that affirmative action attempts to. Its very hard to have competent minority teams if you have difficulty sourcing competent minorities (and I should clarify that this is not because they can't or don't exist). A lot of the common AA policies try to reduce false negatives or do creative things to source more minority talent, and are still objected to for various reasons.

Edit: It also appears that you're downvoting my comments, since all of my comments deep in threads responding to you are at 0, and most of my others in these threads are positive. If that's not the case, do let me know, but it makes me uninterested in continuing this discussion with you.

Making a false statement over and over doesn’t make it any more correct. This is just ugly rhetoric which is why I stopped interacting.

As a liberal I think the left has a huge problem with this kind of narrow mindedness on what opinions one can hold and unwillingness to listen, using rhetoric to disingenuously twist someone’s viewpoint into something clearly offensive. It clearly doesn’t matter what you actually say.

The use of this kind of rhetoric seem to build upon the incorrect assumption that democracy is the default state, and that you can use this to enforce an us vs them so that it’s easier to fight a social justice war. Let’s hope the left doesn’t create an authoritarian state by systematically acting using authoritarian means.

This is not a constructive response, it appears to be a rant. I have no interest in continuing this discussion if you're responses will be unrelated to the content of my posts and instead be emotionally charged complaints that I'm treating you unfairly.

I think we both share that feeling. Best of luck working for what you believe in. I think we’ll work for different things. :)

To be clear: your first post described "Affirmative Action" as "bigotry, sexism, and racism". As I explained in my longer post, I was applying a similar description to your proposal.

If you're going to characterize "affirmative action" with such charged terms as "racism" "sexism" and "bigotry", do you at least see the irony in complaining when I do the same?

I'm willing to agree that your proposal is not intended to be segregation, are you willing to agree that affirmative action is not racist or sexist?

Nice play with the word intended. I can agree that affirmative action is not intended to be racist or sexist. It’s a tool, with positive and negative consequences. I am not saying it’s a tool that we should not use.

Unfortunately the number of Hispanic and African Americans in tech decreased between 2007 and 2015 while gender balance improved which is part of the reason why I think we need to look into other tools as well.

I think it’s worth asking oneself if our current tools are not inclusive to different viewpoints, and just filter for people that are similar to the ones already there and happen to check the right boxes.

Would someone that dresses, talks, and walks like they come from east Oakland be hired even if they were a capable engineer or have we not made ourself inclusive to that?

> It also appears that you're downvoting my comments, since all of my comments deep in threads responding to you are at 0, and most of my others in these threads are positive. If that's not the case, do let me know, but it makes me uninterested in continuing this discussion with you.

No, I actually do not have enough karma to downvote and even if I did I do not believe a participant in a discourse has the right to do that. It would be counterproductive for me to do so.

Alright. I meant no offense and was hoping this was the case, it just looked suspicious. :)

>Again, you mischaracterize what I said:

You have not explained how this is a mischaracterization. Your proposal was to place minorities into solely majority-minority teams, my claim is that this is a form of segregation. Which of those two claims is a mischaracterizaiton?

The rest of this post is just distraction that appears to claim that this is morally good segregation, or scientifically supported segregation, but its still segregation.

There is also general disagreement whether we build a system that dishes out equal opportunity regardless of outcome or wether we tweak inputs (opportunity) to achieve equal outcome.

Relating AA to carbon tax misses some nuance. Namely, we agree discrimination against fossil fuel is okay because burning too much of it is bad for everyone. Presumably you'd be okay (logically) taxing schools and businesses that have too many whites. But the message is very different. You have to show too many whites is bad for everyone and not simply a product of a more successful culture (for example).

>Presumably you'd be okay (logically) taxing schools and businesses that have too many whites.

No, I think this is a slight misinterpretation. I personally don't support quotas. On the other hand, I might be in favor of a credit to schools that give a bonus to minority students who apply, but I think that that's a more palatable result in general.

Note that under that equation, you're no longer enforcing equality of outcome, but instead controlling for unequal opportunity.

If you have a car that pulls to the right, you can compensate for this by steering to the left.

If the car is in fact travelling straight down the road while you're doing this, and a backseat driver says "you're pulling to the left, that's not a safe way to drive", are they correct?

If you have a car that pulls to the right, do you keep chopping parts off of the right side to make up for it?

Yes, that is not a very safe way to drive.

Cars pull to the right by design, but assuming they didn't, shouldn't you get the tracking adjusted?

Your worldview is pretty narrow, then. What you see as lack of desire for enacting social policy aimed at "fixing" implicit biases we see as acknowledging that in a truely diverse society we must tolerate and and navigate the inevitable biases at an individual human level and each one in a uniquely intimate way. In other words, in the US at least, you can't solve higher order human problems with government policy. You can't do it because the government is not what tells you to be nice to your neighbor or to treat Suzy the same as Jimmy, or not to make fun of La-a's name. It explicitly does not dictate one religious/moral paradigm over another.

I feel like I'm not being very clear. Here's the reality: the world isn't fair. Let that sink in for a little bit because it's pretty sobering.

The world is not fair.

This is the resting state of the world. Why though? Why is the world not fair? That's a pretty dumb thing to say when our constitution demands all humans are created equal.

We are /created/ equal. We do not die equal. Not in the sense of how we lived our lives. To die equal means we all lead pretty boring lives. We all got good institutually respected jobs. We all suffered the same and we all experienced the same joys in exactly the same amounts and in exactly the same ways. We all liked the same things and given the same set of opportunities made the same choices. It is not human. It is machine.

"Welcome to the jungle. We've got fun and games."

Snap back to reality—what is institutional racism? Well it's defined as a discrepancy between desired and empirical outcomes, but only if that discrepancy negatively impacts a minority group. How can we possibly control for a perfect society when we can't even formulate a consistent definition of the issue let alone agree on a desired outcome? We have literally defined our society as racist and so as long we have diversity and inequality, racist we will be: oh there goes gravity.

On the right we are more optimistic. We believe in giving everyone a fair foundation. We want the rules applied equally to all. We care less what crazy interesting, happy, sad, angry stories get told along the way so long as they are told bay all. And that is life.

To answer your question: yes. Treat both the same. I very strongly disagree with punishing future generations for the transgressions of their ancestors. The correct response is to punish the people who acted intolerably and reset the playing field.

It's fruitless and silly to pick and choose who does and does not deserve empathy. And it just makes people angry when they don't get their perceived share. Empathy is a framework for understanding the paths others have taken, understanding their plight. It's not a finite resource we must regulate and dish out with politics.

This essay is a plea for people to stop treating an industry like it's their social battleground demanding universal empirical equality in a way that destroys its ability to be logical, meritocratic, and empathetic towards people on the spectrum.

Unfortunately, that is the consequence of affirmative action. And even though I suspect you will continue to advocate for it, at least take this opportunity to try and have a little empathy yourself. People who disagree with affirmative action don't do so because they lack empathy. They do so because they do not wish to ration empathy and they feel the lick of discrimination such a mindset breeds.

The main thing that turned me against the modern left is the insistence on categorizing everyone into identity groups, and then treating their individuality as less important than the groups they represent.

For example, every argument that any person has more or less of a right to speak on a given topic because of their identity markers also implicitly states that their identity markers are more important than their individuality.

This goes as much when it's saying whites shouldn't talk about racism, as it goes when saying women should talk about sexism, or should always be believed when making sex crime accusations against men, and so on.

It's strange to me that you and I started in the same pro-individuality place and ended up, apparently, on opposite sides of the political aisle.

At the risk of doing "no-true Scotsman", that isn't my reading of the left. The left I know dumped both Al Franken, a liberal, and Lena Dunham, a "pop feminist"[0]. The left I listen to also speaks regularly against people like Ben Carson, it's not like just because someone is in an identity group they are automatically believed/revered, their point of view/character/deeds are taken before their group.

For "whites shouldn't talk about racism", I think that is sort of a mischaracterization of what people say. People should realize that they cannot fully appreciate things outside of their experience. That's a logical thing, not a leftist thing.

[0] Not sure how else to describe her.

This is of course what the right has been doing for a very long time; do you think the intent behind the "Muslim ban" was based on treating people as individuals, or as members of a group?

"Muslim ban" was a term of the left. It was a country-based ban that didn't target most of the majority-Muslim countries. It was treating people as members of a group, but it was grouping by citizen.