Stand on pro-* verses anti-*
#1
Following is a post from me on facebook

Quote:In another post i was told that Nirmukta is a pro-reservation group. And i was pointed to this [ http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Building-a-FA...ion?page=1 ] link. I was also told 'equalists' as mentioned here [ http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Standard-shad...t-opinions ] are not welcome in this group. I have few questions related to secular humanism part of this group.

1. does the "equalists" as mentioned in the above link are really unwelcome here? does this group recognise that there can be people between 4th (equalists) and 5th (pro-affermative-action-ist) distinctions.

2. is pro-reservation and anti-descrimination same? can a person be on one side but not on the other one? if so are 'Anti-Descrimination' guys welcome here?

3. is pro-*Anything* always equal to anti-*Complment-Thing*? is this group strict on such distinctions? or arguments are welcome here? does this group recognise a third category of people who are agnostic on such cases?

4. does this group still welcomes discussion on such cases, or that will be considered trolling?

5. Nirmukta [as per the about page] is Anti-Religious. Do we accept arugments about the group's stand on some topic? in a way religion is blind faith and adherence. Do we [as a group] have checks/policy/guidelines/rules against not being religious about a topic/issue. Such as Anti-BJP, Pro-AAP, Pro-Reservation, Feminism?

*** I have read Nirmukta About page and the moderating guidlines. I still wish if some folks can enlighten me here.
http://nirmukta.com/about/
http://nirmukta.com/what-is-nirmukta-and...lan-to-do/
http://nirmukta.com/trolls-and-other-dis...ist-groups

I ask the same questions here. Along with one more.

6. Does this group have a universal agreement/support on affirmative action of all kind? or affirmative actions open to debate? Here i mean this [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action ] as affirmative action.

Link to the Post - https://www.facebook.com/groups/nirmukta...273028152/
Reply
#2
Reply by Satish Chandra on facebook

Quote:1. Atheism/humanist groups usually consist of the dominant social group and other voices don't usually get much space because of the chilly climate (as explained in the pragmatists guide). There usually are certain attitudes that contribute to the chilly climate. One of which is terming reservations/affirmative action as "reverse discrimination". The upper castes in India are mostly clueless as to why reservations exist and are usually prone to rants against it. We wouldn't want people who have used reservations, to come into this group and see the usual circle jerk of anti-reservation sentiment. We've had people tell us explicitly that they find Nirmukta refreshing in the sense that such a circle-jerk doesn't exist here. We intend to keep it that way.

2. They are usually the same. You cannot be anti-discrimination and yet prefer the status quo. Disturbing the status quo will involve affirmative action even though that term may not be used to describe it (ex: taxes. They are a means of taking money from someone who has it and giving it to someone else).

3, 4. Discussions are welcome as long as they don't contribute to the chilly climate. Upper castes don't face the same amount of discrimination that lower castes do and so are more prone to philosophy dudebroing, which is, they're able to discuss things which hurt like hell to people who have to live through those things. An example is abortions. Men talking endlessly about it defeats the purpose when women are living through the harm caused by anti-abortion sentiments (http://freethoughtblogs.com/.../philosophy-dudebros.../). So off-the-hand dismissals of reservations, for example, are not welcome. There are plenty of good reasons for reservations and there's no need to rehash the same stuff again and again. As the pragmatic guide mentions, there is a tradeoff between educating people and preventing a chilly climate. Again, this is no different from our rule about not having religious apologia in the group. We get enough religious crap thrown at us every day. But this community is one place where you are free of it. Similarly, lower castes get enough crap about reservations thrown at them regularly. They don't need to see the same shit here of all places, where the goal is to provide a safe space from the usual discriminatory attitudes in society.

5. This is no different from a religious person saying that atheism is also a religion. Just because atheists as a community advocate atheism does not make atheism a religion. The same applies to social justice issues.

Any more discussion about this should go the forums - http://nirmukta.net/index.php

Any new comments on this thread will be deleted.
Reply
#3
And here's my response - marked with the same numbers as opening -

1. This doesn't answer my question. What you describe is a case of trolling with equalist's opinion. Someone who does create a chilly environment with putting casual comments/snide remarks/jokes. Will discussing reservation be considered chilly or bashing those who oppose reservation as "clueless upper caste" will be considered chilly in these forums? "The upper castes in India are mostly clueless as to why reservation exists and are usual prone to rants against it" smells like an opinion to me. Any empirical data to support? Cant there be people who understand the reasons for reservations, accept its necessity as of now, but also wish to consider its side effects and possible ways to avoid that? Is nirmukta about "promoting science, free-thought and secular humanism" or catering to "reserved" folks with a "anti-reservation-sentiment-free" environment? where does "Nirmukta" stands, if at all?

2. First problem starts with "usually". Affirmative Action isn't the solution. Its an action until the problem is solved cause of real solutions which takes time, like education/awareness raising. Thus considering pro-reservation as equal to anti-discrimination would be wrong. There might be those who support real solution such a heavy awareness campaign, pride parades, education but not reservations, those who consider reservation as just a temporary patch-work with its own side effects. I don't know which term works best for such folks, but i think "Reservation-Agnostics" will be most accurate. why Not preferring the current state of affairs [status quo] is equal to pro-reservation? (As for your example taxes aren't affirmative action against income inequality, subsidies from tax money is, taxes are just a way to collect funds for governance, how that fund is spent is affirmative action if it depends on socio-economic status of the receivers)

3, 4. I am glad that discussions are welcome here. Can you please explain more on how/what discussion can hurt sentiments of "Reserved" group. I really would not like to do that. But i still havnt got my answer. I will summarize bellow.

5. I never meant "advocating" something as religious. I asked, does the group welcomes debate on its stand on said topics of Social Justice? Not doing so would be religious, where the members are expected to adhere to an opinion or guideline.

Summing it up before it becomes derailed -

This thread/question wasnt about reservation nor about statements. I was simply trying to infer the rigidity of the group on some topics related to social justice which might be considered by some, open to debate. Does the members have the right to disagree on something here. it was about stand. But now i am summing up the question here with putting the pointer on myself using reservation as reference -

Do I, an atheist born in a Jain family, "Upper caste" if you may, belong here, If i acknowledge the discrimination against a part of society, accepts the affirmative action [reservation], by the virtue of it being the only available option as of now, not by considering it being correct and best solution to the problem, alongside believing that it mostly elevates fortunate [rich is a criteria here] members of under-privileged castes at the expense of unfortunate members [poor is a criteria here] of privileged class?

Consider reservation as just a example in this whole thread. What i am trying to ask is does the group welcomes Agnostics on Social Justice topics (eg "Reservation-Agnostics")
Reply
#4
(28-Nov-2013, 07:39 AM)mohit Wrote: And here's my response - marked with the same numbers as opening -

1. This doesn't answer my question. What you describe is a case of trolling with equalist's opinion. Someone who does create a chilly environment with putting casual comments/snide remarks/jokes. Will discussing reservation be considered chilly or bashing those who oppose reservation as "clueless upper caste" will be considered chilly in these forums? "The upper castes in India are mostly clueless as to why reservation exists and are usual prone to rants against it" smells like an opinion to me. Any empirical data to support? Cant there be people who understand the reasons for reservations, accept its necessity as of now, but also wish to consider its side effects and possible ways to avoid that? Is nirmukta about "promoting science, free-thought and secular humanism" or catering to "reserved" folks with a "anti-reservation-sentiment-free" environment? where does "Nirmukta" stands, if at all?

The strawman innuendos at the end of this point [catering to reserved] are better avoided if you are "really" interested in a discussion and not preaching from "I am right and I would like to teach you how you are wrong" attitude. Yes, I am using strong words because your complete post stinks of not-so-genuine interest in understanding things.

Coming back to the actual point, Discussing specific implementation details pertaining to reservation is fine as it doesn't contribute to chilly climate. But "privilege denials" (especially caste privilege denials), strawman attacks, bad-analogy attacks, reductio ad absurdum attacks etc. cause a chilly climate and hence are not entertained.

And about the "opinion" about upper caste: its from our experience at Nirmukta and Indian society. For example things like "in India women don't have much financial independence at home", its obvious from experience. And in either case, what is the point you are trying to make through this? Again it comes across as intellectual dishonesty and paralyzing skeptical attitude to ask such questions.

And let me reiterate that discussions around nuances of reservation policy and implementation is fine. Blatant dismissals like "reservation is reverse-discrimination" etc are inane and not allowed.

(28-Nov-2013, 07:39 AM)mohit Wrote: 2. First problem starts with "usually". Affirmative Action isn't the solution. Its an action until the problem is solved cause of real solutions which takes time, like education/awareness raising. Thus considering pro-reservation as equal to anti-discrimination would be wrong. There might be those who support real solution such a heavy awareness campaign, pride parades, education but not reservations, those who consider reservation as just a temporary patch-work with its own side effects. I don't know which term works best for such folks, but i think "Reservation-Agnostics" will be most accurate. why Not preferring the current state of affairs [status quo] is equal to pro-reservation? (As for your example taxes aren't affirmative action against income inequality, subsidies from tax money is, taxes are just a way to collect funds for governance, how that fund is spent is affirmative action if it depends on socio-economic status of the receivers)

What exactly is this sentence supposed to mean: "Affirmative Action isn't the solution.". It VERY MUCH CAN be a solution. For example, increasing representation of members of a discriminated society in existing power structures can have a feedback loop which can result in fading away of the discrimination. Infact that is what I think is one of the real nice pros of Affirmative action.

Affirmative action "needn't" necessarily be a "complete" solution. That statement would be correct. So if marginalizing attitude is not dependent on social status but linked to some other factor which is not getting compensated via affirmative action, its not going to be a complete solution. Its STILL VERY MUCH A SOLUTION, but just not a complete one.

As about "reservation-agnostic" it would be irrational to hold this view while claiming to be Secular Humanist. One can talk about efficacy of certain implementations and feasibility etc. But there is no such thing as "being just" and being "reservation-agnostic". Affirmative action, by its very definition, is intended to compensate for existing social discrimination which again is what justice is about.

(28-Nov-2013, 07:39 AM)mohit Wrote: 3, 4. I am glad that discussions are welcome here. Can you please explain more on how/what discussion can hurt sentiments of "Reserved" group. I really would not like to do that. But i still havnt got my answer. I will summarize bellow.

First and foremost this has nothing to do with hurting sentiments. That is a complete don't care. A lot of our posts will hurt religious sentiments. That doesn't matter. Its about chilly climate and creating an atmosphere where the privileged dominate the discussion and create a hostile medium for the marginalized through various microagressions. There is enough literature on net for this and you can google for it. Nirmukta's pragmatists guide itself is good introduction to such concepts.

e.g. use of homophobic slurs creates an environment where homosexuals are sent signals that they are "the wrong ones", which discourages their participation. And the slurs might be directed to a heterosexual to another heterosexual, yet creating an atmosphere where participation of homosexuals gets restricted. [NOTE: these are absolute basics and it will be best if you google about this all rather than discuss here]

(28-Nov-2013, 07:39 AM)mohit Wrote: 5. I never meant "advocating" something as religious. I asked, does the group welcomes debate on its stand on said topics of Social Justice? Not doing so would be religious, where the members are expected to adhere to an opinion or guideline.

Consider this. Walk into a symposium on Physics and talk about "oh but empiricism is nonsense". And if they ask you to leave call them "religious". Does this sound right?

Such "oh you are not open minded" attacks are irrational to the core and the only apt response to this would be "Do not be so open-minded that your brain falls out". Also if you have read the pragmatists guide, you should find a really nice explanation for why this criticism is totally invalid.

(28-Nov-2013, 07:39 AM)mohit Wrote: Summing it up before it becomes derailed -

This thread/question wasnt about reservation nor about statements. I was simply trying to infer the rigidity of the group on some topics related to social justice which might be considered by some, open to debate. Does the members have the right to disagree on something here. it was about stand. But now i am summing up the question here with putting the pointer on myself using reservation as reference -

Do I, an atheist born in a Jain family, "Upper caste" if you may, belong here, If i acknowledge the discrimination against a part of society, accepts the affirmative action [reservation], by the virtue of it being the only available option as of now, not by considering it being correct and best solution to the problem, alongside believing that it mostly elevates fortunate [rich is a criteria here] members of under-privileged castes at the expense of unfortunate members [poor is a criteria here] of privileged class?

Consider reservation as just a example in this whole thread. What i am trying to ask is does the group welcomes Agnostics on Social Justice topics (eg "Reservation-Agnostics")

"not by considering it being correct and best solution to the problem, alongside believing that it mostly elevates fortunate [rich is a criteria here] members of under-privileged castes at the expense of unfortunate members [poor is a criteria here] of privileged class?"

The solution part has already been addressed in point 2.

The last part is a tall claim, because as far as I know, affirmative action policies in US, for tackling racism, have helped all classes. Also there is nothing in the very nature of affirmative action that favors financially privileged.
[+] 2 users Like Kanad Kanhere's post
Reply
#5
Replying not in order of the points you listed, but in the order that fits the point I want to make.

(28-Nov-2013, 07:39 AM)mohit Wrote: The upper castes in India are mostly clueless as to why reservation exists and are usual prone to rants against it" smells like an opinion to me. Any empirical data to support?

The anti-Mandal agitations for one. At a time when reservations were sorely needed, the upper castes made a huge stink about it.

(28-Nov-2013, 07:39 AM)mohit Wrote: Cant there be people who understand the reasons for reservations, accept its necessity as of now, but also wish to consider its side effects and possible ways to avoid that?

Sure, but more likely than not anyone who says that has an ulterior motive, as I'll show later below.

(28-Nov-2013, 07:39 AM)mohit Wrote: Is nirmukta about "promoting science, free-thought and secular humanism" or catering to "reserved" folks with a "anti-reservation-sentiment-free" environment? where does "Nirmukta" stands, if at all?

Do I sense some bitterness there? What Nirmukta stands for is abundantly clear to anyone who has made an effort to read the pages that have been linked. If this sounds blunt, I am not going to apologize. The bluntness of my assertion is every bit intented.

(28-Nov-2013, 07:39 AM)mohit Wrote: Can you please explain more on how/what discussion can hurt sentiments of "Reserved" group.

Statements like this - .it mostly elevates fortunate [rich is a criteria here] members of under-privileged castes at the expense of unfortunate members [poor is a criteria here] of privileged class?

There is so much wrong in that. Firstly, even after reading all the links you were provided, you still continue with the pretense that reservations are meant to correct economic inequality. At this point I strongly question your "agnostic" credentials and will assert that you are arguing from a pre-conceived notion (the ulterior motive I mentioned above) that is very typical of upper castes which gives rise to questions which miss the point by light years - "Why should reservation be caste based? Why can't we just provide economic aid for anyone who needs it?". I'm not going to waste any time explaining why it misses the point. The links provided have enough answers for why.

Secondly, it isn't just a matter of "hurt sentiments" (I'd avoid that phrase altogther with it connotations of "well, you are so delicate that you chose to get hurt". Somehow I get the feeling that your choice of those words isn't a matter of accident). It is a matter of who we want in our community. If people who have availed reservations and see such obviously wrong arguments being in vogue in the community, the very same crap they get in school, college and at work, they'd rather stay away from such "freethinking" and "agnosticism".

(28-Nov-2013, 07:39 AM)mohit Wrote: Affirmative Action isn't the solution. Its an action until the problem is solved cause of real solutions which takes time, like education/awareness raising. Thus considering pro-reservation as equal to anti-discrimination would be wrong.

There is a major unstated premise in that statement. You assume that an alternate solution exists, right now, which can be implemented right away. But no such solution exists. The only available solution right now is affirmative action. There exist a huge number of hypothetical solutions that sound good on paper. But by equating such hypothetical solutions to one that exists, you are making a false equivalence. Your argument is the exact same as saying "Democracy is not the correct and best solution to the problem, so it isn't the solution". Well guess what? Democracy is the only solution we have at hand, considering all other things. Whatever flaws you can find in reservations, you will find in democracy as well. So a real freethinking agnostic would first know to acknowledge the evidence at hand instead of ignoring it and chasing after non-existent solutions. So for all practical purposes, not being pro-reservation means who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo alive.
[+] 3 users Like Lije's post
Reply
#6
Thanks for the response guys. First let me address the stink in my post
Quote:your complete post stinks of not-so-genuine interest in understanding things
and ulterior motive.

Quote:"The upper castes in India are mostly clueless as to why reservation exists and are usual prone to rants against it" smells like an opinion to me.
Quote:And about the "opinion" about upper caste: its from our experience at Nirmukta and Indian society.
I would like to "Bold" experience here. There might be some Cognitive Bias.

Now a personal perspective on how **few** among the "upper caste" face the caste based discrimination.

1. It hurts when you cant invite all of your friends to your birthday party because you grand mother thinks some of them are inferior. It hurts when you cant explain the reasons for cancelling the party to your friends. (its really difficult to explain the problem of caste to someone who is illiterate)

2. It hurts when your father won't listen to your stand against caste-based-discrimination after becoming junior to someone who once was his junior in office and have 5 year less experience. (It becomes really difficult to reason with people who have first hand experience of **loss** due to reservation. - I don't know which word to use here instead of loss)

3. It hurts when your parents asks full names of your friends/room mates. and It hurts like hell when your parents ask same to your girlfriend.

And the list goes on.

I know all this is almost negligible compared to what a person face when subject to caste based discrimination. But there are people who face the divide created by reservation almost daily in their life. You may point out that the divide is due to "Varna System" of Hinduism. And that would be mostly true. But it still doesn't rule out the case that reservation itself is also cause of some new divisions being formed. Consider it like this, how does my illiterate grandmother knows the term "SC" and "ST". she cant even pronounce "schedule" and i am pretty sure she don't know what it means. But she does know that there's a group "SC/ST" and she is not one of them. I wish to learn if what i have seen is an isolate experience which only i had or it is more wide spread.

As for ulterior motives. I wish to know if the group is interested in considering opinion of those *rationalists* who are on the other side of spectrum. Affirmative Action isn't empirical science [and hence analogy of Physics and Empirical data doesn't make much sense]. As far as i know we don't have any empirical data in favor or against reservation's effect in India. If there is please point me to it.

If there is a side effect of reservation, where can it be discussed if not here. everywhere else such discussions are discarded labeling those who argue against reservation as "upper caste" or those who argue in favor as "lower caste".
or does the group really considers Affirmative Action as a proven/empirical concept without any side effects or negative consequences, Please stop quoting American Affirmative action policy, India's Caste based reservation is much different and much more complex. Plus they don't have "68%" reserved as quota.
Reply
#7
Mohit,

I don't really see the need to take your arguments against reservations seriously when you don't even know what the primary purpose of reservations are and have a strawman version of it in mind (that it has to do with rich/poor).

You can discuss the flaws of reservations. But to do that you don't start with a flawed understanding of reservations. What you'd get are flawed arguments. I surprised that despite all your posturing about being an "agnostic", you didn't take note of that flaw when it was pointed out.
[+] 1 user Likes Lije's post
Reply
#8
Here is how a decent analysis of reservations should look like. It goes into the history of why reservations were put in place, looks at how they work today, and the flaws in it. No where does it pander to upper caste prejudices and yet manages to come up this critiques like this:

Quote:The preceding chapter has shown that the reservations policy has not been entirely successful in significantly improving the conditions of the SCs. As a perusal of any report from the National Commission for SCs and STs will reveal, the Indian government, from central to local levels, has often displayed a lackadaisical attitude in administering reservations policy. At the same time, SC interests often take a back seat on the political agenda. The reservations system has evolved into a bureaucratic structure with major inefficiencies.

There are two major reasons for these realities. First, with the fading of the Congress party’s dominance, the Indian political scene has witnessed the flowering of many new parties and the intensification of party competition. As the population of SCs increases, faster than the rate of growth of the general population, political parties have realized the electoral potential of this group and have sought to use reservations as a way of garnering votes. Christophe Jaffrelot has argued that the Congress party in its heyday used such a strategy, “bargaining and extending its patronage in exchange for electoral support.” However, once in office, politicians lose their incentive to see that reservations are implemented effectively.
.
.
.

Quote:Inevitably, the issuing of certificates has become a source of corruption. Jobs, schooling, grant money, and even some share of political power—perhaps a seat on a village or municipal council—are at stake. On the receiving end, there is often a lack of Scheduled Caste candidates for mid- or higher-level positions. Given employer or school interest in filling SC positions, a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude may prevail. At all levels above traditional untouchable occupations like sweeper, the possibility exists that caste Hindus with bogus SC certificates are squeezing out real members of the Scheduled Castes.
.
.
By the mid-1990s, the problem had worsened and “False Certificates” has its own chapter in the two most recent reports of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Concerned about the “widespread incidence” of false certificates, the Commission in 1996 carried out pilot field studies in several states. The studies confirmed the irregularities and the trend. A check on twelve Central Government organizations in Tamil Nadu found 338 holders of fraudulent ST certificates. In the end, only six were dismissed after what the Commission termed “enormous delays.” Nearly a quarter of the individuals thwarted removal by getting stay orders from cooperative local courts.

Quote:Have Reservations Worked?

Success of reservations policy will be measured by results—how Dalits fare in Indian society. A precursor example was the selection in 1997 of K.R. Naryanan, a Dalit, as India’s President. His distinguished career has included time as a journalist, heading a university, and service as Ambassador to the United States. Dalit political activism is another indicator of change. Well orchestrated protests at the 2001 United Nations Conference on Racism in Durban, lively Internet sites of Dalit advocacy groups, and, most of all, growing involvement in political life show that increasing numbers of Dalits are making their presence felt.

Criticized, with justification, for inefficiency (or worse), the network of reservations in its half century of existence has contributed to Dalit opportunity. On a nationwide scale, it has meant more educational and better government job opportunities for Dalits. Statistical evidence (Tables 3 and 8, above) shows decidedly positive trends for Dalits entering into senior civil service ranks, an eight-fold increase from 1959 to 1995, and receiving higher education, a near-doubling over 17 years ending in 1996.

Literacy rates through 1991 are less compelling and showed that Dalits were not closing the gap with the general population. However, the 2001 Census reports a ten-year jump of 27 percent in national literacy (to 65 percent).133 Census data on Dalit literacy are not yet available, but an independent 1997-1998 study found that Dalit educational achievement for younger age groups in villages in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh had surged to the point that it was virtually the same as for upper castes. What is harder to pinpoint is how much improvement can be credited to reservations and how much might have occurred without them as a result of general government development policies and economic growth. Dalit groups are in no mood to find out. Realistically, the system has become such a mainstay in India, involving a significant portion of the population, that it is doubtful that the dismantling of the system is even feasible. No politician will risk trying to roll back these “temporary” measures.

Are Reservations Enough?

Reservations will continue to play a useful role but will likely be a diminishing part of the solution of Dalit problems. There are major flaws. Reservations apply to the public sector but not the private sector, the probable growth area of the Indian economy. Then there are tens of millions of Dalits living in rural areas and not part of the “organized” economy. It is often a difficult life. In 1976, Shankarrao Mane, the then Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, wrote the following appraisal:

The hard fact of our social life is that the Scheduled Castes are fighting
alone. Houses in Caste Hindus localities are not available to them on rent
even in urban areas; drinking water wells are generally not open to them,
the services of priests, barbers and washermen are still denied to them in
several parts of the country and they are paid nominal wages for hard labour
in the fields. And, when they try to assert their rights to use common services
or demand proper wages, they are subjected to inhuman atrocities, abuses,
assaults, social boycott, loot, arson, murder and what not. They are branded
with red hot iron. Even their women are not spared. Still they struggle.
Let the Scheduled Castes be assured that in their struggle they are not alone.
That the enlightened among the Indians are with them not only with words
of sympathy but with concrete action.

Reporting by Indian and foreign human rights groups and governments indicates that problems of this kind remain in many parts of India despite the Constitution, laws, and the desire of a great many Indians for an end to mistreatment of Dalits.

Note how it agrees that reservations have flaws without selling the narrative that they haven't been of much use. That is the difference between an ulterior motive and an objective perspective.
[+] 3 users Like Lije's post
Reply
#9
(28-Nov-2013, 04:19 PM)mohit Wrote: Thanks for the response guys. First let me address the stink in my post
Quote:your complete post stinks of not-so-genuine interest in understanding things
and ulterior motive.

Quote:"The upper castes in India are mostly clueless as to why reservation exists and are usual prone to rants against it" smells like an opinion to me.
Quote:And about the "opinion" about upper caste: its from our experience at Nirmukta and Indian society.
I would like to "Bold" experience here. There might be some Cognitive Bias.

Now a personal perspective on how **few** among the "upper caste" face the caste based discrimination.

1. It hurts when you cant invite all of your friends to your birthday party because you grand mother thinks some of them are inferior. It hurts when you cant explain the reasons for cancelling the party to your friends. (its really difficult to explain the problem of caste to someone who is illiterate)

2. It hurts when your father won't listen to your stand against caste-based-discrimination after becoming junior to someone who once was his junior in office and have 5 year less experience. (It becomes really difficult to reason with people who have first hand experience of **loss** due to reservation. - I don't know which word to use here instead of loss)

3. It hurts when your parents asks full names of your friends/room mates. and It hurts like hell when your parents ask same to your girlfriend.

And the list goes on.

I know all this is almost negligible compared to what a person face when subject to caste based discrimination. But there are people who face the divide created by reservation almost daily in their life. You may point out that the divide is due to "Varna System" of Hinduism. And that would be mostly true. But it still doesn't rule out the case that reservation itself is also cause of some new divisions being formed. Consider it like this, how does my illiterate grandmother knows the term "SC" and "ST". she cant even pronounce "schedule" and i am pretty sure she don't know what it means. But she does know that there's a group "SC/ST" and she is not one of them. I wish to learn if what i have seen is an isolate experience which only i had or it is more wide spread.

As for ulterior motives. I wish to know if the group is interested in considering opinion of those *rationalists* who are on the other side of spectrum. Affirmative Action isn't empirical science [and hence analogy of Physics and Empirical data doesn't make much sense]. As far as i know we don't have any empirical data in favor or against reservation's effect in India. If there is please point me to it.

If there is a side effect of reservation, where can it be discussed if not here. everywhere else such discussions are discarded labeling those who argue against reservation as "upper caste" or those who argue in favor as "lower caste".
or does the group really considers Affirmative Action as a proven/empirical concept without any side effects or negative consequences, Please stop quoting American Affirmative action policy, India's Caste based reservation is much different and much more complex. Plus they don't have "68%" reserved as quota.

And now the real motives are out. The rant about "reservation causing divide" is EXACTLY equivalent to saying "reservation is reverse-discrimination" and shows your privilege denial.

There is not point in arguing when your arguments are of this level. Go through the faq thread and if that doesn't make sense to you, just leave. I personally do not have any interest and energy to educate those who label themselves "rationalist" and exhibit none of that skill what-so-ever. You actually even completely missed the Physics analogy which was to show that not every firm stance makes a group "religious". And about quota another upper caste rant against reservation, when all they are concerned about is a "specific implementation". And America's situation being different than India's doesn't change one thing about "affirmative action" being useful. It just changes the nature of affirmative action. But the concept i.e. compensate for social marginalizations, remains totally valid.
[+] 1 user Likes Kanad Kanhere's post
Reply
#10
Quote:alongside believing that it mostly elevates fortunate [rich is a criteria here] members of under-privileged castes at the expense of unfortunate members [poor is a criteria here] of privileged class

i specially put "rich is a criteria" to point out that some of fortunate of the under-privileged castes who do manage to get the benefit of reservation happen to be rich. "Criteria" means a defining characteristic of a category. Not the whole category. and i only said that about fortunate ones. I never said that the reservation is meant for economical reasons. On the contrary i tried to point out that people who are of equal footing (please don't jump on this, but i mean economic as well social recognition) to us, like My father's senior at one time, are also considered inferior by our "caste" folks.
But you guys took that to mean that "I think reservation is for economic reasons". That itself is a straw-men attack as well as ad-hominem.

folks not even once i said that reservation is wrong to the core and should be removed. nothing even comparable to that. All i have been trying to put forth is it has side effects. And as Kanad has already agreed that it isn't the complete solution. And hence Agnosticism about reservation. There is need for more data to prove the side effects and in the meanwhile there is a need to discuss and work on alternatives viz education, awareness campaigns.


Quote:The rant about "reservation causing divide" is EXACTLY equivalent to saying "reservation is reverse-discrimination" and shows your privilege denial.

how they are equivalent. "Reserve Discrimination" would mean injustice to one side for giving justice to another. "Reservation causing divide" is very much real out there. The very reasons you earlier called me a "clueless upper caste" and why now rajpoots in Rajasthan started keeping distance from Gurjars is reservation divide. (I dont meant you as lower caste and me as upper caste, i am simply saying divide between pro-reservation and not-so-pro-reservation)

First let me work out the reverse-discrimination argument.

From wikipedia
Quote:Discrimination is the prejudicial and/or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category

In a way reservation is discrimination. But instead of calling it reverse-discrimination ("Upper caste people are given less) i would call it positive discrimination ("Lower caste people are given a bit extra"). And It doesn't matter what we call it. But how majority calls it matters. If most upper caste people see it as reverse-discrimination than its a cause of the divide, even if they are wrong in doing so. weather the cause is justified or not the divide is real.
That's why i don't think "divide argument" (rant if you may) is same as "reverse-discrimination" argument.

for physics analogy i simply pointed that relation between physics and empiricism is not same as secular humanism and reservations/affirmative action. secular humanism and social justice is that. Affirmative action is a method of social justice. the same way experimental data generation wud be for empirical physics. But if a institute takes a stand saying that "experiment" is the only way to do empirical physics as opposed to theoretical analysis, that's religious. In the same way considering reservations equals to social justice is religious.

@lije - i don't have a magic solution to the problem. I never said reservation is useless. We have the data for its good effects. I am trying to point out that there are negatives as well.

the problem is not only "social marginalization" which reservation targets. Problem isn't just discrimination. Problem is much more then that. "Untouchable Thinking" is the real problem. Which still persists. Thinking that reservation is targeting and solving that would be wrong. Alongside positive feedback loop, there's also a negative one. which fuels "untouchable". There was no religious reason in America for black discrimination.

Regardless of what "GEN" guys think, whether they despise everyone else, or they feel reservation is reverse-discrimination, or they see it as injustice, or they are simply greedy and don't want to share. regardless of the any of these "wrong" interpretation or intention, the divide is there. Its real and its increasing. Reservation is one of the reason behind it. Politics is the main reason i think. but its there and its real. As soon as we accept that and start doing something to prevent it the better. Call that supreme motive/reason or whatever.

Apologies for this thread becoming heated. I never mean to argue on reservations. I just meant to question pro-reservation stance. to me that meant as if nothing is to be questioned about reservations.

I think that there is a need to question reservations if there can be other ways of Affirmative action. if there isn't, then we need to discuss the costs [not just economic] of reservation and ways to minimize that. Reservations are there to solve the imbalance. Not the cause of imbalance itself. cultural divide. which is a bigger problem. and reservations are adding to that. that needs to be addressed. At least our political system takes the stance of calling the job done with just reservations. I think we should not take such stance. Instead we should actively address that, the way we address superstitions. Social Justice is the calling under Secular Humanism. Not reservations. being pro-social-justice isn't same as pro-reservation. neither pro-affirmative-action is same as pro-reservation. Or i should say quota based reservations.
Reply
#11
Mohit,

Your posts seem extremely incoherent. Only thing that you keep repeating is that reservations have some negative effects. Can you concisely list these negative effects.

But you can not list any of your personal losses as a negative effect as you have done in one of your post.

Only list those effects that hurt the under privileged people in a way that is quantifiably worse than in the baseline scenario in which there are no reservations. For example, if 68% (the number you seem to be concerned about) policy actually reduces the representation of underprivileged in education/jobs than in a scenario in which there are no reservation then we can conclude that the 68% policy has negative effects. But that does not seem to be the case.

Also please do not list the obnoxious attitude of the privileged people in response to affirmative action as a negative effect.
[+] 1 user Likes Captain Mandrake's post
Reply
#12
(30-Nov-2013, 06:45 AM)Captain Mandrake Wrote: Also please do not list the obnoxious attitude of the privileged people in response to affirmative action as a negative effect.

^This!

Because by that logic one will have to consider the negative effect of the divide that is created amongst conservatives and progressive people by allowing same sex marriages!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)