Page 1 of 1

[DRAFT] Affirmation Bias

PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:27 am
by Jutsa
My first draft in a while - and, yes, I'm aware I have a dozen other drafts on the forum. Been without a computer for a while and also without much time. :P

This might very well be my last new draft for a little while, but I'd like to at least finish up the ones I've got up here. Though, last time I thought this, I went on a writing spree, so we'll see what happens. :lol:

I'm also aware this will need a lot of work (my rust is showing); I'd just like some feedback on the general premise and layout first. :)
Also Big Max is meant to be Bigtopia / Maxtopia in case you're wondering.

Title: Affirmation Bias
The Issue: Big Max Inc, a prominent minority-run business applauded for its diversity and help in giving well-paying jobs to the disadvantaged, has had a big hit in its reputation after several well-to-do were denied jobs on the grounds of being too @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@.
Validity: Capitalist; High Inclusivity

Validity: No Affirmative Action
Option 1a: "This is blatant discrimination against the majority!" cries laid off bank teller @@RANDOMNAME@@, having been denied a managers' position at Big Max. "And they call ME a bigot! If I - I mean, businesses - can't discriminate against minorities, then those commies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against us."

Validity: Affirmative Action
Option 1b: "This is blatant discrimination against the majority!" cries laid off bank teller @@RANDOMNAME@@, having been denied a managers' position at Big Max. "And they call ME a bigot! If I - I mean, businesses - have to put up with a minority quota, then maybe it's time we have a complementary majority quota."

Option 2: "It is our duty as a minority-oriented business to cater to our fellow minorities," drones @@RANDOMNAME@@, the big cheese of Big Max. "Even with all of the protective laws we have, we're still faced with more subtle workplace bias from the majority. If anything, you should let us openly advertise our selection process, and perhaps allow us to chose what customers we have as well."

Validity: No Affirmative Action
Option 3a: "There's a compromise to be made, here," says your Minister of Meeting in the Middle, who you're almost certain is your Minister of Compromises in a different suit. "What if we instituted a quota that all workforces have to meet? That way minorities are represented in all companies, and Big Max has to open up to majorities. Sounds like the affirmative answer if you ask me."

Validity: Affirmative Action
Option 3b: "There's a compromise to be made, here," says your Minister of Meeting in the Middle, who you're almost certain is your Minister of Compromises in a different suit. "What if we discarded the practice of affirmative action? That way Big Max can continue to support minorities, while other companies can support the rest of @@NAME@@. A freer market with no discriminative quotas - sure sounds like the right answer if you ask me."


Title: Affirmation Bias
The Issue: Big Max Inc, a prominent minority-run business applauded for its diversity and help in giving well-paying jobs to the disadvantaged, has had a big hit in its reputation after several well-to-do were denied jobs on the grounds of being too @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@.
Validity: Capitalist; High Inclusivity

Validity: No Affirmative Action
Option 1a: "This is blatant discrimination against the majority!" cries laid off bank teller @@RANDOMNAME@@, having been denied a managers' position at Big Max. "And they call ME a bigot! If I - I mean, businesses - can't discriminate against minorities, then those commies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against us."

Validity: Affirmative Action
Option 1b: "This is blatant discrimination against the majority!" cries laid off bank teller @@RANDOMNAME@@, having been denied a managers' position at Big Max. "And they call ME a bigot! If I - I mean, businesses - have to put up with a minority quota, then maybe it's time we have a complementary majority quota."

Option 2: "It is our duty as a minority-oriented business to cater to our fellow minorities," drones @@RANDOMNAME@@, the big cheese of Big Max. "Even with all of the protective laws we have, we're still faced with more subtle workplace bias from the majority. If anything, you should let us openly advertise our selection process, and perhaps allow us to chose what customers we have as well."

Validity: No Affirmative Action
Option 3a: "There's a compromise to be made, here," says your Minister of Meeting in the Middle, who you're almost certain is your Minister of Compromises in a different suit. "What if we instituted a quota for a minority workforce that all businesses have to meet? That way minorities are represented, and Big Max can open up to majorities. Sounds like the affirmative answer if you ask me."

Validity: Affirmative Action
Option 3b: "There's a compromise to be made, here," says your Minister of Meeting in the Middle, who you're almost certain is your Minister of Compromises in a different suit. "What if we discarded the practice of affirmative action? That way Big Max can continue to support minorities, while other companies can support the rest of @@NAME@@. A freer market with no discriminative quotas - sure sounds like the right answer if you ask me."

PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:56 am
by Trotterdam
You're probably aware of this, but you're missing effect lines.

Jutsa wrote:laid off bank teller @@RANDOMNAME@@, having been denied a managers' position at Big Max
This should be "laid-off" and "manager's".

Jutsa wrote:your Minister of Meeting in the Middle, who you're almost certain is your Minister of Compromises in a different suit
There's no joke here. Those are literally just different words for the same thing. You're not doing anything clever by pointing out the relationship between them.

Jutsa wrote:"What if we instituted a quota for a minority workforce that all businesses have to meet? That way minorities are represented, and Big Max can open up to majorities. Sounds like the affirmative answer if you ask me."
This features no way to guarantee that, if you do this, Big Max will actually behave as expected. Indeed, the structure of the rest of the issue (and the fact it can still be assigned to nations with affirmative action) suggests that they won't.

By contrast, the other version of this option does sound like it would "work", not necessarily in the sense of being a good idea, but in the sense of probably having the outcome the suggester claims it will.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2020 4:45 pm
by Dominioan
You have got to be kidding me, I just made a draft about affirmative action! Ah well :p

PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2020 5:24 pm
by Trotterdam
Dominioan wrote:You have got to be kidding me, I just made a draft about affirmative action! Ah well
I think even if they're both about affirmative action, the subjects of the drafts are sufficiently different for overlap to not be a concern.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:43 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive
A better compromise in option 3 would be to require affirmative action laws to also stipulate that the majority ethnicity is represented by the same minimum percentage.

An effect line about "token majorities" then becomes possible. :)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:28 pm
by Australian rePublic
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:A better compromise in option 3 would be to require affirmative action laws to also stipulate that the majority ethnicity is represented by the same minimum percentage.

An effect line about "token majorities" then becomes possible. :)

And then when small businesses who hire family members, or even don't have enough employees to meet quotas to begin with can get into strife (for example, what happens to a small business with 10 employees with 7 black employees and 3 white employees when rations require 60% POC vs 40% white people) and could even lead to discussions about who qualifies as "white" (do Jews, Greeks, Italians, Arabs and Hispanics count as white?). This could lead down a very interesting rabbit hole. Very interesting indeed

PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:56 am
by Jutsa
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:A better compromise in option 3 would be to require affirmative action laws to also stipulate that the majority ethnicity is represented by the same minimum percentage.

An effect line about "token majorities" then becomes possible. :)


Wellh, that's sort-of what option 1B does - but, then again, that's meant for nations with affirmative action already in place. Option 3B, again, is supposed to contrast this with the angle of "freeing up the market" and "letting them do their thing, but also let everyone else do their own" (as opposed to 1B, which is the polar opposite).

Option 3A, on the other hand. Now that could involve dual affirmative action - it'd be an interesting way of getting that without already having affirmative action, to be sure... and, in fact, I think I'll go ahead and change that. (changed that by the time I posted this ftr)

Course, I have 0 idea as to how to go about effect lines for this, so, any help I could get would be appreciated. :)

Australian rePublic wrote:And then when small businesses who hire family members, or even don't have enough employees to meet quotas to begin with can get into strife (for example, what happens to a small business with 10 employees with 7 black employees and 3 white employees when rations require 60% POC vs 40% white people) and could even lead to discussions about who qualifies as "white" (do Jews, Greeks, Italians, Arabs and Hispanics count as white?). This could lead down a very interesting rabbit hole. Very interesting indeed


This would be very interesting, to be sure! I'm not really sure how I'd go about it in the NS world, though, and it definitely wouldn't fit in this draft.

That said, this could hypothetically bring up an entirely different issue regarding affirmative action. :)

PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:23 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive
You should write that issue Aussie. There's a lot of RL weirdness going on with how different nations define different ethnicities, like the USA calling a dark-skinned Arab "White", while calling a light-skinned Spaniard "Hispanic".

In the context of a nation with an affirmative action policy, these oddities of definition suddenly become very important.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:43 pm
by Trotterdam
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:You should write that issue Aussie. There's a lot of RL weirdness going on with how different nations define different ethnicities, like the USA calling a dark-skinned Arab "White", while calling a light-skinned Spaniard "Hispanic".
Wait, seriously? They distinguish multiple European ethnicities but then just lump Arabs in with the dominant European ethnicity?

I guess Hispanics are a more prominent issue due to the US bordering Mexico, but still.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:48 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive
Trotterdam wrote:
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:You should write that issue Aussie. There's a lot of RL weirdness going on with how different nations define different ethnicities, like the USA calling a dark-skinned Arab "White", while calling a light-skinned Spaniard "Hispanic".
Wait, seriously? They distinguish multiple European ethnicities but then just lump Arabs in with the dominant European ethnicity?

I guess Hispanics are a more prominent issue due to the US bordering Mexico, but still.


It's all political and historical, sadly.

Sadly, because that history is a mish-mash of racist attitudes and corruption. Interesting stuff though. Short version for Arabs is that at the time of mass Arab migration to the USA (circa 1909), that nation had a shedload of inbuilt racism that gave actual tangible advantage to being white, and the Arabs didn't want to be "second class", so lobbied hard and won court cases to be counted amongst the upper stratum of race.

It's more complex than that of course, but that's the tldr version.

A good read:
https://gen.medium.com/my-name-is-ahmed ... 46e9372c88

PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:38 pm
by Trotterdam
That article doesn't mention Hispanics. It says "White" is defined as "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East", which should include Spain and Portugal.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:12 am
by Jutsa
I'm genuinely surprised middle easterns are considered white, to be honest. And, yes, most people from Latin America would be considered Hispanic White, which is, even in our US census, considered different. It's even more complicated because sometimes they're lumped in separately from Non-Hispanic white, but other times, if you choose "white", you then have a followup choice of whether you're Hispanic or not.

What's even more confusing is Hispanic - in its name - somewhat implies Portuguese or Spanish, but, I admit, I genuinely have no idea if it actually does. It's all blurry and mainly geopolitical. Which, y'know, again, would make for a great nationstates issue (please consider making an issue on this aussie <3).