Correct Pat, then we have to be able to distinguish between a problem and a difficulty.
Problems have solutions. Identify the problem, then enact the solution.
Difficulties, on the other hand, have no solutions. In fact when you try to solve a difficulty you only exacerbate it and create another problem, the best you can do with a difficul…
Correct Pat, then we have to be able to distinguish between a problem and a difficulty.
Problems have solutions. Identify the problem, then enact the solution.
Difficulties, on the other hand, have no solutions. In fact when you try to solve a difficulty you only exacerbate it and create another problem, the best you can do with a difficulty is to mitigate it's harmful effects.
For instance sanctions are a means of mitigating a difficulty. If, say Iran, is a problem then the only solution is a war, and all that brings. Not ideal.
Inequality has been treated as a problem, to solve the problem, affirmative action and quotas were used, however they created more problems, as their was a rebellion by people who would not otherwise have sided with the right wing.
Kids with high SATS were not admitted to college because they weren't a protected class, so they became conservative, now Trump humpers.
People found themselves passed over for jobs and promotions because they weren't a protected class, and they turned rightward in disgust.
Then you have affirmative action hires, like Clarence Thomas, and tell me how that has worked out.
Racism, inequality are difficulties, not problems. Because there is no solution for racism and inequality, not one that is palatable and humane.
That doesn't mean that you don't address the issue, but a discussion, a serious discussion is needed as to how to mitigate the difficulty.
For instance where ever differences occur there will always be tension and discrimination.
The Rwanda genocide is an example. The Hutu's consider the Tutsi's to be another race, that can be distinguished by stature and physiognomy..
There is still tension in Rwanda, that could erupt again.
The Japanese consider the Chinese and Koreans to be another race.
The Chinese consider the Uyghers to be another race, and peoples.
Same in Myanmar, with the Rohinyas, compounded with the fact that they are also Muslim in a Buddhist land.
And if one thinks that all is peaceful in a racially homogeneous land, then think of Shia Yemeni's (Houthi's) and even the 2nd class citizens of Saudi Arabia, the Shia who work the oil fields.
Mr. Farrar, Shortly before he died Bertrand Russell was asked: what does the world need most? His answer: tolerance. He did not suggest solutions, he simply said: tolerance. A response to difficulties, perhaps?
That “distinction” between a “problem” and a “difficulty” is so much empty sophistry, typical of the source.
Then, defining various solutions with half-truths follows. That crap about “affirmative action hires,” used to disparage POC, is part of the crap. Affirmative action did not dictate hiring second-rate people. The point was to make sure that POC of EQUAL or BETTER capability were not overlooked by racist hiring policies that sidelined them because they are POC. And people with high SATs DID get into schools. POC with high SATs did, too. People with lesser SATs, well, maybe they had to be satisfied with their second choice school.
Yeah, I know a lot of kids whose education was deficient needed some remedial classes to help them cope with college, but they were not displacing high SAT kids. They were getting into schools, though, and expected to either do the work, or they couldn't stay.
There’s a TON of lying crap about how it all worked or didn’t work because it was undercut by people who wanted it to fail.
But the idea was to hire QUALIFIED and DESERVING POC, not hand out gifts of jobs to people who couldn’t do them, and call it “an affirmative action” hire.
That fu*king term came into use to disparage people who DID get their jobs based on TRYING to get better balance in our culture, making it sound like they were second rate. That was NOT the point ….that was NOT the aim … The aim was to give qualified people of all races and groups a fair shot …
Damn, we just don’t WANT to solve problems, do we, some of us? We’d rather call them “difficulties” and keep foisting them on people, like we have no choice.
Ms. OBrien, I think perhaps many people think the "affirmative action" program is the same thing as a "quota" program.
It is not a "quota" program. A "quota" requires the institution to respond in a certain, predetermined way according to some law and allow a sufficient number of applicants into the institution so that a predetermined ratio of the minority group is admitted.
"Affirmative action" simply requires that the institution make an affirmative attempt that allows members of a minority group to apply. This does not mean the institution is required to accept these people. No ratio of minority people is required to be admitted.
The 1978 Bakke case in California was kicked around in the press like a football with no attempt made to clarify the issues. The public was misled badly. Unfortunately the right wing haters were able to define the "affirmative action" program, in the minds of the public, as though it were a "quota" program. It is not.
As for problems vs. difficulties; I think there is a difference. Whether we like it or not, in this age of Logical Positivism, some difficulties simply have no solution in any final, realistic, Positivistic sense. The European Age of Enlightenment has left us in the West with the belief that all problems have solutions and human beings are able to find those solutions through rational, scientific methods. This just is not so. It is wishful thinking. It is why even some scientists will say they are Christians and believe in the Christian god. These scientists simply cannot accept that there is no such thing as a beginning to the existence of the universe. Neither can they accept that there is no end to it. There is no such thing as a "Big Bang." But they believe there is. To them, there must be an answer to the questions: When and how did the universe begin? Everywhere they look they see that things they are capable of perceiving, all things they are aware of, have beginnings and endings. Therefore they expect the universe to be the same. They are Logical Positivists. They cannot accept that there is no such thing as time. Time is a reification of language. Created by language. But they cannot accept this.
We may not like it. But there are problems we cannot understand or solve. These phenomena may be called: difficulties. But they are not in any meaningful sense: problems. Questions exist which we cannot answer in any meaningful way. Unless we want to rely on mysticism. Which too many of us do.
I think this is why Bertrand Russell said the world needs tolerance. Someone should convince the insane religious fanatics in the near East, especially orthodox Jews who are waiting for the Messiah and Evangelical Christians who are waiting for the second coming. These people believe there is an inevitable ending and the world is approaching it. Muslims do not believe this. I should add; none of my Jewish relatives or friends are orthodox. None of my Christian relatives or friends are evangelical. I have Muslim friends. But, to my knowledge, I have no Muslim relatives. I am an atheist. The most powerful, memorable character in ROMEO AND JULIET was Mercutio who said: "A plague o' both your houses."
Correct Pat, then we have to be able to distinguish between a problem and a difficulty.
Problems have solutions. Identify the problem, then enact the solution.
Difficulties, on the other hand, have no solutions. In fact when you try to solve a difficulty you only exacerbate it and create another problem, the best you can do with a difficulty is to mitigate it's harmful effects.
For instance sanctions are a means of mitigating a difficulty. If, say Iran, is a problem then the only solution is a war, and all that brings. Not ideal.
Inequality has been treated as a problem, to solve the problem, affirmative action and quotas were used, however they created more problems, as their was a rebellion by people who would not otherwise have sided with the right wing.
Kids with high SATS were not admitted to college because they weren't a protected class, so they became conservative, now Trump humpers.
People found themselves passed over for jobs and promotions because they weren't a protected class, and they turned rightward in disgust.
Then you have affirmative action hires, like Clarence Thomas, and tell me how that has worked out.
Racism, inequality are difficulties, not problems. Because there is no solution for racism and inequality, not one that is palatable and humane.
That doesn't mean that you don't address the issue, but a discussion, a serious discussion is needed as to how to mitigate the difficulty.
For instance where ever differences occur there will always be tension and discrimination.
The Rwanda genocide is an example. The Hutu's consider the Tutsi's to be another race, that can be distinguished by stature and physiognomy..
There is still tension in Rwanda, that could erupt again.
The Japanese consider the Chinese and Koreans to be another race.
The Chinese consider the Uyghers to be another race, and peoples.
Same in Myanmar, with the Rohinyas, compounded with the fact that they are also Muslim in a Buddhist land.
And if one thinks that all is peaceful in a racially homogeneous land, then think of Shia Yemeni's (Houthi's) and even the 2nd class citizens of Saudi Arabia, the Shia who work the oil fields.
Mr. Farrar, Shortly before he died Bertrand Russell was asked: what does the world need most? His answer: tolerance. He did not suggest solutions, he simply said: tolerance. A response to difficulties, perhaps?
That “distinction” between a “problem” and a “difficulty” is so much empty sophistry, typical of the source.
Then, defining various solutions with half-truths follows. That crap about “affirmative action hires,” used to disparage POC, is part of the crap. Affirmative action did not dictate hiring second-rate people. The point was to make sure that POC of EQUAL or BETTER capability were not overlooked by racist hiring policies that sidelined them because they are POC. And people with high SATs DID get into schools. POC with high SATs did, too. People with lesser SATs, well, maybe they had to be satisfied with their second choice school.
Yeah, I know a lot of kids whose education was deficient needed some remedial classes to help them cope with college, but they were not displacing high SAT kids. They were getting into schools, though, and expected to either do the work, or they couldn't stay.
There’s a TON of lying crap about how it all worked or didn’t work because it was undercut by people who wanted it to fail.
But the idea was to hire QUALIFIED and DESERVING POC, not hand out gifts of jobs to people who couldn’t do them, and call it “an affirmative action” hire.
That fu*king term came into use to disparage people who DID get their jobs based on TRYING to get better balance in our culture, making it sound like they were second rate. That was NOT the point ….that was NOT the aim … The aim was to give qualified people of all races and groups a fair shot …
Damn, we just don’t WANT to solve problems, do we, some of us? We’d rather call them “difficulties” and keep foisting them on people, like we have no choice.
Bleah.
Ms. OBrien, I think perhaps many people think the "affirmative action" program is the same thing as a "quota" program.
It is not a "quota" program. A "quota" requires the institution to respond in a certain, predetermined way according to some law and allow a sufficient number of applicants into the institution so that a predetermined ratio of the minority group is admitted.
"Affirmative action" simply requires that the institution make an affirmative attempt that allows members of a minority group to apply. This does not mean the institution is required to accept these people. No ratio of minority people is required to be admitted.
The 1978 Bakke case in California was kicked around in the press like a football with no attempt made to clarify the issues. The public was misled badly. Unfortunately the right wing haters were able to define the "affirmative action" program, in the minds of the public, as though it were a "quota" program. It is not.
As for problems vs. difficulties; I think there is a difference. Whether we like it or not, in this age of Logical Positivism, some difficulties simply have no solution in any final, realistic, Positivistic sense. The European Age of Enlightenment has left us in the West with the belief that all problems have solutions and human beings are able to find those solutions through rational, scientific methods. This just is not so. It is wishful thinking. It is why even some scientists will say they are Christians and believe in the Christian god. These scientists simply cannot accept that there is no such thing as a beginning to the existence of the universe. Neither can they accept that there is no end to it. There is no such thing as a "Big Bang." But they believe there is. To them, there must be an answer to the questions: When and how did the universe begin? Everywhere they look they see that things they are capable of perceiving, all things they are aware of, have beginnings and endings. Therefore they expect the universe to be the same. They are Logical Positivists. They cannot accept that there is no such thing as time. Time is a reification of language. Created by language. But they cannot accept this.
We may not like it. But there are problems we cannot understand or solve. These phenomena may be called: difficulties. But they are not in any meaningful sense: problems. Questions exist which we cannot answer in any meaningful way. Unless we want to rely on mysticism. Which too many of us do.
I think this is why Bertrand Russell said the world needs tolerance. Someone should convince the insane religious fanatics in the near East, especially orthodox Jews who are waiting for the Messiah and Evangelical Christians who are waiting for the second coming. These people believe there is an inevitable ending and the world is approaching it. Muslims do not believe this. I should add; none of my Jewish relatives or friends are orthodox. None of my Christian relatives or friends are evangelical. I have Muslim friends. But, to my knowledge, I have no Muslim relatives. I am an atheist. The most powerful, memorable character in ROMEO AND JULIET was Mercutio who said: "A plague o' both your houses."
That's it, Tolerance. A loft goal. Where have I heard that before. Oh yeh, Matthew 25.