Zontar said:
altnameJag said:
Didn't Judy only get a place in the police academy because of Affirmative Action the Lion mayor's Mammal Inclusion Initiative?
Yes, and those at the police academy didn't lift a finger to make it easier for her, as would be the case in real life had someone unqualified been pushed in through affirmative action.
In real life huh, say, like in the NYFD? You know, where a judge required a bunch of "priority hires" to improve diversity, some of who couldn't pass the physical testing and were accordingly given multiple extra tries to do it? One of who was passed through despite never passing the test and given a desk job at the top end of NYFD pay while giving her more opportunities to pass the test until she eventually resigned?
By comparison, as someone noted above, Judy is actually competent. She's not held to drastically reduced standards that only apply to her because she's a bunny, she's not allowed to pass despite failing, or any of that.
Silvanus said:
How the hell is that "anti-progressive"? You can't possibly believe progressives are just simply against the value of hard work.
What you do tend to see instead "against hard work" is the idea that we should measure equality by outcomes, not opportunity. Basically if everyone is held to the same rules and standards, but you don't end up with he right demographic distribution, then that's not equality. We need to "norm" standards until the right demographic mix passes. Which then gets seen by people who still have to perform because they don't get any breaks on account of their demographics as being "against hard work."
altnameJag said:
I think Zontar's working under the impression that Affirnative Action is A) a quota system, B) that it regularly results in unqualified personnel getting hired, and C) that organizations will relax their standards to allow unqualified personnel with no real work ethic to stay employed or even be promoted over the actually qualified people. Naturally, this is actually sexist/racist/what-ever-ist.
So, you're taking the line that whenever someone gets hired that isn't a white male that's "affirmative action"?
A lot of the people who complain about "affirmative action" tend to have personal observations of B and C happening, though A is very uncommon these days (but not completely unheard of, though it's usually a "soft" quota like setting a certain number of "priority hires" or the like).
altnameJag said:
Now, true, a lot of the time rules changes are made,
By "changes" let's be explicit here: You mean a reduction in standards, either generally or sometimes only for certain demographics. Or becoming more flexible regarding having to actually meet certain standards in a way that's discretionary enough to hide that it follows demographic lines.
altnameJag said:
but generally only when the standards being relaxed have minimal or no relation to the job at hand and are more a hold-over from when they mattered in the past. Like, the military isn't planning on walking across Europe carrying all their gear on their backs anymore, close-combat doctrine is about creating some distance between you and your opponent so you can shoot them more so than clubbing/slicing someone to death with your Trench shovel, etc. Naturally, changing these outdated rules is sexist/racist/what-ever-ist.
The military was a bad choice here, since changing these "outdated rules" has been done by "gender norming" them such that men have to meet one standard and women have to meet a different standard, where the women's standard is lower across the board.
For Army physical testing, they have a score chart that assigns a result to a spot on a 1-100 scale, where 70+ is passing. A 70 for a man, is a 100 for a woman of the same age. Very high scores effect promotion points, so a woman who is capable of meeting the minimum standard placed upon men is given preferential treatment regarding promotion through the ranks.
altnameJag said:
Of course, what Affirmative Action is based on is the idea that the demographics of your personnel and the demographics of your qualified applicant pool should be within a standard deviation of each other.
Why? Let's say I'm hiring 100 people out of a pool of 1000 applicants who all meet the minimum requirements, half of which are women and 300 of which are a racial minority. Why does it follow that it's racist or sexist if I don't end up hiring at least roughly 50 women and at least roughly 30 racial minorities? What if I just put everyone in a list based on whatever requirements I'm using (or engage in some form of testing) and grab the top 100? If I were to, for example, do a practical test to separate the exceptional from the merely adequate is my process racist/sexist if the top performers don't have the "right" demographic distribution? What if I intentionally create a separation so that those scoring the test don't know the demographics of the persons being tested, does that make testing them at all racist/sexist?
altnameJag said:
All Affirmative Action programs do is attemp to address this,
Address this by assuming perceived implicit racism and adding explicit institutional racism to address it, you mean? It gets even better because even if the numbers swing the other way, those programs don't budge (and ironically have the funding and establishment necessary to continue to claim "oppressed" status to justify their own continued existence). For example, look at education -- the gender gap in education is basically the reverse of what it was in the 70s, but guess who the "oppressed" class is that needs special benefits?
altnameJag said:
i.e., all the Mammel Inclusion Initiative did was give Judy Hopps the chance at completing th Accademy, something she wouldn't have been able to even attempt before.
No one complaining about affirmative action is arguing that certain demographics shouldn't be allowed to compete, just that they shouldn't be given any kind of explicit advantage.
Silentpony said:
but the main villain of the story wasn't who I saw coming. Maybe there were a few signs or something that I missed, but I just didn't make that connection until they show up towards the end.
You were that surprised by who was behind distributing the crack analog into the parts of the city with the most black-people-analogs in the "inner city"? Several major plot points could be lifted more or less outright from the
Dark Alliance series which alleged that the CIA was involved in the crack epidemic as a means to launder money to fund the contras. The mayor in Zootopia is basically Reagan in this case.
Nazulu said:
Happyninja42 said:
So if they had kids, would they be hybrids? Or would some be foxes and others be rabbits? Would the hybrids be Fabbits? or Roxes?
No, that would count as a risk.
There would be 2 or 3 female rabbits, and the same amount of male foxes.
Or maybe they'll do the Shrek Dalmatians thing and be flooded with babies.
Of course they'd be flooded with babies. They'd breed like rabbits...
