My state (Michigan) has wisely followed in the foosteps of California and banned racist/sexist affirmative action programs in Michigan, that would have discriminated against people based on nothing but their gender or the color of their skin, all in the name of promoting equality.
It passed by a pretty wide margin 58% - 42% of the vote.. or, another way of looking at it:
2,137,574 --- YES on stopping AA
1,552,459 --- NO on stopping AA
Hopefully this'll spread like wildfire throughout the rest of the states.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-10 0:38
It won't be long before African Americans are back in the fields where they belong.
Name:
Xel2006-11-10 1:14
I'm more impressed of Arizona and South Dakota. Much more. I also believe that I need to watch Michigan in order to see how this goes... I believe AA is kinda wrong, but I want to see what the result of a cold turkey ban will be.
Seriously. If we slippery slope our asses back to Jim Crow-era hiring practices; maybe some of you 'on the fencers' will get the message that discrimination is real. And before any of you white nationalists say anything about "No one has a right to job." let me assure you that the forefathers saw employment as a path to voting and civic duty in America, therefore they considered his pursuit to be one that exemplifies the ideals of American society (and economy).
If the Affirmative Action ban backfires; prepare for your neightboorhoods to get infested by poor angry "firriners" and "bleks".
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-10 4:42
Affirmative BLACKtion
Name:
Xel2006-11-10 9:20
>>4 Well, I believe that implementing capitalism without regard of the situation could create anti-capitalist backlashes that do more harm than good. When Europe shifted from feudal manorialism to industrialism, people suffered immensely, paving the way for the violent and mostly fruitless 1848 revolutions.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-10 13:01
I agree with affirmative action in principle. I would prefer increased law enforcement and children's education for ALL poor people, not just blacks. But the liberals fucked it up as usual. And of course anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, even though they're the ones clearly being racist.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-10 13:26
Affrimative action was put in place to prevent racial discrimation at colleges. Why does the Far Right continue to attack it. Are they trying to tell us that they hate Equality?
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-10 13:32
Lets hope not.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-10 13:33
Right Winger Exteamsit want a campus that rejcts affirmative action then they should join all the wingnuts at Bob Jones University.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-10 14:03
>>8
Affirmative action doesn't prevent racial discrimination. Much like The Nuremburg laws didn't do much to help the German people. It's a lie you see. People lie.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-10 18:26
>>4
What is still hilarious is that American companies just go overseas to hire cheap labor, or just pick up the illegal immigrants, so all those white nationalists can bark all they want, they're going to lose some of their jobs to those "firriners".
On the subject of the founding fathers, one of the most influential men on their thoughts, Adam Smith, did not believe in the "Hidden Hand of the Market" gospel, as saw government regulation as absolutely necessary. Back in his day, a "factory" was 10 people, which would create a closer personal bond between the employer and employees, rather than the faceless higher ups today that void pensions and lay off thousands of dutiful workers.
As long as I see more "PURE CAPITALISM OMG" in America when it is by far the most Capitalist nation in the world, I keep getting the idea that perhaps there is a correlation between America's fall into decadence and poverty as a consequence of loose corporate regulation.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-12 0:00
>>12
Wrong, Hong Kong is actually more economically free than the USA. You fail for lack of knowing what the fuck you are talking about.
The Government doesn't have a right to tell the private sector who it can hire and who it can fire and for what reason. That's not a White Nationalist argument, that's a Libertarian one.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-13 10:37
DO you having any proof. inpaticular proof from a neutral website?
Yes it does. Libertarian arguments should be ways to make people more free. Corporations aren't people and the notion of Corporate personhood is a cruel and shitty joke.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-15 14:13
>>16
And how exactly are you increasing a person's freedom by forcing them to hire someone under threat of violence or intimidation if they don't? That sounds rather like you would be limmitting said person's freedoms, not expanding them.
>>17
The right to work falls into the category of inalienable rights. If there is racial or gender discrimination in the hiring practices of a corporation or industry, they ARE infringing on the rights of fellow citizens.
You may not agree with the way the government protects the right to work (i.e. affirmative action), but hiring discrimination IS stepping on the rights of those it discriminates against.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-15 16:35
Civil rights = libertarian
affirmative action = branding an entire group of people criminals because a small group of that group branded another entire group of people to be criminals.
I say fuck the whole thng and increase civil rights law enforcement.
Disparities of the many outweigh the disparities of the few. Why exactly to do you think it's perfectly acceptable for any company not to hire to someone based on the color of their skin? Outside of the supposed "Anti-Libertarian" implications of AA, I'm having a hard time understanding what's Ethically right about denying someone a job based on skin color or anything other than merit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-15 19:12
yes everything not forbidden is mandatory.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-16 1:36
>>21
I'm not >>17 and I disagree with 17, but I disagree with you too.
Civil rights = not letting people deny others jobs based on the colour of their skin
Affirmative action = declaring someone is a criminal without trial and that they must compensate others
Trying to pass off affirmative action as meritocratic or pass off civil rights as affirmative action is fallacious. The only positive discrimination that I accept is the gift of increased law enforcement in crime ridden areas. Increased stop searches, gated homeless shelters, harsher penalties for criminals in certain areas etc.. As much as I would love such crime reducing measures to be implemented in my middle class community, I understand that police resources must be diverted to areas where crime is more likely. It should also be done on a non-racial basis. Eliminate crime and the only way people can make money is by working harder.
Problem solved.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-16 22:02
>>21
There is nothing ethically right about it. But affirmative action does exactly that - discriminates against people based on race, sex, etc.
The market gives economic incentives to businesses to hire based on merit. A business with a better, harder working, and more capable workforce than another business, is going to have that much of an advantage. Thus, to the extent that a business discriminates, is to the extent that the market will punish said business.
The solution to discrimination is to let the market weed out discriminators, not to support racist/sexist affirmative action programs.
I like this idea that the market will punish discriminators. Long term, I think if we just left the market to its devices, discrimination would diminish significantly.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-16 23:52
>>25
Left to its own devices, the market can do some pretty horrible things to society in a very short span of time. Maybe the carrot (subsidies for hiring minorities or something) would have been better than the stick (Affirmative Action), but government intervention in the economic sphere of some sort is often necessary to benefit society as a whole.
Anyone that thinks the market is going to automatically address and rectify social, cultural and economic disparities when it comes to matters of race hasn't been paying attention to the last 50 years. (Do you even know what Jim Crow was?)
Trying to pass off AA as meritocratic is a fallacy; but sitting back and allowing people like >>3 to entreat certain citizens with "merit" because of their skin pigment is not meritocratic.
I support the limited use of AA because the otherside would rather that whites get hired over other races and I say this, because the otherside hasn't offered any concrete solution to race disparity problems such as these.
Furthermore, there's a really gutless and cowardly assumption that AA gives people jobs who don't deserve it. In the long run AA will help American society become more meritocratic. One day we definately won't need it. But according to recent studies that state that the race disparity has actually grown- now is not that time.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-17 0:27
>>27
The market WILL handle discrimination, given time. Evolution, not revolution. Market forces offer economic encouragement to hire based solely on merit.
>>19
"The right to work falls into the category of inalienable rights."
You have every right to work all you want. However, once you decide you are going to work for someone else, in exchange for money, you are engaging in a business transaction - your labor, in exchange for money. Business transactions should remain voluntary. Both parties should be able to back out of the transaction for any reason they please.
"If there is racial or gender discrimination in the hiring practices of a corporation or industry, they ARE infringing on the rights of fellow citizens."
They don't have the 'right' to be employed by one of their fellow citizens without the consent of said citizen.
"You may not agree with the way the government protects the right to work (i.e. affirmative action), but hiring discrimination IS stepping on the rights of those it discriminates against."
No it isn't. People do not have the right to demand money out of the pockets of fellow citizens without said citizens' consent.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-17 2:53
>>25
Sorry but >>26 and Adam Smith are right. Law must be enforced in order for the free market to work. Liberty and justice are practically the same thing when done properly, which means if you skip out on the injustice of discrimination you reduce everyone's liberty. Don't forget it's not just about black people, a white male could be denied a job because the interviewer doesn't like the religion he follows, shareholders expect the companies they put their money into not to make stupid employment decisions, at the very least companies should declare that they have a racist employment policy.
>>27
I don't support the limited use of AA. I support increaed civil rights law enforcement as a more effective alternative. I am a libertarian and believe discrimination is a crime. It is not within the constraints of a person's liberty and by all means a large company which employs 100% whites should be investigated due to the statistical anomaly. However they can only be declared guilty after their guilt has been proven in a court of law.
Injustice breeds injustice within and without, this is the rule 34 of political science. No exceptions. A liberal could ignore racists who use the government's support of limited affirmative action as propoganda and a libertarian could ignore racists who continue to discirminate even though it costs them money, but it won't do a damn thing. Holistically the strict enforcement of rational justice is always more beneficial than cutting corners here and there.
>>29
I'm not >>19, but I agree on it's points. Once again my argument is simply about the enforcement of justice. A company should not be forced to employ someone to fill a quota, but when employing someone they must not lie to the person about the conditions they are working in and why they are needed. Just as companies must declare their dangerous working environments and ensure that their employees are protected, they must at least prove to prospective employees why they have or have not been employed.
Oh and while affirmative action may include forcing companies to pay workers from a particular group whose services they do not need, civil rights has nothing to do with this.
So you're saying that descrimination is perfectly acceptable in a Democratic Free Nation? In a strive to appear more libertarian/conservative, you're dangerously approaching the same twisted nationalistic socialism that so many despots have used as a crutch to disarm citizens, strip them of their rights and yeah: To exploit and commit genocides against them.
Needless to say; you're pretty much a racist. The debate ends at "Employment is the pursuit of freedom, liberty and happiness." Sorry, junior...this is America and in theory hiring should be based purely on objective merit.
It irks me that people like you still approach AA as 'giving someone something they don't deserve'. Where have you seen any indicator for this? Was there an instance where a black man was hired over white man who had more merit? Do you believe he has more merit because he is white? And with thousands of priveleged sons and daughters (most likely white) who certainly have jobs they aren't qualified for or even need- why precisely does it bother you if an unqualified black person get a 'white job' when allowing more blacks into 'positions such as these' addresses the racial disparity?
You entire lot sound like you're defending white privledge.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-17 6:25
>>31 >>30 here, I think you are a troll. You cannot seriously have overlooked the fact that race is an irrelevant demographic.
1: Whites who are not racist would be penalised for being racist.
2: Not all blacks and whites have had exactly the same priviledges.
2a: If a black has been underpriviledged due to racism then any non-racial affirmative action program could easily compensate him/her on the basis of discrimination. You don't need institutional racism to stop discrimination.
You can have a few welfare programs if you want, I understand, but if you want to drag race into the equation you can fuck off.
1. Explain, in great detail, what about America's current culture (and socio-economic structure) has led you to believe that "race is an irrelevant demographic"? What precisely makes this a "fact"?
2. Explain why hiring a meritable black person over an equally meritable white person would be considered a "penality"? Is hiring a meritable black over an equally meritable white a form of punishment for the company? If so: Why?
3. You said: "If a black has been underpriviledged due to racism then any non-racial affirmative action program could easily compensate him/her on the basis of discrimination. You don't need institutional racism to stop discrimination."
Did you type this with one hand? Was the other once crossed? Which other affirmative action programs could assure that they aren't discriminated against pre-hire? We're not talking about a job at Wal-Mart here. We're talking about the kind of jobs that bring prosperty and push a person further up the social and finanical bracket.
As for me being a troll, I think you should re-read >>31 and... you know... actually respond to the questions posed. I'm not making any bold inflammatory statements here. I'm asking very simple questions that no one, thus far, has been able to answer.
"2. Explain why hiring a meritable black person over an equally meritable white person would be considered a "penality"? Is hiring a meritable black over an equally meritable white a form of punishment for the company? If so: Why?"
If it is a private company, it should be able to hire whomever it wants, for whatever reason it wants, period. Whether you consider an infringement of this freedom a 'penalty' or not is really beside the point. It all boils down to a business transaction - and in order for it to be a just transaction, both parties must agree... INCLUDING the businessman. Whether he is discriminating or not is really beside the point, as its his property, not yours. I have every right to sit out on a street corner and pass out lemonade to the general public, and to stop distributing it for whatever reason I want - even if I just don't like the next person who wants some. It is my lemonade, after all.
"Needless to say; you're pretty much a racist. The debate ends at "Employment is the pursuit of freedom, liberty and happiness." Sorry, junior...this is America and in theory hiring should be based purely on objective merit."
It doesn't matter what 'should be', what matters is whose individual rights are in question. If it was a government enterprise, then it should of course be forced to be blind and hire solely on merit.
PRIVATE businesses, on the other hand, should be free to do as they please, because they are just that - private. It is quite simply none of your business what they do with their property.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-17 12:18
>>33
1: Race is just a set of genes who's differences are only seen in our top athletes or some aspects of medicine.
2:
Is hiring a meritable black over an equally meritable white a form of punishment for the company?
No.
Did you type this with one hand?
Yes.
Was the other once crossed?
Yes.
Which other affirmative action programs could assure that they aren't discriminated against pre-hire?
More extensive civil rights enforcement involving a government register of people and their skills and companies declaring what type of skills they are looking for so their choices can be reviewed.
Where have you seen any indicator for this?
Quotas.
Was there an instance where a black man was hired over white man who had more merit?
If the quota is set at 5% this means a company which has 96 whites and 4 blacks working for them. They must replace one white worker with a black worker even if the white worker has more merit.
Do you believe he has more merit because he is white?
If a worker has more merit, then it means he has more merit than the other worker.
why precisely does it bother you if an unqualified black person get a 'white job' when allowing more blacks into 'positions such as these' addresses the racial disparity?
It does not bother me if a black person gets a job typically filled by whites.
It bothers me when an unqualified person gets a job due to the irrelevant classification of race and not their actual ability to do the job.
It bothers me when employers discriminate against people based on race instead of their actual ability to do the job.
It bothers me when the government forces employers to discriminate against people based on race instead of their actual ability to do the job.
So you advocate discrimination. I don't understand why you just don't SAY that instead of sugar-coating us with this "private property, individual rights" BS. It's been repeated several times that private corporations don't get the right to what they please at the expense of society. You have zero proof that "the market will take care of discrimination on it's own" - so I'm just trying to see exactly what you're basing your opinion on. Right now- it doesn't seem to be based on anything factual.
"Race is just a set of genes who's differences are only seen in our top athletes or some aspects of medicine."
Huh? "Some aspects of medicine"? Are you saying blacks are naturally less intelligent when it comes to medicine?
"More extensive civil rights enforcement involving a government register of people and their skills and companies declaring what type of skills they are looking for so their choices can be reviewed."
So basically: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
"Quotas."
Did you not understand the question? "Quotas" isn't an adequate answer when I'm asking for empirical statistics and forms of tangiable proof. If you don't have it, you don't have it. Don't waste my time, otherwise.
"If the quota is set at 5% this means a company which has 96 whites and 4 blacks working for them. They must replace one white worker with a black worker even if the white worker has more merit."
Which again brings up the question as to why you assume that if a black worker was a replaced with a white worker- that the black worker had less merit. Where have you seen proof of this happening? Or are your statements pure hypothetical bunk bullshit?
It bothers me when an unqualified person gets a job due to the irrelevant classification of race and not their actual ability to do the job. --- It bothers me when employers discriminate against people based on race instead of their actual ability to do the job. --- It bothers me when the government forces employers to discriminate against people based on race instead of their actual ability to do the job.
Ok, so....where's the beef? AA addresses all these concerns and effects the racial disparity in this country. Are you sure you fully understand what AA is?
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-17 16:34
>>41
By medicine I meant the science of medicine. There is a higher prevalence of lactose intolerance amongst chinese when compared to indians for example. Stop trolling.
"So basically: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION."
No.
Affirmative action is where you declare people to be racist without conclusive evidence and force employers to discriminate against some group.
Civil rights are a set of anti-discrimination laws to be enforced through proper regulation and judicial procedure.
That about covers it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-17 16:43
Quotas are unlawful, because they are discriminatory, and the Race Relations Act does not - except in very limited circumstances - permit discrimination against anyone on racial grounds at the point of selection.
>>41
"So you advocate discrimination. I don't understand why you just don't SAY that instead of sugar-coating us with this "private property, individual rights" BS."
Because I am no more an advocate of discrimination for advocating property rights than an advocate of drug legalization is an advocate of drug useage for advocating drug legalization.
"It's been repeated several times that private corporations don't get the right to what they please at the expense of society."
It isn't at the 'expense' of society. If the corporation doesn't hire the best pick of workers regardless of race, that affects THEM. It is at THEIR expense that they discriminate in the marketplace, not the expense of society. This is the market's anti-discrimination function. If black workers are that much more meritous than white workers who got hired in a discriminatory fashion, then the company gets punished by the market exactly as much as they discriminated.
"You have zero proof that "the market will take care of discrimination on it's own" -"
The market's anti-discriminatory mechanism is described above, and is logical. Furthermore, whether or not the market can take care of discrimination on its own or not is redundant, since it isn't your property, and is thus not your say.
Affirmative action, as is clearly shown there according to wikipedia, is giving preferential treatment based on nothing but RACE on college admissions, government jobs, etc etc. It is absolutely based on race, NOT on merit. You fail.
Affirmative action = government sponsored racism.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-18 3:59
Affirmative action used to be called "the quota system" and was intended to bar Jews and other folks stuffy WASP morons didn't want "fucking up" their schools.
With that kind of circular (and fallacious) thinking, I can see why you'd think that.
"Stop Trolling"
Character attacks are an automatic fail.
"Affirmative action is where you declare people to be racist without conclusive evidence and force employers to discriminate against some group."
So... Affirmative action is wrong because the group that is discriminated against [u]in this instance[/u] is white? Of course Affirmative Action implies racism. Affirmative Action, as it applies to socio-economic racial disparities, is anti-racist anti-discriminatory policy.
White priveledge is a fact of life in America. One policy, a policy designed to give blacks an adavantage in a country where whites are the majority (and thus recieve the most advantages), only levels the playing field. The Japanese and Vietnamese were given advantages in the form of grants. No one said anything then because we bombed the shit out of their countries. Why all the fuss now? You would think 400 years of intense enslavement would be worse...but whatever you guys say...
"Civil rights are a set of anti-discrimination laws to be enforced through proper regulation and judicial procedure."
Affirmative action, in this instance, is an anti-discrimination policy.
"Affirmative action, as is clearly shown there according to wikipedia, is giving preferential treatment based on nothing but RACE on college admissions, government jobs, etc etc. It is absolutely based on race, NOT on merit. You fail."
Again, why do you assume that because it's based on race, that the person hired isn't meritable? Or equally meritable to a white person?
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-18 12:16
those dumb ass neegroos didn't have to be slaves. They actually enjoyed having someone else do their thinking for them. You can see what fuckups they are at self-governing.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-18 13:24
>>47
""Race is just a set of genes who's differences are only seen in our top athletes or some aspects of medicine."
Huh? "Some aspects of medicine"? Are you saying blacks are naturally less intelligent when it comes to medicine?"
How could I have meant blacks aren't good at medicine? Either you suffer from serious paranoia or you are a troll.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-18 13:31
>>47
"With that kind of circular (and fallacious) thinking, I can see why you'd think that."
Oh and it would be nice if you could prove me wrong before making unbacked statements. Take a long hard look at the proof that you are a troll for an example on how to attempt to do this.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-18 15:45
>>47
"Again, why do you assume that because it's based on race, that the person hired isn't meritable? Or equally meritable to a white person? "
In a situation in which both candidates for a position are equally meritable, there is no reason to push for one candidate over the other based on race, since both candidates are, as said, equally acceptable based on merit for the work. To make race a factor in the decision at all would be to racially discriminate. This is wrong.
Racial blindness is the way to go.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-18 16:06
>>47
"The Japanese and Vietnamese were given advantages in the form of grants. No one said anything then because we bombed the shit out of their countries. Why all the fuss now? You would think 400 years of intense enslavement would be worse...but whatever you guys say..."
Giving reparations and affirmative action to the ancestors of the slaves doesn't change what happened to their ancestors. You can't change what has already happened and passed on into history. Slavery was in the past. Modern black people in the USA are not slaves anymore, and have been free for ages.
The case of the Japanese and Vietnamese was entirely different because it had happened to people who were still around. There were people actually alive who had felt the injustices of what happened then, and an effort was made to compensate, as you suggest.
Giving compensation to a 100 year old japanese person who had survived & lived through the WW2 concentration camp ordeal which happened -relatively- recently is completely different from giving preferential treatment to the descendents of black slaves from 200 years ago who have little if any connection to said events themselves, outside of the fact that they too just happen to be black.
Furthermore, it is not right to discriminate against white people for the crimes committed by their ancestors.
Not to mention that not all white people in the USA are even descendents of slave owners, and not all black people in the USA are even descendents of slaves...
Name:
Anti-chan2006-11-18 16:35
When I see a middle class black I don't think "oh that guy's black", I hardly care about the guy's race at all, but when I see a liberal annoying ass loud black I think "what a twat". Liberals are responsible for the "black community's" troubles because the perpetuate the idea of the "black community". There is no black community, just a bunch of racist assholes who discriminate against their own race and then say everyone else is racist in a huge furball of stupidity and retardation. "Blacks" need more martin luther king and less tupac. Fuck liberals!
Yeah so... Let's just not take race into account, penalise those who discriminate based on race and look to the future instead of fucking around.
That's if the person is capable of being Racially Blind. In this instance, Affirmative Action addresses the potential for discrimination.
>> 53
You're not Anti-Chan.
I am though. :) I would NEVER. NEVER. Refer to someone as a liberal. And I would never utter something as banal and tragically cheesy as "Fuck liberals". I saw "Fuck liberals" on the back of a bag of Cheddar Cheese and Sour Cream Ruffles once. That's how fucking played out your shit is.
Plus, I'm black, so... you pretty much shat yourself with that one, you fuckstick.
>>54
I am Anti-chan. You must be referring to a poser. Here's my tripcode. Check it with one of my earlier posts.
Oh and nothing you say on the internet has any weight unless you can back it up. If you have a problem with how much parents invest in their children, maybe there should be a special tax to pay people who's ancestors are immigrants who came into the country with nothing but a suitcase of clothes and $5 in foreign currency aswell. Since they are at more of a disadvantage than landed black communities and have experienced the same if not more discrimination.
Then you can go communist on everyone's ass and take their children forcibly from them so they don't give them the advantage of having better parenting. That way everyone can be equal.
I'm alot of things, but I'm no tripcode faggot. And it's very telling that one would go so far as to imitate me; simply because they fail harder than a faggot's AIDS test at presenting a convincing counter argument.
The problem here is that you guys keep saying that things are equal and things should be equal and meritocratic in a country that currently is anything but.
Of course you think "race is over" or whatever dickcheese bumper-sticker statement you're re-vomiting ad nauseum.
And yet, the race disparities insist.
Why is this? And whenever the country was faced with these, did not the government step in and take care of things? No one has a right to job? I say no one has a right to discriminate on racial grounds when it comes to employment and other empowering opportunites.
Listen...in a perfect, meritocratic, non-discriminatory, non-racist world, I would skullfuck Affirmative Action into dust.
But, being that Jim Crow is barely 60 years behind us, being that I see negative cultural memes about blacks and other minorites persist constantly, I'm going to support AA and many other things that dismantle the reality of white-priveledge. Your "let the past be the past" argument doesn't work when a segment of the population is still OBVIOUSLY effected by that "past".
I mean, if you really didn't care about race you wouldn't even notice that a black person was getting hired over a white person for *whatever* reason. Either way "the job" (whatever that may be) gets done...in the end, what does it matter to you (a white person) if a white guy gets picked over a black person who's equally meritable? Especially when the black person is loaded with a history of discrimination, classism and racism that is persistant and according to recent studies...has shown no sign of slowing down?
>>56
"I mean, if you really didn't care about race you wouldn't even notice that a black person was getting hired over a white person for *whatever* reason."
Kinda hard not to notice it when politicians openly & publicly say they are going to start discriminating against white people/male people.
>>56
What are you talking about? You make a blatantly racist statement and then claim that opposing discrimination is racist. I can't be botherred to spend time discussing an issue with someone who is so obviously a troll.
Make the choice.
Oppose discrimination 100% or be a racist 100%. There is no balance between the 2, they are completely contradictory.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-20 5:12
California should have waited until I was in 4-year college to ban it. :(
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-20 13:00
>>61
Don't be too sure. There are plenty of books that examine affirmative action from a practical point of view and conclude that in some instances it can actually harm the person it is intending to help more than it actually helps them.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-20 14:02
Affirmative action doesnt really do much, It just requires buisnesses universities to be diverse. It may have fucked a few people out of a job but oh well. The present generation of whites owes nothing to the present generation of minorties for shit that happend hundreds of years ago. Bad AA and just take those who are most qualified for positions. This may fuck us over, too many damn smart ass asians are gunna flood our school systems. Either way you look at it were fucked.
Name:
Anti-chan!9mY1Z7Yupo2006-11-20 14:44
You are generally heading in the right direction. The reason why AA is wrong is because it hurts everyone, not just the white majority. People of all races and creeds would look at succesful minorities and have an inkling in the back of their head that they are just a token. Injustice breeds injustice.
You can't eliminate discrimination, of course fucking not. You can't eliminate rape and murder, but that doesn't mean the law shouldn't oppose it 100% or have men raped and women murderred so as many men are raped as women and as many women are murderred as men. If you want to reduce racism and discrimination, the first thing you do is not be racist and discriminatory yourself.
You are either opposed to discrimination 100% in the form of civl rights enforcement by the police and in a court of law or you are not opposed to discrimination.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-20 15:22
>>63
"Affirmative action doesnt really do much, It just requires buisnesses universities to be diverse."
And to hire people and take in students in a discriminatory manner based on race.
"It may have fucked a few people out of a job but oh well."
I hope you get discriminated against in the future, and lose your job in the name of 'promoting equality' by some racist affirmative action program. Maybe then you won't have your 'oh well' attitude, asshole.
"The present generation of whites owes nothing to the present generation of minorties for shit that happend hundreds of years ago."
I agree 100%.
"Bad AA and just take those who are most qualified for positions. This may fuck us over, too many damn smart ass asians are gunna flood our school systems. Either way you look at it were fucked."
If they are the most qualified, so what? Who is this 'us'? Is it 'white people'? Stop looking at race, and start looking at qualification. Racism is one of the crudest and simplest forms of collectivism around. Stop looking at people as members of groups, and start looking at them as individuals.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-20 15:47
Promoting diversity is just as pointless as promoting genetic purity. Don't let your race bullshit bother the smooth running of society.
>>60
Oh fake ass Anti-Chan; I wish the world was as easy as "All or nothing" but that's just not the way things work in the adult world.
I'm sorry :(
I'm sorry you're willing to deny people any weapon whatsoever against disrimination. I'm sorry you're so willing to disarm victims of racial disaparity; that you'll even delude yourself into thinking that's you're taking some kind of altruistic anti-discrimination stance.
Name:
Anti-chan!9mY1Z7Yupo2006-11-22 2:17
>>69
Who are you talking to? I never said people should not have a weapon to fight against discrimination, I was arguing that all people should be equal under the law and that people are innocent until proven guilty.
I understand what you said. You're just purely and very simply wrong. Taking a negative stance on AA does absolutely nothing to address racial disparity and the dismantling of white priveledge. Therefore; Sorry, try again: You fail.
Name:
Anti-chan!9mY1Z7Yupo2006-11-22 9:19
>>71
What the fuck do you mean by white priviledge? Whites are less likely to get discriminated against? You coward. If you want to declare people guilty just because of the colour of their skin at least have the balls to admit it.
I'm not declaring anyone guilty of anything. You seem to under the weird impression that AA persecutes whites (and only whites! because they run all the businesses!) for racist acts they haven't committed. AA persecutes the private sector for discrimination and that's it. If this means, in your eyes, the persecution of white people as whole then I don't see who's fault that is or even if that's such a shitty thing given the degree of racial disparity in this country.
I mean, you say you're not racist or that you're not looking out for the best interest of your race and yet you're acting as if AA attacks whites and only whites.
And if you can't even admit- even from a purely historic standpoint- that being white in America is better than say- being a mexican immigrant or a black southerner- then what am I supposed to say to you exactly?
Should I bring my age and experience into the argument? Should I post every study that proves the racial disparity? With events like Hurricane Katrina and the like; with historic references like Jim Crow, I'm not sure what else it is going to take to convince you that with people like >>3 around, I don't trust private interests (be they white or whatever, but more commonly white) to do what's the in the best interest for everyone (of every race) in society.
The only reason there is AA in the first place is because of discrimination. In a country with a history of thinly vieled (and often blanant) white nationalism; I don't really see how you can sit there and act as if racism and discrimination is over and there's no need for policy to insure a meritocratic and equal society. AA is simply a preventive measure. A preventive measure isn't a trial, you fucking idiot. There's no "guilty" and "innocence" here, there's just facts, problems and solutions. Not everyone lives in the same America as some white weeaboo, stop approaching this as if racism is so fucking implausable.
Discrimination and Jim Crow-like acts of racism are bad for a meritocratic society and if the private sector can't bring themselves to play by the democratic rules of ethics- then they should be treated like the children they are and have their hands forced.
Affirmative action = preferential treatment based on race.
Institutionalized reverse discrimination.
"If this means, in your eyes, the persecution of white people as whole then I don't see who's fault that is or even if that's such a shitty thing given the degree of racial disparity in this country."
Fuck you. I didn't do anything wrong, and I don't deserve to be discriminated against because I'm white, or because I'm male.
"I mean, you say you're not racist or that you're not looking out for the best interest of your race and yet you're acting as if AA attacks whites and only whites."
I'm not saying that. Others have been assaulted by affirmative action as well, such as asians. The point is that race simply should not be considered at all when applying for a position. Colorblindness is the way to go.
"And if you can't even admit- even from a purely historic standpoint- that being white in America is better than say- being a mexican immigrant or a black southerner- then what am I supposed to say to you exactly?"
Whether it is or it isn't is beside the point. Discrimination based on race or gender for any reason is wrong.
"The only reason there is AA in the first place is because of discrimination."
Reverse discrimination is wrong. Discrimination is wrong. Nothing should be considered but the merit of the applicant for a given position.
"In a country with a history of thinly vieled (and often blanant) white nationalism; I don't really see how you can sit there and act as if racism and discrimination is over and there's no need for policy to insure a meritocratic and equal society."
Affirmative action is not meritocratic. It is racist.
"AA is simply a preventive measure."
That is not true. It does many more things than just meddling with other people's property and their property rights.
"Discrimination and Jim Crow-like acts of racism are bad for a meritocratic society and if the private sector can't bring themselves to play by the democratic rules of ethics- then they should be treated like the children they are and have their hands forced."
Whose property is it? Who owns it? Property rights entail the right to both use and disposal as the owner sees fit. The private sector will slow down and eventually stop discrimination if market forces are allowed to be the deciding factor.
Gradually, the market will show people that discrimination is wrong, if we let it. Market forces punish discriminators.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-22 21:53
I don't think I, as a white male, should be judged based on events that occurred 60+ years ago simply because they were committed by people who look like me.
You are declaring white people guilty of privilege, and claiming that they need to be discriminated against for being more successful.
They are more successful because of the privilege and because of events in history. As to if they are "guilty" of anything or not, is purely subjective I suppose.
But, when we speak of meritocracy and equality then everything should be done to level the "playing field" so to speak. AA disarms the obviously privileged white private sector the ability to play "old boy's club" with a free and democratic society.
Affirmative action = preferential treatment based on race.
Institutionalized reverse discrimination.
And again, I ask you what is the problem with this in the face of growing racial disparity. What is the problem with this when someone as equally meritable as some random white dude is given a job? The white dominated private sector shouldn't have the right to create a circumstance where it comes down primarily to skin color. And the only companies that are effected by AA are white-owned companies that discriminate against other races.
Fuck you. I didn't do anything wrong, and I don't deserve to be discriminated against because I'm white, or because I'm male.
And fuck you. I didn't do anything wrong either and I don't deserve to be discriminated against because of perpetuating negative cultural memes surrounding blacks and their intelligence. I am and was never a slave, a monkey, a nigger, etc. And the private sector- white owned or not- has no right to discriminate against me if I'm meritable. This is the one instance "your people" are being discriminated against and it seems to me that you just can't handle what other races have had to put up with for the last hundreds of years.
Too fucking bad, I say.
That is not true. It does many more things than just meddling with other people's property and their property rights.
Like dismantle white privilege, perhaps? If not "just that" then what else? You misunderstand the attack on white privilege as an attack on white people; can you answer me as to why that is? Or will you dodge that question as well?
Whose property is it? Who owns it? Property rights entail the right to both use and disposal as the owner sees fit. The private sector will slow down and eventually stop discrimination if market forces are allowed to be the deciding factor. Gradually, the market will show people that discrimination is wrong, if we let it. Market forces punish discriminators.
Like I said before, when it comes to matters of the betterment and furthering equality in a democratic and free society, especially in the face of racial disparity...it doesn't matter what belongs to who. If you prefer racism to merit, then you should move your business to a country that agrees with you.
You say that the market will show people that discrimination is wrong and that the private sector will suddenly grow ethics; and yet you have no plan, policy, factiod, proof or a history that this will be or has ever been the case. Why are you basing your belief on something that you and history can't prove is beyond me.
I don't think that I, as a black male, should be judged by my slave ancestors or persistant cultural memes spurned on by idiots of all races (including my own).
Don't let your irrational fear of persecution stop us (equalists) from disarming those that perpetuate the "white racist" cultural meme.
The top two groups - whites and asians, both of which are incidentally being targetted by racist affirmative action programs, are on average the more intelligent, and the more successful.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-22 23:35
>>77
"And fuck you. I didn't do anything wrong either and I don't deserve to be discriminated against because of perpetuating negative cultural memes surrounding blacks and their intelligence. I am and was never a slave, a monkey, a nigger, etc. And the private sector- white owned or not- has no right to discriminate against me if I'm meritable."
LOL? But the government has the right to discriminate against ME if I'M meritable because I'm WHITE?
"This is the one instance "your people" are being discriminated against and it seems to me that you just can't handle what other races have had to put up with for the last hundreds of years.
Too fucking bad, I say."
Finally you just come out and say 'too fucking bad, we are discriminating against you.'
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-22 23:41
>>77
"And again, I ask you what is the problem with this in the face of growing racial disparity."
Simply because there is a disparity in income between a given two races does not mean discrimination is occurring. Considering how poorly african-americans have been doing on standardized tests, iq tests, etc, both of which have strong connections to success, I wouldn't say that their making of less money is evidence of discrimination at all. Take a look at their test scores.
"What is the problem with this when someone as equally meritable as some random white dude is given a job?"
Because discrimination is discrimination, and it doesn't matter whether you discriminate against a white person or a black person. The color of skin should not be considered at all.
Save this for stormfront.org, fuckbag. I think you're forgetting a little thing called the "The Race Thread". Remember how Anonymous and I gangraped you like a vietcong whore?
And it's funny; that in the end it all comes back to arguments used by white nationalist toilets who's only accomplishment so far in this eternal discourse on race is getting...you guessed it! ^_^ - violently shat on.
Thread over.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-23 0:16
>>44
"Because I am no more an advocate of discrimination for advocating property rights than an advocate of drug legalization is an advocate of drug useage for advocating drug legalization."
"I think you're forgetting a little thing called the "The Race Thread". Remember how Anonymous and I gangraped you like a vietcong whore?"
Nope.
"And it's funny; that in the end it all comes back to arguments used by white nationalist toilets who's only accomplishment so far in this eternal discourse on race is getting...you guessed it! ^_^ - violently shat on."
nationalist - one who loves and defends his or her country
nationalist - an advocate of national independence of or a strong national government
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-23 0:35
There are 100 places at a renowned university course and 1000 applicants. The quota is set at 10%. Of the top 100 achievers in the entrance exam 91 are white. You are black and come in place 105 with 101-104 being white.
If you knew this and had any self-respect would you allow the authorities to replace the white in place 100 with yourself even though the white did better than you in the entrance exam?
Name:
AC2006-11-23 0:37
>>87
YES BECAUSE I HAVE NO MORALS OR SELF-RESPECT AND WANT TO BE ABLE TO BREAK THE LAW WHENEVER IT SUITS ME!
"Finally you just come out and say 'too fucking bad, we are discriminating against you.'
Why should I care about you when all you do is selfishly look after only yourself? You're the enemy. I care about making the socially weak more strong. If the role of black man and white man were reversed, I would feel the exact same way as I do now. Despite being black, I would shout to the heavens about how it's not morally right to not empower a people we have a history of exploiting when we KNOW that it would exemplify belief in freedom, democracy and a more objective and ethical society.
Is this really so impossible for someone like you to understand?
>>88 >>89
How much do you weigh? I bet you are quite overweight and spiteful.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-23 0:51
Habbo mods are racist. They ban black people and they especially hate rich black people in 3 piece suits and who express their identity by growing large afros. I agree with affirmative action if it is used to ban habbo hotel and their evil racist practices. Just because one nigra blocks the pool it doesn't mean ALL nigras are pool blockers.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-23 0:51
>>89
"Why should I care about you when all you do is selfishly look after only yourself?"
I don't see how I am 'selfishly looking after only myself,' unless 'selfishly looking after only myself' means 'not wanting to be discriminated against because I have white skin.'
"If the role of black man and white man were reversed, I would feel the exact same way as I do now."
The 'role'? What 'role'? There is no separate 'role' for black men or white men.
"Despite being black, I would shout to the heavens about how it's not morally right to not empower a people we have a history of exploiting when we KNOW that it would exemplify belief in freedom, democracy and a more objective and ethical society."
'We'? I didn't exploit anyone, and thus I don't have any moral duty to empower you. This is capitalism. If you want to become 'empowered,' go 'empower' yourself. Work.
"Is this really so impossible for someone like you to understand?"
Is it really that hard for you to understand that race should not be a factor considered when applying for a position?
Name:
AC2006-11-23 1:15
I don't see how I am 'selfishly looking after only myself,' unless 'selfishly looking after only myself' means 'not wanting to be discriminated against because I have white skin.'
This isn't about your white skin. This is about companies not hiring races other than white people. This is about putting an end to that privilege. AA says you can do whatever you want with your skin, but no longer will you be able to get hired over an equally meritable black person because of your skin color.
The 'role'? What 'role'? There is no separate 'role' for black men or white men.
Of course not. What I'm addressing is the history of that belief that continues to be perpetuated by people like you and >>3. That belief still effects people today and is a cause of racial disparity and white privilege.
You do understand that at one point, blacks were slaves and were denied basic civil rights, correct? You do read history, yes? Can you spell history, at least? You do realize that it was superiority and the greed of the private sector that made slavery possible in the FIRST PLACE, right?
'We'? I didn't exploit anyone, and thus I don't have any moral duty to empower you. This is capitalism. If you want to become 'empowered,' go 'empower' yourself. Work.
People are trying to work, but companies keep on hiring whites even though there are equally meritable people of other races around. You're either with or against, I'm afraid. If you feel that you have no moral duty to empower those you exploit, then, in this case I'm afraid you aren't for equality, democracy, freedom or fairness.
Your belief in Capitalism has left you with a crippled morality. If effect, if you allow yourself to have advantage, when you know it's based on race, then you ARE the exploiter and you must be stopped.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-23 1:30
>>94
"People are trying to work, but companies keep on hiring whites even though there are equally meritable people of other races around."
And if they had better services to offer than their competition, they would very likely be hired.
"You're either with or against, I'm afraid. If you feel that you have no moral duty to empower those you exploit, then, in this case I'm afraid you aren't for equality, democracy, freedom or fairness."
I fail to see how being an advocate of racial or sexual discrimination makes you 'fair'.
"Your belief in Capitalism has left you with a crippled morality."
My morality is not only logical, it is consistent. Thus, it is strong.
"If effect, if you allow yourself to have advantage, when you know it's based on race, then you ARE the exploiter and you must be stopped."
I don't think I have an advantage because I'm white. In fact, before the affirmative action ban, quite the opposite was true. I was at a *disadvantage* because I was white, due to racist practices involving applicants at various state-run universities in MI. The passage of prop.2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which ended affirmative action, simply takes race out of the picture.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-23 1:39
>>94
"You do understand that at one point, blacks were slaves and were denied basic civil rights, correct?"
Yes.
"You do read history, yes?"
Yes.
"Can you spell history, at least?"
Yes. History.
"You do realize that it was superiority and the greed of the private sector that made slavery possible in the FIRST PLACE, right?"
Slavery is a violation of individual rights. Had the people of hundreds of years ago had the respect for property rights that I have, slavery would never have been allowed, as it is an obvious violation of individual property rights.
A person's body is owned by that person. It is their property. To deny another person his property rights, even in the name of promoting equality or diversity, is wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-23 1:49
>>94
"AA says you can do whatever you want with your skin, but no longer will you be able to get hired over an equally meritable black person because of your skin color."
Translation: 'We are going to preferentially hire black people over white people now, based on nothing but the fact that one is black, and the other white.'
No one who opposes affirmative action is supporting discrimination, we are just saying you can't declare all white people to be racists without evidence. If a company is judging people by their raceinstead of their skills then they should be penalised, but I fail to see why whites who are not racist should shoulder the burden of whites who are racist just becuase they are less likely to be discriminated against. It's not as if whites don't care, if someone burglarises my neighbour I don't care if the burglar did it because they are white or black or whatever, I want that asshole in jail as much as people who are more likely to be burgled.
"And if they had better services to offer than their competition, they would very likely be hired."
The problem here isn't whether or not they are meritable. They are. The problem are companies that hire a white person because they are white; when there are other non-whites who are just as meritable if not MORE than the white canidate.
In this case, "better services" are taken to mean "being white". Affirmative Action prevents discrimination in those cases where being white is considered a commodity.
My morality is not only logical, it is consistent. Thus, it is strong.
Sounds to me like you're trying to describe that 3 inch of slimey worm you fuck your sister's pimpled ass with everynight. "Thus, it is strong." HAHA OH WOW. White Weeaboo Anonymous makes Anti-Chan L. O. L.
Slavery is a violation of individual rights. Had the people of hundreds of years ago had the respect for property rights that I have, slavery would never have been allowed, as it is an obvious violation of individual property rights.
Ok, Mr. Shit-for-brains. Let's take your delusion for face value, then. Slavery was ended primarily on the grounds of property rights...lol.
Ok, yeah, no it wasn't. Back then the south considered people as property and banning slavery was a violation of THIER property rights. I find it hard to believe that back then, you would've been fighting for black people's property rights. Judging by the posts you made I'm going to assume you are under the general belief that blacks are inferior; so yeah: You fails it.
No one who opposes affirmative action is supporting discrimination, we are just saying you can't declare all white people to be racists without evidence. If a company is judging people by their raceinstead of their skills then they should be penalised, but I fail to see why whites who are not racist should shoulder the burden of whites who are racist just becuase they are less likely to be discriminated against.
What burden, you fucking idiot? The burden of hiring a black person? I seriously don't get it. Can you seriously tell me how non-racist white business owners are effected by Affirmative Action? And how the hell do you know what all white people are thinking, anyway? CLEARLY there's a divide here, you're not understanding.
If you're not guilty of racism in your practices, then you'll have nothing to worry about. Affirmative Action isn't outside of your present hiring practices anyway. Stop acting as if AA is some kind of legislated attack on the white race. You sound more paranoid about race than anyone in this thread.
What are you so concerned about? A person who isn't as meritable getting a job a meritable white person should've gotten? Well, I think there should be sub-policies in place that should insure that won't happen. If you still have a problem with AA; it's because a black being a hired over a white person just doesn't sit well with you.
Too fucking bad, Mr. Racist. Move to a place that isn't free and doesn't practice equality and democracy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-23 5:32
>>100
"What are you so concerned about? A person who isn't as meritable getting a job a meritable white person should've gotten? Well, I think there should be sub-policies in place that should insure that won't happen. If you still have a problem with AA; it's because a black being a hired over a white person just doesn't sit well with you."
That's been your same argument over and over. If a black person is better at a job than a white person and the employer chooses the white person we think he is as much of an asshole if the white person was black and the black person was white.
You can keep on claiming that we are secret racists and lying all the time if you want, but that does not change the fact that it is unfair and unmeritocratic to hire someone based on their race rather than their abilities, whatever the race or whatever the opinion of the person who makes that statement.
Know what, kid? I really don't care if you think it's "unfair". The position minorities are in this country isn't exactly "fair". The private sector exploiting society isn't "fair". Life isn't "fair".
But empowering the weak and exploited, comes first for any fully ethical and objective society- insuring that 'poor environment/government' is no longer the excuse for the lack of sucess for a large part our population should come first. At the end of the day this effects a minority of the white population and businessness owned by whites who practice and even worse- instituationalize descrimination and racism. As far as I'm concerned the end justifies the means by far.
I'm sorry that this isn't Lord of the Rings, ya weeatard. This is reality.
Do you really think the end of the race problem in this country is by consistant reminder to be nice to your fellow man? Do you really think simple "enforcement" with NO concrete and effective policies in place are going to heal racial disparity? It didn't work post-Civil War, didn't work during Jim Crow...the government has to step in and decide if it wants to control the fate of it's own and uphold it's own beliefs or just let "the free market" handle it.
You achieve equality in a multi-cultural democratic-capitalist society by insuring that not only equality and justice reigns supreme, but by also insuring that if any instance of discrimination remains prevalant in society- then at the very least everyone will be discriminated against equally.
Name:
Anti-chan!9mY1Z7Yupo2006-11-23 13:14
>>102
"Do you really think simple "enforcement" with NO concrete and effective policies in place are going to heal racial disparity?"
This means you actually think that black people need special treatment to be equal to Chinese immigrants who have no communities of their own and often arrived with less than $100, but who's kids now fill the US's higher education establishments.
You are now on trial for being a racist.
The fact that the world isn't fair means that if affirmative action worked for the greater good it should be supported temporarily even though it is immoral. However affirmative action is less useful than the same expense used to increase enforcement of civil rights.
Regulating employment and prosecuting and punishing businesses which discriminate is much less of a restraint on the economy than forcing companies to employ people they don't need, whether they have been proven to be discriminating or not. It also saves the government having to explain to young white males why they are replaced by underachieving minorities in a pathetic attempt to stop them joining the brownshirts and skinheads in droves. Especially with the rise of neo-conservatism, an energy crisis and climate change on the horizon we should be fearful of the future.
Black people do not need more than the laws which apply to everyone else in the US. The reason why black inner city kids don't go to MIT, whilst 1st generation Chinese kids do is because of a lack of law enforcement in the right places.
Your logic is flawed and why you think you can continue to make the statements you have without even attempting to provide proof or proof of a plan in regards to "Civil Rights Environment" is beyond me.
1. You have no proof that affirmative action isn't useful.
2. You have no proof that affirmative action has been a restraint on the economy.
3. You have no proof that young white males are being replaced by "underachieving minorities" and the implications of this opinion on racist. But unlike me; you're not exactly on trial here. I don't care if you're racist or not, really.
4. You don't really know why black inner city kids don't go to MIT. From what you said in this thread, I'm fairly certain you only have like 3 or 4 black friend, IF THAT. You don't exactly have your 'finger on the pulse of America' or anything, kid. Don't delude yourself. It's embarrassing.
From this; I can only deduce that you're just another weeaboo teenager desperately trying to understand the real world.
I leave you with what I ended my prior post with:
You achieve equality in a multi-cultural democratic-capitalist society by insuring that not only equality and justice reigns supreme, but by also insuring that if any instance of discrimination remains prevalant in society- then at the very least everyone will be discriminated against equally.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-23 22:38
>>100
"Ok, Mr. Shit-for-brains. Let's take your delusion for face value, then. Slavery was ended primarily on the grounds of property rights...lol."
I never said that.
"Ok, yeah, no it wasn't."
See above.
"Back then the south considered people as property and banning slavery was a violation of THIER property rights."
Forcibly enslaving someone is clearly a violation of the right to the most basic piece of property of all that an individual owns - his own body. Thus, slavery is wrong.
"I find it hard to believe that back then, you would've been fighting for black people's property rights."
I would.
"Judging by the posts you made I'm going to assume you are under the general belief that blacks are inferior; so yeah: You fails it."
I never said they are inferior. Further, even if they were generally genetically inferior, that is not grounds to deprive them of basic human rights (such as property rights).
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-23 22:52
>>100
"What burden, you fucking idiot? The burden of hiring a black person? I seriously don't get it. Can you seriously tell me how non-racist white business owners are effected by Affirmative Action?"
It isn't just business owners. Affirmative action deals with a whole range of other areas of life as well, such as college applications. Affirmative action drags race into the picture when there quite simply should be nothing considered but merit. It is racist. I guess you don't consider discrimination discrimination unless it is perpetrated against black people. Wake up: white people can and are discriminated against based on their race. Yep, that's affirmative action.
"If you're not guilty of racism in your practices, then you'll have nothing to worry about."
Not true. Affirmative action affects almost everyone, and everyone who isn't a minority who participates in typical activities, such as going to a college, could be affected. In Michigan, for example, universties and colleges were (prior to the passing of prop.2, banning affirmative action), admitting minorities over white people, often even when the white people were more qualified as students. The colleges and universities (many of them STATE-RUN) then claimed that it was in the spirit of promoting diversity on their campuses. The passing of prop.2, banning such racist affirmative action programs, ended this abuse of public funds and educational facilities.
"Stop acting as if AA is some kind of legislated attack on the white race."
It IS* some kind of legislated attack on white people. Well, some programs give preference to white WOMEN. But, if you are a white male, you get the short end of the stick.
"What are you so concerned about?"
Several things.
1. Being discriminated against.
2. Other people being discriminated against.
3. I simply have a general interest in politics and making government better.
"A person who isn't as meritable getting a job a meritable white person should've gotten? Well, I think there should be sub-policies in place that should insure that won't happen."
Sounds different from what you were saying earlier. Nonetheless, I still won't budge an inch from: 'race or gender should not be considered when applying for a position.'
"If you still have a problem with AA; it's because a black being a hired over a white person just doesn't sit well with you."
I'd be against AA regardless of who was getting it.
"Too fucking bad, Mr. Racist. Move to a place that isn't free and doesn't practice equality and democracy."
Considering prop.2 passed, I think it is YOU who should move to a place that practicies affirmative action, if you want it. As you said, 'too fucking bad, Mr. Racist.'
"1. You have no proof that affirmative action isn't useful."
Whether or not it is 'useful' or not is not what is most important. What is most important is whether or not affirmative action policies or programs are -right- or not. They are not right. It is not right to drag race into a matter that should be being solved taking nothing into consideration but merit.
As to whether or not affirmative action 'works'? Maybe you should read this book:
3. You have no proof that young white males are being replaced by "underachieving minorities" and the implications of this opinion on racist. But unlike me; you're not exactly on trial here. I don't care if you're racist or not, really.
Re-read >>104 and ask yourself if I really give a fuck about the plight of privileged peoples? (White males.) There's affirmative action that benefits only white women? GOOD. Excellent, I say. White women are victims of white privilege as well. You guys just can't seem to wrap your heads around the fact that when it comes to preserving a fair and balanced multi-racial society- that white males are going to have to run the risks of discrimination just like everyone else.
White males aren't overwhelmingly poor, they are less likely to be descriminated agianst and if our system doesn't dole them out a helping of discrimination like they've been doing to everyone else for the last 100 years, then this equality dream isn't going to work. The only thing you guys have proven in this entire thread is your undying zeal for protecting white males and their privilege in this country.
Name:
Anti-chan!9mY1Z7Yupo2006-11-24 8:11
1. You have no proof that affirmative action isn't useful.
Quotas mean that some people will be replaced by people who were less qualified than them. The higher the quota the more likely this will happen. This isn't useful because it does not punish companies which discriminate, all it does is discriminate against people for being a certain irrelevant demographic.
2. You have no proof that affirmative action has been a restraint on the economy.
Quotas mean that occasionally companies must choose workers who merit less than other workers, which corrupts the market economy.
3. You have no proof that young white males are being replaced by "underachieving minorities" and the implications of this opinion on racist. But unlike me; you're not exactly on trial here. I don't care if you're racist or not, really.
You are on trial for being racist. The proof is in the nature of quotas as I've already explained in grade school language.
The quota is set at 10% for blues. A company needs 10 workers and has 20 to choose from, 19 of whom are blue and 1 of whom is green. After an aptitude test the top 15 workers are all green and the worker who came in 16th place was blue. The company must illogically replace the worker who came 10th with the worker who came 16th in order to fill the quota.
Name:
Anti-chan!9mY1Z7Yupo2006-11-24 8:13
>>108
You talk about white males as if it consists of 1 person. Very much like a racist talks about jews and blacks as if they are 1 person. You must be AC.
The only person treating white males as if it's only one person is you. The difference here is that you're placing that one person, that one privileged person, higher than those needless victims of history and those who have been exploited by society run by and for the benefit of white males.
It looks sad and stupid that you try to defend across-the-board equality, while at the same time showing loyality and zealously defending your race and your race only.
You are psychologically unable to admit this to yourself because of the insular life you led as a white male. So, instead, you trump up scenarios of persecution. Try to place your discrimination on the same level as a black person's or a mexican immigrant or a middle easterner. "Reverse Racism" is a logical fallacy and a slap in the face to those who have historically and systematically subjegated by a system built solely for the prosperty of white males.
The free new world is not perfect. There's always going to be a bigot about. Affirmative Action disarms the bigot by using his own weapons against him, so that he too, can know and understand the sting of discrimination first hand. And if this white man, can't accept that he has to deal with same things that "minorities" have to deal with- then he can never be free of the guilt of his exploiter ancestors.
You calling me a racist, is like a Nazi calling a Jew a racist because the Jew doesn't like how the Nazi's tried to subjegate and wipe his people off of the face of the earth.
You fail at getting persecuted, you fail at racial harmony, you fail at presenting a convincing anti-AA argument. Thread over.
>>111
"The only person treating white males as if it's only one person is you."
"You calling me a racist, is like a Nazi calling a Jew a racist because the Jew doesn't like how the Nazi's tried to subjegate and wipe his people off of the face of the earth.
You fail at getting persecuted, you fail at racial harmony, you fail at presenting a convincing anti-AA argument. Thread over."
You've got to be shitting me pancakes and cream....
Well you've just evoked Godwin's law so this thread was over anyway.
The thread was over when you started impersonating me, you cum-thirsty baby rape victim. You think you can just slap on a faggot-trip code and call yourself Anti-Chan? You can't pull this off with the same ease as it took to take your father's johnson up your wore-out asshole. This is an art.
And art of dick-jokes and accustory statements about your sexuality...but still an art. So, yeah, just run along you walking toilet, go back to your day job:
Cleaning out the jizz-buckets at gay bath-houses with a crazy straw and a determined look on your face.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-24 16:29
>>111
"It looks sad and stupid that you try to defend across-the-board equality, while at the same time showing loyality and zealously defending your race and your race only."
I'm not defending my race and my race only. I defend the property rights of everyone, regardless of what race or sex they are.
"So, instead, you trump up scenarios of persecution."
Trump up? You openly advocated discrimination against white males. This is nothing 'trumped up'. All one needs to do is read the garbage spewing out of post >>111.
"The free new world is not perfect. There's always going to be a bigot about. Affirmative Action disarms the bigot by using his own weapons against him, so that he too, can know and understand the sting of discrimination first hand."
Affirmative action targets all white males regardless of whether or not they are bigots, and regardless of whether or not their ancestors were bigots.
Not all white males in the USA had ancestors with slaves. A good number possibly had ancestors who even helped black people escape slavery via the underground railroad. A good chunk more are immigrants to the USA, who have (possibly) no slavery tied to their ancestry whatsoever.
Of course, even if they did have ancestors who had slaves, this is redundant since it is not right to punish them for the sins of their ancestors from 300 years ago.
"And if this white man, can't accept that he has to deal with same things that "minorities" have to deal with- then he can never be free of the guilt of his exploiter ancestors."
Guilt from ancestors? It is wrong to punish someone for the sins of their ancestors from 300 years ago. Furthermore, you give the implication in this comment that all white men currently living in the USA had ancestors who owned slaves, which is not only a very racist notion, but a blatantly false one.
"You fail at getting persecuted, you fail at racial harmony, you fail at presenting a convincing anti-AA argument. Thread over."
Firstly, it is you who fail at racial harmony, because you advocate discrimination which will then further divide and anger two races of people in the USA, thus upsetting the racial harmony.
Nextly, I see nothing wrong with my anti-AA arguments, nor those of the other people who have contributed.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-24 16:31
>>111
"You calling me a racist, is like a Nazi calling a Jew a racist because the Jew doesn't like how the Nazi's tried to subjegate and wipe his people off of the face of the earth."
You fail at analogies.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-24 16:44
>>111 "Reverse Racism" is a logical fallacy and a slap in the face to those who have historically and systematically subjegated by a system built solely for the prosperty of white males. "
It is spelled 'subjugated,' not 'subjegated,' you stupid faggot. The reason you can't get a job isn't because you are black, it is because you can't fucking spell. Go back to high school.
"You calling me a racist, is like a Nazi calling a Jew a racist because the Jew doesn't like how the Nazi's tried to subjegate and wipe his people off of the face of the earth."
Wow, not only do you fail at analogies, arguing, and comma placing, you fail at basic spelling. Maybe the reason you have such trouble finding work is that you fail at basic tasks and skills you should have picked up back in high school.
What the hell? I don't have trouble finding work you dumb fuck. Just- just fuckin' leave. Imitating me was the first sign of defeat. LOL, you think desperately trying to wipe the slate clean with that shitty equality rag is going to heal hundreds of years of racial disharmony? LOL. "Not every white person as slave owner ancestors" --- Like it even matters!
He has as much right to participate in the discussion as you do.
"Imitating me was the first sign of defeat."
You mean pointing out your ignorance pertaining to basic english & spelling?
"LOL, you think desperately trying to wipe the slate clean with that shitty equality rag is going to heal hundreds of years of racial disharmony?"
'Wipe the slate'? What 'slate'? Explain. A modern white man who has no connection to slavery obviously owes you nothing.
"LOL. "Not every white person as slave owner ancestors" --- Like it even matters!"
That was one of the justifications you pro-affirmative action people use to justify your institutionalized discrimination. Yes, I'd say it -does- matter. You fail. You fail even more for not so much as -addressing- the arguments given above.
"What the hell? I don't have trouble finding work you dumb fuck."
This whole thread you have been bitching about how 'black people' have trouble finding work due to a supposedly evil racist system out to get them. You basically said in a post earlier that you yourself were black.
I'm of Irish and Native American background, and in my opinion, Affirmative Action is bullshit. I don't want people to give me a job because of my family, I want to get the job because I'm the most qualified applicant for the position. Think of it like this: Would you rather be the token, or would you rather be the person who contributed.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-26 17:38
>>121
I feel the same way, but assholes like AC just won't shut the fuck up. Frankly I think AC is actually a racist pretending to be retarded, acting like an asshole and implying that black people need special treatment in order to be equal.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-26 17:46
AC is just a retard who can't grasp simple concepts, or possibly just a dumb troll.
K, that's cool. Except I'm not just one of those "pro-affirmative action people" obviously. My opinion on the matter of equality and the inherant fallacy of reverse discrimination merely extends itself into AA because it's the only instance that I've seen where whites are discriminated against. The very notion of a 'wipe the slate clean' style of racial harmony is a fallacy, as well. It's not equality that'll heal us; it's justice. And whatever discrimination whites indure due to AA is entirely justified due to the racial disparity in this "free, fair, democratic" country.
The notion is cute and novel, no doubt. But there's are white people sitting in offices knowing full well they are unworthy of their positions and no one is discussing that. Just take a look at the president. You don't even know the meaning of the word "token".
My implication isn't that blacks need special treatment. It's that if there's going to be unchecked discrimination in this country, then for anyone to be truly equal- whites are going to have to be victims of that too. Blacks and others minorities are victims of it because of instances in history and perpetuating cultural memes. As a part of dismantling white privilege; whites have to be included in that.
People have been pushing the 'equality/love your neighbor' stuff for ages and if you take a good look at the sentiments and statistics you'll realize that it's not working. People, in the end, don't care for equality per se'. They care about some notion of justice. If you can't wrap your head around, then too bad. Go live in the weeaboo matrix, or whatever the fuck you nerds do.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-26 21:39
>>124
"K, that's cool. Except I'm not just one of those "pro-affirmative action people" obviously."
That doesn't appear obvious to me. In fact, quite the opposite appears obvious to me: you -are- one of those 'pro-affirmative action people.'
"And whatever discrimination whites indure due to AA is entirely justified due to the racial disparity in this "free, fair, democratic" country."
No it isn't. The test averages on various tests for applying for jobs are generally, though not always lower than other races. What does this translate into? It translates into worse performance in the job market. Your racial disparity is not because of discrimination, it is because of lack of qualification, intelligence, or hard work. The tests given have a strong correlation to success. The fact that there are fewer successful black people on average in the job market more than likely has something to do with the fact that there are fewer successful black people on average in standardized testing.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-26 21:52
>>124
"The notion is cute and novel, no doubt. But there's are white people sitting in offices knowing full well they are unworthy of their positions and no one is discussing that."
"Just take a look at the president."
Whether or not he is good at running the office is redundant. If he got elected, he gets the job, period.
"My implication isn't that blacks need special treatment."
Yes it is.
"It's that if there's going to be unchecked discrimination in this country, then for anyone to be truly equal- whites are going to have to be victims of that too."
Thus, you are saying that black people are unable to be equal without institutionalized reverse discrimination to help them out.
"Blacks and others minorities are victims of it because of instances in history and perpetuating cultural memes."
If someone doesn't perform well in the modern world, it is more often than not due to their own decisions.
"As a part of dismantling white privilege; whites have to be included in that."
There is no such thing as 'white privilege'.
"People have been pushing the 'equality/love your neighbor' stuff for ages and if you take a good look at the sentiments and statistics you'll realize that it's not working."
'Working'? Oh, I guess equality before the law and having a colorblind government doesn't 'work' for you.
"That doesn't appear obvious to me. In fact, quite the opposite appears obvious to me: you -are- one of those 'pro-affirmative action people.'"
Who's cares what doesn't appear obvious to you? You're a fucking moron. You don't have the ability to grasp the obvious.
No it isn't. The test averages on various tests for applying for jobs are generally, though not always lower than other races. What does this translate into? blah blah blah, blacks are genetically inferior
A Wyatt Man, is that you? Who dug you out of the race thread? We've been over this a hundred times already. Go back to stormfront already, Grand Wizarudo.
Whether or not he is good at running the office is redundant. If he got elected, he gets the job, period.
Ok, I'm going to pretend that you can't apply this same logic to some "naturally underqualified nigger" and that you just have a multiple personality disorder.
Yes it is.
No. It's not.
Thus, you are saying that black people are unable to be equal without institutionalized reverse discrimination to help them out.
The reason you think that is because you have an affixiation with blacks and a persecution complex when it comes to your race. I am referring to the greater racial harmony at large.
This extends to all races. If there are any instances of discrimination in this country, then whites can not be "special" or of a different caste. They have be discriminated against just like everyone else if they want to be treated as equals and void from condemnation for the actions of their ancestors. Equality through even-handed justice.
If someone doesn't perform well in the modern world, it is more often than not due to their own decisions.
History says otherwise.
There is no such thing as 'white privilege'.
History says otherwise. Only a white person, fully in support of white privilege and of whites being in some holy 'non-discriminatory' caste, would utter 'there's no such thing as white privilege'. You might as well try to convice one that racism and discrimination doesn't exist. Good luck, fuckbrain.
'Working'? Oh, I guess equality before the law and having a colorblind government doesn't 'work' for you.
That's the point. It's not working for the people it claims to be working for and if you bothered to research racial disparity you'd realize that things are actually getting worse. Of course it works for you, stupid: You're white.
Name:
anti-chan2006-11-26 22:33
Thus, you are saying that black people are unable to be equal without institutionalized reverse discrimination to help them out.
By the way, you fucking dummy...
The term "reverse discrimination" implies that whites can not and should not be discriminated against and that it is 'they' who reserve the right of discrimination. Your racist sentiments are all through this thread. Are you the same guy who keep us updated on "slackjaw biglipped nigger" news on /WorldNews?
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-26 22:37
>>127
"Who's cares what doesn't appear obvious to you? You're a fucking moron. You don't have the ability to grasp the obvious. "
I think it is you who doesn't have the ability to grasp the obvious. You support affirmative action. You are pro-affirmative action.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-26 22:48
>>128
"The term "reverse discrimination" implies that whites can not and should not be discriminated against-"
Nobody should be discriminated against. That includes white people.
"Your racist sentiments are all through this thread. Are you the same guy who keep us updated on "slackjaw biglipped nigger" news on /WorldNews?"
"Ok, I'm going to pretend that you can't apply this same logic to some "naturally underqualified nigger" and that you just have a multiple personality disorder."
If a black person won the election, it would, again, be redundant whether or not he was qualified, since he won the election, period.
"No. It's not."
Yes it is.
"The reason you think that is because you have an affixiation with blacks and a persecution complex when it comes to your race. I am referring to the greater racial harmony at large."
I do not have an 'affixation with blacks' or a 'persecution complex'. If you are going to make an accusation, you should at least go through the trouble of giving /support/ for that accusation before you toss it around.
"This extends to all races. If there are any instances of discrimination in this country, then whites can not be "special" or of a different caste."
Nobody should be racially discriminated against, whether they are white or black, and thankfully, the people of Michigan are on my side. 58% - 42%
"They have be discriminated against just like everyone else if they want to be treated as equals and void from condemnation for the actions of their ancestors. Equality through even-handed justice."
I am not even going to try to read this garbage. Go back to high school.
"History says otherwise."
LOL? When? I am talking about -now-. If you are unsuccessful -now-, it is likely largely your fault.
"History says otherwise. Only a white person, fully in support of white privilege and of whites being in some holy 'non-discriminatory' caste, would utter 'there's no such thing as white privilege'."
So only white people are under the impression that 'white privilege' does not exist? LOL, and you call me a racist.
"That's the point. It's not working for the people it claims to be working for"
Equality before the law claiming to 'work' for someone? Equality before the law means that you won't be judged before the courts based on skin color, gender, etc.
I defend Anti-Chan on the grounds that black applicants who have "played by the rules" have less chance of getting the position/education when competing with a white applicant with a spotty record.
Also, African immigrants have the highest education in comparison with Latin Americans and Asians. Guess why the latter get more jobs - they have a less demonized and subjugated past and they are lighter in complexion. So they become poorer, less enthusiastic about pursuing the American dream despite their superior education and then a bunch of raccoonhat-wearing John Galt-wannabe phallocentric cunts who read to much Thomas Sowell and actually think the American people will stand up to tyranny as long as they got bewmstikks then swarm to newpol so they can say that AA is racism as well and gubbimint money makes people lazy.
AC, keep fucking at it. These Ben Franklin-wannabees need to get countered at very opportunity.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-27 17:34
>>135
African /Immigrants/? We are talking about African /Americans/. People who live in the USA. They aren't 'immigrants', these people have lived here for years and years, and are as american as apple pie.
Regarding your education allegations, I have yet to see a single fact from you showing that they are performing better in the classroom, and every indication is pointing to that they actually do NOT.
SAT scores and IQ both have strong correlations to success later in life. The fact that there is a racial disparity or gender disparity is NOT necessarilly evidence of discrimination. Actual test scores point to a conclusion that is quite different.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-27 17:36
>>135
Xel, your ignorance is clearly showing through. The reasons that asian americans tend to be more successful than african americans is likely either cultural or family related, and is not evidence of discrimination.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-27 19:18
>>136
"African /Immigrants/? We are talking about African /Americans/. People who live in the USA. They aren't 'immigrants', these people have lived here for years and years, and are as american as apple pie. "
I think Xel's wording in the post you responded to was very confusing at best. I think he was indeed referring to black /immigrants/, rather than the scores of black americans already living in the USA.
How well do immigrants do? That I don't know. But regarding those who already reside here, the facts are already in. See links provided by >>136.
"Also, African immigrants have the highest education in comparison with Latin Americans and Asians. Guess why the latter get more jobs - they have a less demonized and subjugated past and they are lighter in complexion."
I disagree. African Americans actually did worse on standardized tests on the average than Latino Americans and Asian Americans. It has nothing to do with skin color, it just means that on the average, there are fewer individuals among said demographic of merit. This is not to be taken offencively, as there are indeed intelligent people among all racial demographics, and simply because one /tends/ to score lower than another, is not evidence, like AC claims, of 'genetic inferiority', rather, all it points to is, in my opinion, cultural differences between said demographics. Said cultural differences can /tend/ to produce different individuals who /tend/ to score differently on standardized tests, which makes sense anyways, since they are coming from different backgrounds.
Anyway, standardized tests have been shown to have some degree of correlation with success, and thus I would say that since the groups who are apparently 'discriminated' against - or who claim suffer from a society of 'white privilege', are just making excuses, generally. There may indeed be some degree of discrimination occurring, but it is not one sided either. There are racist black people as well as racist white people. Given that we already have Civil Rights Laws, the notion of affirmative action - reverse discrimination - is really quite absurd to me.
"So they become poorer, less enthusiastic about pursuing the American dream despite their superior education and then a bunch of raccoonhat-wearing John Galt-wannabe phallocentric cunts who read to much Thomas Sowell and actually think the American people will stand up to tyranny as long as they got bewmstikks then swarm to newpol so they can say that AA is racism as well and gubbimint money makes people lazy."
You don't address the test scores, you don't address any of the aforementioned arguments, and in my opinion, your insults are really rather tasteless, ineffective, and without merit.
"AC, keep fucking at it. These Ben Franklin-wannabees need to get countered at very opportunity."
Oh, I get it! I must be a 'Ben Franklin-wannabee' because I am against institutionalized racism!
>>124
I make 250000 dollars a year, and am younger than 30. I sit in an office about 4 weeks out of the year, but i got there with the skills instilled in me by family and hard work.
President Bush won because he was voted in by judges. Deal with it.
People in corporations were either put in because of their parents, which is much the same way that others get in, or because they weasel or work their way up. Both are hard work (those appointed are hard pressed to keep up with the markets, and they quickly learn the trade), and it is hard to work your way up, while weaseling requires more finnesse. If you want to get a better life, work harder, be smarter, and think things through.
>>124
I make 250000 dollars a year, and am younger than 30. I sit in an office about 4 weeks out of the year, but i got there with the skills instilled in me by family and hard work.
President Bush won because he was voted in by judges. Deal with it.
People in corporations were either put in because of their parents, which is much the same way that others get in, or because they weasel or work their way up. Both are hard work (those appointed are hard pressed to keep up with the markets, and they quickly learn the trade), and it is hard to work your way up, while weaseling requires more finnesse. If you want to get a better life, work harder, be smarter, and think things through.
Name:
Xel2006-11-28 1:17
>>136 "SAT scores and IQ both have strong correlations to success later in life. The fact that there is a racial disparity or gender disparity is NOT necessarilly evidence of discrimination. Actual test scores point to a conclusion that is quite different." You actually haven't read up on what yu are talking about. No surprise there. Rich white kids take the SAT more.
Over the last 30 years, black students at all three age levels have increased their long-term math and reading NAEP scores. Over the last 10 years, only black 9 year olds and 13 year olds have increased their NAEP scores. The 17 year old scores have been flat. During this time period, however, the black SAT scores have improved. While the black students who take the SAT appear to be doing better academically, black seniors in general have stagnated since the mid-1990s. If we want to know how black students are progressing academically, the long-term trend NAEP is the best measure.
"African /Immigrants/? We are talking about African /Americans/. People who live in the USA. They aren't 'immigrants', these people have lived here for years and years, and are as american as apple pie." Well, yet the African American community is worse off despite the fact that all the people who move to America from Africa (they'll be the new African-Americans) don't improve the situation or the statistics very much. Guess what? Racism.
>>137 "Xel, your ignorance is clearly showing through. The reasons that asian americans tend to be more successful than african americans is likely either cultural or family related, and is not evidence of discrimination." That is what I disproved in my post. Also, white American culture during the last century is responsible for the urban black culture.
>>138 "You don't address the test scores, you don't address any of the aforementioned arguments, and in my opinion, your insults are really rather tasteless, ineffective, and without merit." I've already fucked over the argument about you precious test scores. What are you going to hide behind now?
"Oh, I get it! I must be a 'Ben Franklin-wannabee' because I am against institutionalized racism!" Yes, when you take a proud, flag-waving hard-ass stance without reading up on your shit, you are.
Also, Thomas Sowell's book is flawed as fuck, and is moot as leverage in your arguments.
Name:
Xel2006-11-28 6:20
>>142 This is a good example of an individual being honest and therefore failing at life or trying to troll and husly failing at troll.
Since it seems to be a huge deal in my thread I might aswell say it, yeah, I'm a white male.
Quotas still exist.
I have absolutely no problem with the police investigating companies that have 500 employees and none of them are black etc.. I have problems with quotas which are essentially saying companies are guilty without trial and it doesn't do anything to stop the actual causes of discrimination.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-28 16:29
>>143
"You actually haven't read up on what yu are talking about. No surprise there. Rich white kids take the SAT more."
Possibly correct.. because they are trying to get into colleges. You may have highlighted yet another plausible reason for income disparity. Laziness, irresponsibility, and lack of ambition.
"Over the last 30 years, black students at all three age levels have increased their long-term math and reading NAEP scores."
Dandy. This does not mean that they are doing as well on average as white students, as my charts from the encyclopedia would indicate. Even supposing they were, you can't leave out the possibility that their failing in life is quite possibly because of personal irresponsibility or laziness.
"Well, yet the African American community is worse off despite the fact that all the people who move to America from Africa (they'll be the new African-Americans) don't improve the situation or the statistics very much. Guess what? Racism."
You apparently don't even have your statistics in order, or at the very least don't know what the hell they mean. I think jumping to conclusions like you just did is based more on your -want- to side with discriminatory policies such as affirmative action rather than actual reason.
"That is what I disproved in my post. Also, white American culture during the last century is responsible for the urban black culture."
I disagree. Those individuals living in urban areas in all likelyhood -chose- to act like they do, and to live the lives that they do.
"I've already fucked over the argument about you precious test scores. What are you going to hide behind now?"
Pretty simple. Black irresponsibility. See >>140. Also, there is controversy over the validity of the SAT. See above.
"Yes, when you take a proud, flag-waving hard-ass stance without reading up on your shit, you are."
I did read up on my 'shit', and I think discrimination based on race is wrong. Simple.
"Also, Thomas Sowell's book is flawed as fuck, and is moot as leverage in your arguments."
I seriously doubt you have so much as wiped the dust off the cover of that book.
Also, you have yet to address IQ, you have yet to address the distinct possibility that it is quite simply laziness or irresponsibility, you have yet to explain to me what is wrong with Sowell and his arguments, and regarding the SAT ... it is a college entrance test. If white people are taking it more often, I would assume that means they are trying harder or pushing more to get into colleges and further their education - leading to more success later in life. Funny that you should touch on that, since it actually in all likelyhood bolstered my argument.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-28 16:41
Affirmative action, whether discrimination is present or not in society, is not justified. We have civil rights laws already anyway. Racial preferences, quotas, etc, should all be banned. Thankfully prop.2. passed.
Well, what do you know? Martin Luther King Jr. didn't advocate racial preferences! Guess he'd be with the so-called 'Ben Franklin Wannabees'? LOL.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-29 3:22
>>152 we already knew that. Everyone knows that it was actually Malcom X who was responsible for any of hte progress which we made.
Name:
AC2006-11-29 4:27
The "blacks are just lazy" argument would only work under certain conditions. Those being that:
(A) There were/are absolutely no instances of discrimination or racism ever present in American soceity whatsoever.
And
(B) There aren't/weren't persistant negative cultural memes aimed at blacks and other minoirities.
You guys can sit here niggling (lulz) about SAT scores and all that. But that's the re-hash of the Race thread. I think my point is clear; the only way to really fight discrimination is with discrimination.
Quoting Martin Luther King, doesn't work when you're white. I'm black and have the ability to look at the dominating cultural trends around the era and this one and I can tell you that he definately had the framework right...but things will never been equal in this country if you couple your anti-AA dogma with "Blacks are just lazy". You're basically sitting here, post after idiotic post...proving my point for me.
Name:
Xel2006-11-29 6:12
>>152 MLK and his followers believed that a strictly cultural movement would create less controversy and hostility to civil rights. Guess they were proven wrong considering all the progress had to be legalized into action at the whining and violent outburts of those privileged by the status quo. >>153 "Everyone knows that it was actually Malcom X who was responsible for any of hte progress which we made." Have some sauce with that? I can believe it but I need some support. >>150 "You apparently don't even have your statistics in order, or at the very least don't know what the hell they mean. I think jumping to conclusions like you just did is based more on your -want- to side with discriminatory policies such as affirmative action rather than actual reason." Again, people who immigrate to America and come from Africa are better educated than any other type of immigrant. Yet it took the Clinton administration to statistically improve the situation for the black community, even though the right-wing congress flawed the welfare reform.
"Laziness, irresponsibility, and lack of ambition." This is a result of behaviorism, in specific the community the people you refer to grew up in. This culture is as it is because of previous discrimination. It is the American culture in general that is at fault; urban black culture would have a better influence and value if black people had a better chance. Urban black culture is a result of a lack of equality. I am partially responsible for my Swedish society that is discriminating and marginalizing towards immigrants. They are overrepresentated in crime and unemployment but they would not be if native Swedes weren't prejudiced towards them.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-29 11:33
>>155
"Again, people who immigrate to America and come from Africa are better educated than any other type of immigrant."
Better educated does not /necessarilly/ mean more successful. I also don't believe this having not seen a shred of proof.
"Yet it took the Clinton administration to statistically improve the situation for the black community, even though the right-wing congress flawed the welfare reform."
"This is a result of behaviorism, in specific the community the people you refer to grew up in. This culture is as it is because of previous discrimination."
And naturally, rewarding their laziness with racially based preferential treatment and handouts is the solution! (LOL)
"It is the American culture in general that is at fault; urban black culture would have a better influence and value if black people had a better chance."
More like if they'd work harder, be more ambitious, and stop getting involved with gangs/crime/etc.
"Urban black culture is a result of a lack of equality."
I disagree. Black people are not set in some kind of caste system. Individuals within this said community can and do occasionally get ahead. If all of them were conditioned into failure by past discrimination, shouldn't they all fail? (They don't.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-29 11:41
>>154
"The "blacks are just lazy" argument would only work under certain conditions."
I am not saying all blacks are lazy, or even that it is generally the case. There is, quite simply, a good amount of irresponsibility and OR laziness, or possibly both, that is occurring, which results in lack of performance - and what you seem to think is 'racism'.
"(A) There were/are absolutely no instances of discrimination or racism ever present in American soceity whatsoever."
What about one instance? I am not denying that there is any discrimination occurring, but I AM saying by and large, it is not a problem. The bigger problem, is laziness and irresponsibility, not racism.
"(B) There aren't/weren't persistant negative cultural memes aimed at blacks and other minoirities."
There are 'persistant negative cultural memes' aimed at lots of races, including whites, hispanics, and asians, but I don't see them begging for preferential treatment and/or handouts.
"I think my point is clear; the only way to really fight discrimination is with discrimination."
Yes. And I think MY point is clear as well - that discrimination is always wrong, and that as often as we can, we should give the position, job, or whatever to the person who is most qualified.
"Quoting Martin Luther King, doesn't work when you're white."
And you say I'm racist. I see, so Martin Luther King's words are some kind of magical phrase that can only be evoked if you have dark skin?
Discrimination is not occurring. The graphs match up, more or less. Asians scoring the highest on average make the highest income on average. Whites, scoring second highest on average, make the next highest income, on average. Hispanics, scoring next highest on average, make the next highest amount of average income. Blacks, scoring next highest on average, make next highest on average income.
Continuing. Anyway, as the graphs should show you, this is not evidence of discrimination... this is to show you that income disparity among ethnicities is not evidence of discrimination, but rather evidence that links IQ, SAT scores, etc to prosperity. The groups that score higher on tests on the average tend to be more successful on the average. That isn't discrimination, that is meritocratic values.
I am not saying ALL people of a given ethnicity score poorly, or that all people of a given ethnicity score well. These are just averages, and I am simply pointing out their correlation with the income disparity AC pointed out, which he claimed was clearly evidence of discrimination. These charts prove that it is NOT discrimination.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-29 12:35
>>159 "These charts prove that it is NOT discrimination."
Of course it isn't. It is more lack of effort in school than anything else, imo.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-29 12:41
Individual black people don't need racially oriented preferential treatment or handouts in life to succeed.
Said charts don't indicate lack of intelligence, but lack of effort in school and in the individual's studies.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-29 12:46
People should be treated on an individual basis, not a racial basis.
>>162
I AGREE THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! I DONT CARE IF THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE LOGIC IS JUST BULLSHIT MADE UP BY DEAD WHITE MEN AND YOU'RE A RACIST SO I CAN MAKE UP WHATEVER THE FUCK I WANT
Again, you're not really getting it. Score and graphs simply don't apply here; the reason for the lack of ambition or irresponsibility doesn't come down solely to the individual in this case. There are reasons for the lack of effort. There's a history of subversive degradation and subjegation here that - for whatever reason - you're completely and utterly disregarding.
Throwing causality out of the window makes you guilty of perpetuating these cultural memes. These persistant cultural memes contribute to futher discrimination, self-degradation and lack of ambition and so on and so forth.
Meritocracy can easily become discrimination when, in light of these memes, lighter skin tone becomes something meritable.
And that's precisely what AA addresses. Pretending that it somehow persecutes those innocent of discrimination is severely illogical in that the policy only effects those who discriminate based on race. Those who are innocent simply aren't effected, unless you consider hiring a black person over a white person to be punishable.
"What about one instance? I am not denying that there is any discrimination occurring, but I AM saying by and large, it is not a problem. The bigger problem, is laziness and irresponsibility, not racism."
But again, you're white. You don't live within the same cultural context as a black person and you should stop being so presumpious in assuming what goes on "by and large" unless you have something to back it up. If what we've seen statistically of the racial disparity is any indication...things have gotten worse.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-30 9:34
>>166
How does any of this prove affirmative action would be good?
If you want to solve problems you have to find the causes through proving direct causal links, analyse them and calculate the best solution. You haven't even clearly defined the causes, just said "oh I personally was a slave for 500 years and merely want compensation in the form of replacing people who are better qualified than me because dark skin is meritable".
If that's what you think I've said, then you need to take a fucking reading comprehension class. Perhaps you would like to cite where I've said or implied such an idiotic statement?
I suppose not, eh?
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-30 21:14
>>168
"the reason for the lack of ambition or irresponsibility doesn't come down solely to the individual in this case. There are reasons for the lack of effort."
Contradiction. Lack of effort is due to the individual. I accept that an individual can be tormented by racism into not putting effort into things, but I will not accept that by default someone's race has anything to do with it.
"these cultural memes."
So some people are stupid and believe that racist shit. Affirmative action only serves to justify them.
"lighter skin tone becomes something meritable."
But it isn't meritable, only a person's abilities are meritable. So meritocracy is the best policy.
"Pretending that it somehow persecutes those innocent of discrimination is severely illogical in that the policy only effects those who discriminate based on race."
Do the maths retard. Quotas don't work. I will remind you that if a racist company must employ 10% non-white workers, needs 10 workers and of the top 10 applicants 2 are non-white, the racist company can discriminate against 1 non-white without penalty.
All the problems you come up with are either perpetuated by affirmative action or solved by simply increasing civil rights law enforcement and regulation.
Civil rights. Yes!
Affirmatice Action. GTFO
Name:
AC2006-11-30 21:48
"Contradiction. Lack of effort is due to the individual. I accept that an individual can be tormented by racism into not putting effort into things, but I will not accept that by default someone's race has anything to do with it."
Contradiction? How? How can you say with any certainty that in all instances lack of effort is primarly due to the individual? If you can accept that racism is torment, then you surely realize that no matter what you (a white person) may think about an individuals actions- that his or her's race will come into play- often without them even being cognitively aware of it. And you no one said that 'race is the problem by default'--- I said that they were "contributing factors".
"But it isn't meritable, only a person's abilities are meritable. So meritocracy is the best policy."
According to who? You? Again, you're not getting the simple idea that there are people are there who are non-black and perpetuate these cultural memes to the point where white-skin is preferable and meritable over brown-skin. Of course, meritocracy is the best policy. But what precisely do you think happens when (Again: Due to the history and culture) white skin becomes a "merit"? What should be done in this case? Who should step in?
"Do the maths retard. Quotas don't work. I will remind you that if a racist company must employ 10% non-white workers, needs 10 workers and of the top 10 applicants 2 are non-white, the racist company can discriminate against 1 non-white without penalty. --- All the problems you come up with are either perpetuated by affirmative action or solved by simply increasing civil rights law enforcement and regulation."
Pedantic vaguery. There would no need for affirmative action if whites were discriminated against along with everyone else. AA is not a final solution by any means- but it is a step in the right direction in the government putting a cap on racist sentiments in this country.
You're so fucking stupid that you don't even realize "simply increasing civil rights law enforcement and regulation" hasn't been working. You're trying to simplify something that very complicated. American culture is perverted and sick from the inside-out when it comes to race- particularly when dealing with blacks- and no amount of "enforcement" is going to work. I bet you think the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" are valid as well? You can't have a war on an ideal- you have expose it's ignorance and re-build from scratch. This no easy task--- and while AA is a hard pill to swallow--- it is a step in the right direction.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 0:20
>>170
Individuals make decisions based on what they are exposed to, no matter what the collective pressure individuals still make the decisions.
"Who should step in?"
Justice and logic. It's the only way. If you get into this reactionary bullshit with Louis Farrakhan and other assholes all you do is perpetuate the cultural memes and create a whole host of new screwed up memes. You say it is naive to believe that everyone should be treated equally and that some corners should be cut here and there to ease the passing. Well I say it is naive to believe that cutting corners is fine and that you don't have to set and example to gain people's trust.
"There would no need for affirmative action if whites were discriminated against along with everyone else."
Oh, well, I was thinking you know that we simply set up regulations and laws to ensure no one was discriminated against. Though I guess if equality is that important I guess we can pull guns to white people's heads and make them miss a day off work or not study so hard until their statistics are worse than the worst stats provided by some minority.
Name:
Xel2006-12-01 12:03
So people who exhibit worse results in tests make less money? Really? This is not what I and ac address.
IQ is part genes, part environmental shaping.
Hair color and certain endocrinal pathways are dictated by genes only.
Some aspects of behavior are more detached from biochemistry, such as cognitive schemata and some behavioral conditioning.
A crime-glorifying, education-rejecting and anti-progress culture is the problem, as is racism. The two factors are in a feedback relationship. And African immigrants are still more educated than the asians, the gems of the right-wingers eyes.
Name:
Xel2006-12-01 12:06
>>171 "Individuals make decisions based on what they are exposed to, no matter what the collective pressure individuals still make the decisions." Read up on cognitive psychology, please. Right-wingers love to pull up behavioral psychology in order to state that "hand-outs" make people lazy, but they completely fail to understand what other forces really do to people.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 12:39
>>173
Cognitive psychology = an analysis of the decisions individuals make based on what they are exposed to. If they are exposed to socialist communismity stimuli, the stimuli's effects are still based on it's effects on the individual. Sociology (before the pseudo-science of modern-sociology at least) has always been about how INDIVIDUALS interact. Considerring groups to be collective entities is a logical fallacy and is as blunt and pointless as considerring molecules to not exist. Especially if you are trying to do something as complex as stop discrimination or produce electricity conducting plastics.
"Considerring groups to be collective entities is a logical fallacy and is as blunt and pointless as considerring molecules to not exist."
But it still happens! Doesn't really matter if we agree on the logical fallacy of racism- there are people who don't and they affect other people's lives in a "Feedback relationship" as Xel calls it. (Which is what I've been referring to up and down this thread.) AA address those people.
Listen; I'm just going to be frank...the people posting in this thread probably aren't black (well, besides me), probably don't spend alot of time around blacks, can't concievably understand "black culture", hasn't bothered to understand that it's core history irrevocably lies with White America and the cultural decisions White America has made since the abolishment of slavery... and if you suggest such a thing you're accused of not believing in Individualism, Freedom, supporting racism, Etc.
I used to wonder why this is- but then I realized that these are the people spouting off about "reverse discrimination" (talk about your illogical fallacies) and start whining about whites being discriminated against. Is it that you're trying to desperately avoid white guilt? What about the secretly-self hating guilt and hopelessness I've seen other blacks have to deal with? You're saying the whites are losing their jobs because they are white---- ok, I understand that, but the same thing is happening to blacks. And has been happening to them longer and at times more subversively than AA policies.
Of course, I can look at myself and say: "I'm different from them, though..." --- and I used to truly believe that it was because I was better at 'being an individual'. But then again; I wasn't exposed to what these kids around me are exposed to-- it wasn't even the way I raised--- it came down to pretty much chance encounters and RARE breeds of people that stepped in where society had failed and steered me in the "right direction".
Look: All I'm saying is that "Civil Rights Enforcement" is far too fucking vague for me and it's far too similar to the 'resistant to change' bullshit that we saw before Malcolm X came along. I see no plan of action, no specifics, no meat to "Let's just enforce...." --- It just sounds half serious.
Meanwhile, in my eyes, AA IS "Civil Rights Enforcement" --- the problem is anti-AA whites are delusion in thinking that it revokes their civil rights, when honestly, they have never had and probably never will have a civil right problem in this country. Pretending that AA put you on the same level as blacks is only half-true and it only becomes a problem if you hold your race above everything else.
Name:
Xel2006-12-01 15:56
>>174 No, your definition of cognitive psychology is wrong. What you are talking about is still behavioral psychology. Also, sociology is still a viable, important subject, it has just increased noticably in obsolesence.
Name:
Xel2006-12-01 16:07
>>175 I just think it is easy, to the point of cheap, to point at 50 Cent or that annoying little brat who made poems about how useless white people were and say "These areas they live in do not promote success, only short-term gratification. They should not have the money of more productive citizens" without considering all the other, unfair factors that cause black people to make decisions that in turn leaves "African Americans" (a term that is a bit crude, especially regarding people from the carribean or pacifc nations) over-represented in crime statistics.
I don't approve of welfare for the sake of welfare, but "Black culture" didn't just show up, it coalesced *inside* of a non-meritocratic, racist system and apparently hasn't had much reason to change. It's not like white people have tried to make things right and meritocratic in the current decades but that black people just broke out the Cristal and went "Blow it out your ass whitey -Awoooga, where my welfare and the white wimmin at!?"
Sorry, randroids, you have points but you can't have a night-watcher state unless you create a sufficiently meritocratic culture first. Not yours.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 16:28
>>175
Considerring groups to be collective entities is an approximation. If you want to analyse the properties of groups of people you don't work with approximations you must work with individuals, how they think and the decisions they make when exposed to a set of stimuli. In fact thinking in terms of approximations and trying to induce hypothesis from them is a major heuristic fallacy explored by cognitive psychology.
>>176
You don't know the difference between behavioural and cognitive psychology otherwise you would have noticed I am using elements from both.
Sociology up until the 1900s was valid and scientific intertwined with political philosophy, economics and historical method. By this point sociology had increased in popularity and was various political groups began to interefere with it, rejecting it's rational scientific roots and generally fucking around finding fallacies they can use for their weird populist agendas. By the end of ww1 the majority of people claiming to be sociologists were in fact pseudo-scientists and whatever was left of rational side of sociology had migrated to the realms of economics, political science, analytic philosophy and psychology.
Name:
Xel2006-12-01 17:11
>>178 Where were you referring to the internal processes between stimuli and response in your posts?
"In fact thinking in terms of approximations and trying to induce hypothesis from them is a major heuristic fallacy explored by cognitive psychology." Studying and analyzing individual cases does not offer relevant improvements for an entire population. So we amass as much data as possible to achieve a recommendation based on probabilistics. Clinton's welfare reform, as seen, worked and made parts of the black minority more contributing citizens, although it would have worked better if the republicans hadn't hampered it.
Pure hogwash. Semantic arguments don't work here. You're asking me to do something that American white culture hasn't done and has never done for a wide variety of minorities in this country. You're confusing what I know to be a variable of the truth- with realistic policies that work in solving a pretty complicated problem.
It doesn't matter what we agree on about an individuals response to stimuli when that stimuli is dictated by people who make/made these very same approximations of which you speak-- and have used them to subjegate minorities. Ever read "Behold, A Pale White Horse"? A bullshit book, no doubt, but a phrase certainly stands out: "It doesn't matter what you believe; THEY believe it so you WILL be affected."
Tell me; is this post your way of conceding? Because "Blacks are just lazy, unambitious...hurf...on the individual level, I mean. :)" is the exact kind of "approximation" you speak of. I mean, come on now, this sound like you haven't thought it out.
Sitting here and placing everything that wrong with "Black Culture" without addressing the hundreds of years of cultural enginnering that went into that is like saying history never happened.
I'm sorry, but it did, and for things to get better again--- there's going to have to be a lot more of Justice if people don't want to listen to logic (racism being a logical fallacy). Justice comes in the form of AA. If you have no specifics as to precisely what "Civil rights enforcement" entails, then AA IS civil rights enforcement. AA in no way effects non-racists or non-racists companies. You have zero proof that the black being hired over whites are underqualified and you only assume so because they are black and because AA exists. That doesn't seem logical to me, sorry.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 18:54
What a stupid debate. There is no such thing as 'white guilt'. I've never heard such racist bullshit in my life. Fuck off AC. You can't blame me for something my ancestors did. You CERTAINLY can't blame my neighbor for something HIS ancestors DIDN'T do. 'White guilt' - collective judgement on the white race. Racist.
So, what you are saying is:
'Justice comes in the form of racial discrimination.'
Because all whites have discriminated against blacks, right? Oh, and because all blacks have been discriminated against, right?
"Sitting here and placing everything that wrong with "Black Culture" without addressing the hundreds of years of cultural enginnering that went into that is like saying history never happened."
Give credit where credit is due, and do likewise with blame. Environmental determinism is bullshit. 90% of this just seems to be that you are a loser who is incapable of accepting blame for lack of success in life. If, on the other hand, you ARE successful, then clearly environmental determinism is, as I suggested, bullshit, since individualism can overcome it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 22:31
>>179
You're kidding me...
In this post you almost missed the entire point of science, which is to find patterns and define them. The patterns you describe which occur enmass merely happen on the individual level over and over again. Isn't that obvious? This is less than elementary psychology. Clinton's welfare reforms were aimed at poor people regardless of race so I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
>>180
"Blacks are just lazy, unambitious...hurf...on the individual level, I mean. :)"
What. The. Fuck? I never said that and you have the nerve to say I am quibbling over "semantics" (a statement you didn't back up). This will be my only response if you are going to sink to that level of debate.
"There's going to have to be a lot more of Justice if people don't want to listen to logic (racism being a logical fallacy). Justice comes in the form of AA. If you have no specifics as to precisely what "Civil rights enforcement" entails, then AA IS civil rights enforcement. AA in no way effects non-racists or non-racists companies. You have zero proof that the black being hired over whites are underqualified and you only assume so because they are black and because AA exists. That doesn't seem logical to me, sorry."
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-04 3:45
>>188
This has already been crusehd in debate 7 or 8 times.
If quota is set at 10% and of the 10 best applicants for a job, 2 are black, a racist employer may replace 1 non-white applicant with a white applicant of lower merit without facing criminal charges. Likewise if there were no black applicants in the top ten the employer would have to replace a white applicant with a non-white applicant of lower merit.
Affirmative action means quotas, which means declaring companies to be guilty without concrete proof and it does not cover instances where quotas are not met, unless you intend to ensure every company employs between 10 and 15% non-whites, no more, no less. As much as you think it is ok to discriminate against whites, affirmative action means that in some situations it is ok to discriminate against blacks, just so long as the racist fills the quota.
Affirmative action is not a part of civil rights, it is a policy and whatever it's positive benefits they can be coverred easily by increasing regulation over employment and government institutions using legitimate enforcement of civil rights judged by a court of law. You could of course increase regulation and implement affirmative action at the same time, however these would lead to contradiction in the cases where whites are replaced by blacks in order for quotas to be met. This is injust, but since you've already made your mind up and think discrimination against whites is ok there is no point in me advertising this flaw in affirmative action and I'll end this argument here.
If the hiring quota for a given race is set at 10%, and the only applicants who apply for a given position who are of the governmentally deemed 'acceptable' race are not the most meritable candidates, the employer is then forced by the government's decree to hire a less meritable candidate.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-04 20:07
>>188
my mom has a Phd in Law Librarian Study. A black woman, who has 4 year degree got the job instead of her. is that enough proof for you faggot?
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-04 21:22
and why would someone want a ph. d. in Law Librarian Study?
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-05 0:58
>>188
"If you have no specifics as to precisely what "Civil rights enforcement" entails, then AA IS civil rights enforcement."
Oh, so if we don't happen to know the letter of US civil rights law, then that makes you correct in your statement that 'AA is civil rights enforcement'?
Get a clue retard. Anyway, AA has been banned by popular vote in Michigan, so enforcing AA now would be going against the will of the people - not to mention the CURRENT law of the land.
I'm SICK AND TIRED of having race shoved around like a club to beat around those that have had adult encouragement enough to get through college.
Kids need parents or other adults to care about and encourage them, I don't want my kids to be told "you have more melatonin so you're special and don't have to work as hard in school because we'll give you freebie points". What an insult. It’s like saying “we know you’re not as smart, so we’re helping you”. Makes me sick that the Dems do this to people.
What we need is to give people the chance to be equals and rise and fall on their own merits. We need to get through to kids and encourage education, and inform parents of the options. And for the parents that just don’t care, we need to loop back to getting through to the children in the classroom with effective teaching methods.
Take that money being used to pay the special committee and pay the teachers. Just do it-Talk is cheap.
Sure there are assholes who think kids should be taught only WASP history, but there are none of them in the government anymore. It's obvious who the remaining racists are. It's the populists who see RACE bullshit as a way to distract from the things that really matter. I don't need affirmative action to make a decent living. Fuck that! Kids don't need social engineering to learn how to be decent people they need stable families and good parents. That's why asians do so well in school, it's because their parents take the time to make sure their children care about their education, can constrcut a sentence, write legibly and do algebra.
I say we need to stop the Democrats from continuing this unfair social segregation!
American living for everyone!!!
Freedom!!!!
It really doesn't matter to me what stats you drum up. My personal bottomline is the economic and social racial disparity in this country. Until you type something that addresses or responds to it then we aren't even on the same page to begin with.
Your basic premise here is "Let the stupid, lazy, unambitious niggers starve." which is implied by your idiotic belief that in a country with a sorted history of slavery and racism and Jim Crow and "Around Black Never Relax" and "Gooks!" and "Dirty Spics!" that everything "Whites" have-- they have earned because of their meritability (as a race?).
You have no plan, no agenda, no policy and no solution for the racial disparity and instead continue to trump up these vague notions of "civil rights enforcement" when your stupid asses clearly don't have an iota of a fucking clue what that even means. If mere "civil rights enforcement" was actually worth a damn there would be absolutely NO need for AA in the first damn place.
This is a lie, though, to begin with. But in realistic terms; you and your mother are probably doing just fine and that black lady would've probably ended up not being able to send her kids to college or put clothes on their back.
Do you understand the fundamental difference here? Let's say the black applicant isn't meritable--- what is the real choice here? Give a job to someone so they can have a productive family and pull themselves out of their racial social caste--- or give it to someone who, for all normal purposes, is probably going to be alright because they got into a nice white college and was supported by white society long enough to earn a PHD! Your mom will be fine.
With that said, why should I give a fuck about you, your mom, even your race when you're so ready to write people of other races and creed off as delusional victims?
Name:
anti-chan!9mY1Z7Yupo2006-12-05 22:00
>>197
You're entire argument is based around putting words in other people's mouths. You are a typical extremist. I don't know how you can equate meritocracy with racism if it has been expressly stated that people should be judged by their qualifications and skill at a profession and that race is an irrelevant demographic with no bearing on either by those who oppose affirmative action. That's just fucking crazy. It is obvious there is something up your ass.
I will accept discussions on inheritance and how children typically from poorer immigrant families in crime ridden communities don't get the best parents in the world, but you've worn out the "YOU'RE A RACIST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME" bullshit so I'm not going to bother responding to that anymore.
"Give a job to someone so they can have a productive family and pull themselves out of their racial social caste--- or give it to someone who, for all normal purposes, is probably going to be alright because they got into a nice white college and was supported by white society long enough to earn a PHD!"
Why do you immediately assume that because his mother is white she is rich and doesn't need a job? Racist.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-05 22:50
>>197
"This is a lie, though, to begin with. But in realistic terms; you and your mother are probably doing just fine and that black lady would've probably ended up not being able to send her kids to college or put clothes on their back.
Do you understand the fundamental difference here? Let's say the black applicant isn't meritable--- what is the real choice here?"
The choice is a meritable candidate vs. a less meritable candidate. The meritable candidate should win. There should be no affirmative action type programs geared toward forcing the employer to hire someone based on race rather than merit. Likewise, the government should be colorblind as well - there should be no consideration of race whatsoever when considering job applicants. The only thing that should be considered is compatibility/merit for the job you are applying for. Race is irrelevant. The employer likely doesn't, nor should he give a fuck what race you are, whether it is black, white, yellow, brown, blue, or whatever the fuck else. MERIT/COMPATIBILITY, and nothing else, are what should be considered in EVERY or as many as possible situations for job hiring.. Affirmative action programs are in direct opposition to these principles.
"Give a job to someone so they can have a productive family and pull themselves out of their racial social caste--- or give it to someone who, for all normal purposes, is probably going to be alright because they got into a nice white college and was supported by white society long enough to earn a PHD! Your mom will be fine."
The issue is not whether or not to 'give' something to someone, the employer needs someone capable of doing said work, or maybe just wants someone, and THAT, and the person's ABILITY/MERIT/COMPATIBILITY with the position is ALL THAT MATTERS. I don't give a fuck how much they 'need' the job or not - that isn't what matters. Employers don't offer jobs to people because they 'need' them, employers offer jobs to people because the employer wants someone to fill a position & do work, and that's all there is to it. Nothing whatsoever matters but ability, qualification, compatibility, merit, whatever the fuck you want to call it, that is necessary to work for the given employer. Race or need don't mean shit, nor should they.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-05 23:02
>>197
"It really doesn't matter to me what stats you drum up."
Well if your argument isn't rooted in fact & logic, why the fuck should anyone listen to you? Go fuck yourself.
"My personal bottomline is the economic and social racial disparity in this country. Until you type something that addresses or responds to it then we aren't even on the same page to begin with."
Nothing matters to me but qualification/compatibility/merit for the position. I don't care what race the person is from, and this is what matters to me. This is MY personal bottom line.
"that everything "Whites" have-- they have earned because of their meritability (as a race?)."
I don't even view 'white people' as a group like you seem to. I look at people on an individual basis. The very notion of affirmative action is rooted in the same kind of primeval racist collectivism that you are espousing here. That kind of racial collectivism really has no place in any good society.
"If mere "civil rights enforcement" was actually worth a damn there would be absolutely NO need for AA in the first damn place."
And there ISN'T a need for affirmative action 'in the first damn place.' Judging people by merit & qualification is what is 'needed.'
You're confused. I don't think meritocracy is racism, I simply haven't seen any indication that:
1. America is a meritocracy.
2. That Affirmative Action is opposed to the concept of meritocracy.
Why do you immediately assume that because his mother is white she is rich and doesn't need a job? Racist.
Because typically speaking a vast majority of the whites in this country control a vast majority of the wealth. Because the majority of blacks in this country live below the poverty line. If it's wrong for me to insinuate that generally whites are middle-class or higher because there is a historic instituationalized cultural and social feedback-system in place to insure their success and meritability, then it is wrong for you to insinuate that blacks are generally low-class due to an intrinstic lack of ambition or ability on their part- therefore making them "unmeritable by default".
Let's say the black applicant isn't meritable--- what is the real choice here? The choice is a meritable candidate vs. a less meritable candidate. The meritable candidate should win.
I understand that. But, what I have repeatedly asked is why is it assumed that the black applicant isn't meritable in the first place? Why is it assumed that all positions or potential positions held by a white person were gained solely based on meritability? What is wrong with Affirmative Action if all it does is force racist company owners to employ meritable races who's demographic could, quite frankly, use the "boost". Why are these questions so hard to answer and why have they been constantly avoided?
The very notion of affirmative action is rooted in the same kind of primeval racist collectivism that you are espousing here. That kind of racial collectivism really has no place in any good society.
Would you say western society, or more specifically American society, is basically "good"? If so, I have some bad news: Western society was built upon racial collectivism. If just for one second, you'd use your brain for something other than divising clever ways to disguise your obvious lack of cognitive ability, you'd see that Affirmative Action actually address that racial collectivism in a way that many had not predicted.
Affirmative Actions brings light to the fact that as things now stand...America is clearly not a meritocracy. And simply based on racial disparity stats alone- it doesn't appear to be making any attempt to be. The kind of society you think you live in; simply doesn't exist for others...or perhaps...it just doesn't exist for anyone.
...2. That Affirmative Action is opposed to the concept of meritocracy."
Now you're talking sense.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-06 15:01
>>202
"Because typically speaking a vast majority of the whites in this country control a vast majority of the wealth. Because the majority of blacks in this country live below the poverty line."
Blacks are more likely to commit crime. Are you giving your fellow racists the green card to discriminate against blacks?
Blacks are more likely to commit crime because they are more likely to need to commit crimes. And I don't have to give anyone a "green card to discriminate", I'm assuming they'll arrive to the conclusion that blacks commit crimes because they are black and not because they are poor-- on their own and due to their own prejudices.
Not so cute. It's funny to me that you would so willingly twist my words, while at the same time not addressing anything in the rest of my post. Way to "win the debate", genius. To clairify, in case you simply fail at reading comprehension...
I am saying that there is no proof, what so ever, that Affirmative Action is opposed to meritocracy. Would you care to offer an actual rebuttal to that, or would to prefer to continue talking in circles?
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-06 17:36
Im going to not hire afroamericants inspite of this threat.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-06 18:16
>>202
Lets not confuse terms here. We don't want an meritocracy - that is a form of government, if I'm not mistaken. I'm happy with our democratic republic. I want meritable candidates, however, to get a given job they apply to though, provided they fit the job.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-06 18:31
>>205
"I am saying that there is no proof, what so ever, that Affirmative Action is opposed to meritocracy. Would you care to offer an actual rebuttal to that, or would to prefer to continue talking in circles?"
I would gladly rebut that. Look, it is really pretty simple. If the quota in a given affirmative action program is set at 10% for a given racial demographic, and the applicants of said demographic are not the most meritable, then said candidates would have to be hired anyways - because of nothing but their race, and the government with its quotas and mandates. If the candidate was to be picked based on nothing but merit, race would not be a factor. Since race is indeed a factor in affirmative action programs, these programs are not meritocratic in that they involve promotion of a given person based on race, rather than merit. If you are to have a society that hires based solely on merit, then affirmative action quite simply runs contrary to this image because it brings something into the picture that has absolutely nothing to do with merit or qualification for a given position - race.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-06 18:43
>>202
"If just for one second, you'd use your brain for something other than divising clever ways to disguise your obvious lack of cognitive ability, you'd see that Affirmative Action actually address that racial collectivism in a way that many had not predicted."
Oh I see, it addresses racial collectivism by creating more racial collectivism? Here's a novel idea: to fight racial collectivism, don't be racist! Racial collectivism will continue unless people start hiring not based on 'groups' or 'races', but based on merit. Affirmative action, since it brings something other than an individual's merit or qualification into the picture (its stupid racial collectivism), perpetuates racial collectivism, and runs contrary to the idea that an individual's race should have nothing to do with his or her chances of getting hired. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=racist
On the surface I'm sure it seems pretty simple, but given your general lack of deductive ability...even simple concepts seem to be beyond your understanding. But, here we go again...
Affirmative Action isn't a policy based on merit because it addresses the problem of a lack of meritocracy in the private sector where certain companies are not hiring based on merit and are, instead, hiring based on race. Race is only a factor in affirmative action programs, because race appears to be a factor in the hiring process of certain companies within the private sector.
If you are to have a society that hires based solely on merit, then affirmative action quite simply runs contrary to this image because it brings something into the picture that has absolutely nothing to do with merit or qualification for a given position - race.
IF.
Our society isn't based on merit. Then again I supposed this goes back to what I said in >>202:
"Would you say western society, or more specifically American society, is basically "good"? If so, I have some bad news: Western society was built upon racial collectivism. If just for one second, you'd use your brain for something other than divising clever ways to disguise your obvious lack of cognitive ability, you'd see that Affirmative Action actually address that racial collectivism in a way that many had not predicted.
Affirmative Actions brings light to the fact that as things now stand...America is clearly not a meritocracy. And simply based on racial disparity stats alone- it doesn't appear to be making any attempt to be. The kind of society you think you live in; simply doesn't exist for others...or perhaps...it just doesn't exist for anyone."
Would you care to rebut the above statement or is it going to take you a couple of snide posts to warm up first because you lack the ability to do so?
I disagree. It doesn't matter what race you are - if you work hard in the USA, and you have the ability to go along with that, you can indeed get ahead. Occasionally, hard work is ALL it takes to get ahead.. possibly coupled with a willingness to take risks.
Nobody should ever have to put up with discrimination.
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-06 22:31
Life would be so much better with just one race.
Name:
anti-chan!9mY1Z7Yupo2006-12-06 23:21
>>210
I understand your argument perfectly, you are finally admitting that affirmative action is racist, but that you think necessary due to the amount of racial disparity. If this were the case I would agree, however there are 3 points you have ignored. I will refer to racist affirmative action as RAA from now on.
1a: Making assumptions about people based on their race is always going to cause problems, humans are not perfect beings and you cannot simply say "oh well it's their fault for not being perfect so I'm not going to change my policies". Thus we must only use such actions in extreme circumstances and resort to treating people equally as soon as we can.
1b: RAA does not cover all instances of discrimination and makes assumptions about people based on their race. Other replacements such as increasing civil rights enforcement, regulation of employment to ensure companies which do not choose the highest qualified prospective employee are investigated and compensation programs based on the actual priviledges people have been denied fulfil the same objectives.
2: Wealth isn't the only cause of racial disparity and if RAA was necessary it could only ever be a temporary measure.
I am very bored now. From now on when you respond I will refer you to one of these 3 points and give a brief explanations as to why it applies.
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-06 23:25
mer·i·toc·ra·cy /ˌmɛrɪˈtɒkrəsi/ [mer-i-tok-ruh-see] <--- definition of how life works
You must be very young or naive. Sometimes, I seriously yearn for those days when I could so easily perscribe to such a simple and optimistic worldview.
1a: Making assumptions about people based on their race is always going to cause problems, humans are not perfect beings and you cannot simply say "oh well it's their fault for not being perfect so I'm not going to change my policies". Thus we must only use such actions in extreme circumstances and resort to treating people equally as soon as we can.
I disagree; this approach simply hasn't panned out long term according to a racial disparity that is expressed in just about every facet of our culture and society. It's my firm belief that once whites are lumped in the "discrimination stew" along with everyone else; race relations will improve because everyone is dealing with the same adversities, even racism. You seem to think perfect equality entails everyone, regardless of race, being treated fairly. Well, from my worldview the world is hardly fair...so my idea of perfect equality is everyone, regardless of race or gender, being treated unfairly.
1b: RAA does not cover all instances of discrimination and makes assumptions about people based on their race. Other replacements such as increasing civil rights enforcement, regulation of employment to ensure companies which do not choose the highest qualified prospective employee are investigated and compensation programs based on the actual priviledges people have been denied fulfil the same objectives.
The only assumption made is that a meritable person was rejected for employment because of their race. "Increasing Civil Right Enforcement" is too vague of a phrase for me to take it as a serious deterrent to discrimination. You might as well just tell me to "Stay the course" or "Let things continue they way they have".
2: Wealth isn't the only cause of racial disparity and if RAA was necessary it could only ever be a temporary measure.
It took a certain degree of social engineering to get where we are. And I don't think this engineering has the best interests of the commonwealth in mind. My suggestions are in the vein of using social engineering for the good of the commonwealth; so of course AA would be temporary and there would come a point where AA won't be nessacary. But, as for dealing with the present...AA will work just fine.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-07 20:54
>>218
"You must be very young or naive. Sometimes, I seriously yearn for those days when I could so easily perscribe to such a simple and optimistic worldview."
You didn't offer shit in the form of a refutation.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-07 21:02
I disagree. It doesn't matter what race you are - if you work hard in the USA, and you have the ability to go along with that, you can indeed get ahead. Occasionally, hard work is ALL it takes to get ahead.. possibly coupled with a willingness to take risks.
And what the fuck is there to refute, you little dipshit? You say hard work is all you need to get ahead; but that's just not the case- and that's apparent when you open up the newspaper or turn on the TV or the radio. The experiences I have had have led me to disagree, sorry if this fucks up whatever shitbrain argument you're trying to continue on with.
"And what the fuck is there to refute, you little dipshit?"
My statement, you fucking retard.
Name:
anti-chan!9mY1Z7Yupo2006-12-09 4:56
>>218
Discrimination is a crime and thus everything we have learned about the nature of crime applies to it.
"It's my firm belief that once whites are lumped in the "discrimination stew" along with everyone else; race relations will improve because everyone is dealing with the same adversities, even racism."
Would it help to go to some peaceful small town and start tipping bins, smashing windows and robbing liquor stores until the small town LOOKS as crime ridden as the Detroit projects? It would do more good to increase tax so that law enforcement can increase in Detroit and ACTUALLY reduce crime until detroit is as crime free as small town America. Whites occupy the majority of the middle income taxpayers bracket so the reduction in white wealth is much more efficient if you use it to improve civil rights law enforcement.
"Increasing Civil Right Enforcement" is too vague of a phrase for me to take it as a serious deterrent to discrimination."
Well it works. If an employee has proof that they are being discriminated against they can press charges. So it wouldn't be much of a step to increase the scope of regulation so even in situations where discrimination is not apparent to the employee, proof of discrimination can be brought up.
AA would be fine if it were to help people who have been denied rights or children who have been disadvantaged.
You wish to discriminate against people based on the colour of their skin. That sounds pretty much the definition of racism to me. You don't support AA, you support RAA so I have corrected your typos. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/necessary
"RAA would be temporary and there would come a point where RAA won't be necessary. But, as for dealing with the present...RAA will work just fine."
If someone commits discrimination and enjoys the benefits, those benefits can be called priviledges and they should be punished by all means.
However the state of not being discriminated against isn't a priviledge. It's a right and stripping people of rights is a crime.
It would do wonders for social engineering if people were taught the different between the 2. Why don't you begin with that?
Refute my dick in your mouth, faggot. America isn't a meritocracy. Therefore, "hard work" isn't needed for success.
Name:
anti-chan!9mY1Z7Yupo2006-12-09 17:36
>>224
Excuse me, wtf are you doin?
This isn't a case of what came first and I never said RAA came first.
Not that this matters, but in fact RAA did come first. US universites used quotas to keep out people from certain ethnic groups and religions on a frequent basis before the civil rights movement.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-10 5:34
>>224
"Refute my dick in your mouth, faggot. America isn't a meritocracy. Therefore, "hard work" isn't needed for success."
LOL 'hard work' isn't needed for success? Well, I guess that depends on what you call 'success'. You might have a different view of what constitutes success than I do, so until you can be more specific, there is really no point in arguing further. You also have still not refuted my earlier statement.
Like I give a shit. This is not the incarnation of AA this thread is based on- and like I've constantly outlined- this form of AA was created to deter implict racism in hiring practices, period. You can sit here nitpicking and spell checking all you want- but face facts: You have no proof that AA insures work for unmeritable minor over a meritable white person (white people: your only concern).
So your "it's not fair unmeritable people get ahead" sounds like a bunch of bunk bullshit. The only other argument you can possibly have is one based in what you claim to take no part in: RACISM.
Are you just completely fucking retarded? Of course hard work is needed for success and you're just straight up 11 kinds of stupid if you thought I was inferring that it wasn't needed.
What I'm saying is that we live in a world where the Quarter Back for the 49'ers can make more money than a Microbiologist. I really wonder how hard the Paris Hilton's and the George W. Bush's of this world worked. You really think these people deserve their "success"?
In all liklihood, you haven't even graduated college yet. You don't know what the fucking hell goes on in the real world and this shows in your quaint little world view. You can have any degree you want, but if you're too fat, too black, too anything-- you just might get passed up for someone else.
America isn't a meritocracy, no one looks at people's "merits". The idea of "merit" can- in the end- be boiled down to pure subjectivity.
What you're not getting is that there is clear difference between the way things should be and the way they actually are. Discrimination sucks, yeah, but you have to deal with reality on reality's terms here...making it so that no one is ever discriminated against has proven an utter failure. Google "racial disparity" if you don't believe me.
It is merely my hope that the inverse will work. If everyone is a victim of discrimination at some point- then that about as equal as it's gonna get. Part of this- is dismantling white privilege, which no matter what you say, definately exists and has always existed. This is entire argument is about a bunch of white people who still want to be treated like "oh so holy white people" because of the perverse and sick notion that they work harder than any other race.
What is there to refute, really? The defintion of "Hard Work"? The definition of "success"? Of "Merit"? Come on now, Grow up and argue the points or stay the fuck out of the thread.
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-10 20:04
Race shouldn't matter to anyone, it should be about skill and who has the most earning potential. Hiring people based on skin color is jack shit and is racism. Discrimintation is a part of life, fucking get over it. Theres nothing to stop people from packing up their bags and walking to the next city over. Afirmitive action is for complaining bitches who can't get their asses up and do what they really need to do. The only people that should take care of eachother are family, no one owes you a fucking job.
Exactly, you're right. Discrimination is a part of life, so whiny whites with Phd's should "get the fuck over it" and move the next city over. I'm just making a simple ethics call here, the poor meritable black person may not have that option of moving the next city over, and even if they weren't meritable--- it's not like we live in a diehard meritocracy.
As for your family comment, we are all apart of the human family. Yet, family is a lofty concept to me- just like- the idea of across the board lack of discrimination. It's more problematic than anything. So make it so that anyone can be a victim of discrimination and instantly solve the problem of equality by insure that all are treated unfairly.
We can talk about merit and meritocracy when we become a society completely based on merit, until then your arguments solve no problem, help no one, are as implictly racist as they are antiquated.
>>229
Or, rather than treating everyone unfairly, we could treat everyone fairly, giving them equal rights before the law.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-10 22:11
>>227
"Like I give a shit. This is not the incarnation of AA this thread is based on- and like I've constantly outlined- this form of AA was created to deter implict racism in hiring practices, period."
LOL! Deter racism by racially discriminating?
"You can sit here nitpicking and spell checking all you want- but face facts: You have no proof that AA insures work for unmeritable minor over a meritable white person (white people: your only concern)."
Actually, I do have proof that that has happened. In fact, it happened at a local university. The university had an affirmative action program, and a young white girl in my area got discriminated against based on nothing but her race. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the university, and won. (The university is a public university.)
"So your "it's not fair unmeritable people get ahead" sounds like a bunch of bunk bullshit."
"Are you just completely fucking retarded? Of course hard work is needed for success and you're just straight up 11 kinds of stupid if you thought I was inferring that it wasn't needed."
Really? So I'm stupid because I thought you where saying hard work isn't necessary for success when you said the following quote:
'Refute my dick in your mouth, faggot. America isn't a meritocracy. Therefore, "hard work" isn't needed for success.'
Ahahahaha.
"I really wonder how hard the Paris Hilton's and the George W. Bush's of this world worked. You really think these people deserve their "success"?"
Paris Hilton and GWB are two very different stories. Bush was a businessman who graduated from Yale, and incidentally had higher grades than Kerry during much of his schooling there.
In the case of Paris Hilton? No, she certainly didn't deserve it - but in her case, the person whose rights are in question are not hers, they are her parents. Whether or not she deserves what she got is completely beside the point - her rich parents can and should be allowed to give her all the money they want, seeing as how it is their money anyways.
"You can have any degree you want, but if you're too fat, too black, too anything-- you just might get passed up for someone else."
Yes, there's a chance you'll get discriminated against. There's a bigger chance I'll be discriminated because I'm white than that you would be discriminated because you are black though (government affirmative action programs). Or, well, there WOULD have been, anyway, had we not abolished them.
"What you're not getting is that there is clear difference between the way things should be and the way they actually are."
Yes. People SHOULD be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of other people. Unfortunately, this is not exactly the way things are.
"Discrimination sucks, yeah, but you have to deal with reality on reality's terms here...making it so that no one is ever discriminated against has proven an utter failure. Google "racial disparity" if you don't believe me."
I've already said and explained away racial disparities in education and the economy. People of different ethnicities have different cultures, raise their children differently, etc. This all has consequences with far reaching effects on a given person's future. This is not something an INDIVIDUAL couldn't overcome (because of course some do), but it is something present.
"If everyone is a victim of discrimination at some point- then that about as equal as it's gonna get."
Well, good thing the supreme court is full of justices who realize what a racist piece of trash you are.
"Part of this- is dismantling white privilege, which no matter what you say, definately exists and has always existed."
I disagree. This has not been proven, either.
"This is entire argument is about a bunch of white people who still want to be treated like "oh so holy white people" because of the perverse and sick notion that they work harder than any other race."
It might not necessarilly be that either. I think racial disparity has more to do with cultural differences than anything else, although hard work may indeed have something to do with it as well.
"What is there to refute, really? The defintion of "Hard Work"? The definition of "success"? Of "Merit"? Come on now, Grow up and argue the points or stay the fuck out of the thread."
My statement. You made several allegations that you never bothered to support or back up. If you don't do as much, I think it is somewhat stupid to assume people will take you seriously (and clearly they aren't, by and large).
>>227
So what policies exactly are you pushing then? Quotas WILL replace people with better qualifications with people with worse qualifications.
>>229
"Discrimination is a part of life, so whiny whites with Phd's should "get the fuck over it""
Child rape is a part of life, so whiny children who rapists find sexually attractive should "get the fuck over it".
This would be acceptable proof if this was a short story contest. I want to see solid proof that unmeritable minorities are being hired over meritable whites. I want to know why it even matters when we don't live in a meritacracy in the first place.
Really? So I'm stupid because I thought you where saying hard work isn't necessary for success when you said the following quote:
Yeah, you're pretty much a completely fucking idiot if you can't understand the difference between my ideals and my ideals applied to reality. Of course hard work brings success, but that's only in a soceity that's actually based on merit (which is one we don't live in)
Yes, there's a chance you'll get discriminated against. There's a bigger chance I'll be discriminated because I'm white than that you would be discriminated because you are black though (government affirmative action programs). Or, well, there WOULD have been, anyway, had we not abolished them.
Yeah, so now whites can just do whatever the fuck they please again! Yay! Here's to the white man and his completely underhanded style of "meritacracy"! Wow! You're so genius, Mr. CrackerMan! Let's go back to the days where you didn't have to "employ them niggers".
I've already said and explained away racial disparities in education and the economy. People of different ethnicities have different cultures, raise their children differently, etc. This all has consequences with far reaching effects on a given person's future. This is not something an INDIVIDUAL couldn't overcome (because of course some do), but it is something present.
You can't "explain away" 400+ years of oppression and subjegation, you fucking idiot. This isn't just about "different cultures" when Anglo-Americans created a culture based around the subjegation of other cultures. If you really think it's that simple, you need to step out of your bubble...or just...GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-12 22:21
>>235
"This would be acceptable proof if this was a short story contest. I want to see solid proof that unmeritable minorities are being hired over meritable whites."
If I'm not mistaken, she later became involved with (or possibly founded? I'm not quite sure), MCRI, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - which pushed prop.2 through Michigan, abolishing affirmative action programs based on race or gender.
"I want to know why it even matters when we don't live in a meritacracy in the first place."
Because if we are going to pass laws protecting one 'demographic', we should have equal protection of all 'demographics'.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-12 22:29
>>235
"Yeah, you're pretty much a completely fucking idiot if you can't understand the difference between my ideals and my ideals applied to reality."
So basically, you aren't putting your ideals into practice. You preach your ideals, and don't live by them. Hypocrisy anyone?
"Yeah, so now whites can just do whatever the fuck they please again!"
Michigan abolished affirmative action, and sky hasn't fallen yet, nor has it in California. There was a third state that had a similar measure enacted, and I haven't heard of any problems there either, although I forget which state that was.
"If you really think it's that simple, you need to step out of your bubble...or just...GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL."
Based on your hideous spelling and grammar, I'd say it is you who should go back to high school, if that was what you were trying to say.
"This isn't just about "different cultures" when Anglo-Americans created a culture based around the subjegation of other cultures."
I was referring to present-day racial disparities, not past racial disparity.
"Yeah, so now whites can just do whatever the fuck they please again!"
"Michigan abolished affirmative action, and sky hasn't fallen yet, nor has it in California. There was a third state that had a similar measure enacted, and I haven't heard of any problems there either, although I forget which state that was. "
LOL, I think the pro-affirmative action folks are just unhappy about losing their free ride. Pay no heed.
Again: WHERE IS THE PROOF OF A FREE RIDE? There isn't any! Just a handful of outlandish stories from white nationalist! One trial doesn't even count. Of course someone who is unmeritable shouldn't be getting work, but then again...why play by rules that don't exist? On the otherhand: [u]What is wrong with AA when the person hired is meritable?[/u]
Michigan abolished affirmative action, and sky hasn't fallen yet, nor has it in California. There was a third state that had a similar measure enacted, and I haven't heard of any problems there either, although I forget which state that was.
And you're not going to hear of any problem either, because you're white. The sky hasn't fallen for you yet, but you live in an insular bubble of white privilege. You don't know what the fuck is going on with anyone who isn't white.
I was referring to present-day racial disparities, not past racial disparity.
So was I. White people will do anything to avoid talking about the issue of race, even though they play their part in this debacle everyday of their lives. It's quite sad really.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-13 14:26
>>239
Quotas are bullshit. People should just register their qualifications with the government and if an employer chooses someone with worse qualifications than them it means the employer is discriminating.
Frankly I don't give a fuck whether white priviledge exists or not, I want to know that my work is legitimate with no baggage. Do you get what I'm saying? How about instead of trying to cover up injustice you actually go out, get your hands dirty and solve the problems? You're just lazy, that's not right.
Name:
Xel2006-12-13 16:57
Person B has amassed resources for a better environment for child C (better in generally being positive for a human's development necessary to create a stable situation of its own). Person B's resources comes from competing on the job market. B's father A also had done the same for B (create a good environment), which is why the latter can provide the same for C.
Consider lineage G-H-I, all individuals who could not provide such a good environment for their children. Naw, all individuals discussed can become richer if they want to in a capitalist system, but naturally there is not perfect meritocracy. Perhaps dormant genes of excellence or good ideas and motivations fail to be ignited because of the problematic culture surrounding the G-H-I lineage, that will invariably have effects on their behavior and thought patterns. This limits their power in the market. They could suddenly awaken from even the most intense squalor and become statling billionares, Randian zenith's of excellence - but by undeniable determination either by genes (unavoidable) or environment (avoidable, but a living area is required for survival and beggars can't be choosers) they do not.
Now, no one can account for the genes (although soon even genes can be reliably improved, opening all hell of philosophical and ethical discourses) but what about environment, what about non-meritocratic notions and discrimination based on irrelevant aspects of a person's life? Such forces can be dissapated by education, but it is an investment of time and money that is unaffordable from the start *because of the very forces that limit capacities for self-improvement in the first place*.
So, the G-H-I lineage can not possibly compete with lineage A-B-C. Why? Because of 1) To a degree genes, which are applicable to "tough luck"-principles 2) Environments that reduce chances of being strong in the job market, reduce desire to be strong on the job market and reduce the desirability of the job market, 3) Initial positions that reduce the possibility of the individual to be able to make itself desirable on the market, assuming that conditions listed under 2) have not removed such hopes.
Now, aren't all members of the A-B-C lineage lucky to not have to worry about G-H-I competing with them on the market? Yes, they have more chances of survival and sustaining their quality of life with less competition. Now, it is established that due to cause and effect (action-reaction, a tenet of physics) in conjuncture with the manner in which humans develop behavior and thought patterns there is no such thing as free will, only behaviors and cognitive schemata that create higher degree of survival in the realities of the world in which the organism lives.
Now, the problem is that G-H-I are responsible for causing an environment that fits their schemata and behavior and is likely to impose the same result on J, who will have less chance on the market than D... I mean, to a degree it is certain J will have poorer genes than D, but let us not forget that even when ignoring J's poorer genes and environment the market does not treat him fairly because of the fallibilities of the employers in the market...
Will setting capitalism free eliminate the lack of meritocracy at least? But then what about environment?
To what degree is the determination of all people by environment something a human, or even humanity, has to take responsibility for?
I mean, this is by far an inferior analogy, but these are some of my considerations. I haven't rejected Rand anymore than I have rejected Marx or any economic form or philosophy, so if anyone would like to criticize what's above I won't call you anything or shut my ears.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-13 22:28
>>241
I think you are putting a little too much emphasis on the deterministic side of things. Of course a child's childhood and upbringing has something to do with whether or not he will become successful or not later in life, but the point is is that some individuals can overcome this, and I would say that a significant enough number do overcome this to such a point that I would have little moral/ethical objection to dishing out the responsibility for one's actions.
He already told you. Unqualified minorities are getting practically pushed into positions and crowding out more meritable candidates.
"So was I. White people will do anything to avoid talking about the issue of race, even though they play their part in this debacle everyday of their lives. It's quite sad really."
Bullshit. I've never racially discriminated against anyone. Quite the contrary, on several memorable occasions, I've stood up for minorities. Collective punishment of 'white males' or 'white people' based on the discriminatory actions of a few is not right.
Name:
Xel2006-12-13 22:39
AC. You and I both know you are a man. Am I permitted to perform cunnilingus on your asshole?
"I think you are putting a little too much emphasis on the deterministic side of things. Of course a child's childhood and upbringing has something to do with whether or not he will become successful or not later in life, but the point is is that some individuals can overcome this, and I would say that a significant enough number do overcome this to such a point that I would have little moral/ethical objection to dishing out the responsibility for one's actions."
This is fundamentally where your argument has the most flaws; from my perspective and considering my own personal upbringing..."Some" is really more like 5% of the black population. 3% of which were the lucky few born into an environment that is conduit for "success".
You claim that others put too much emphasis on environmental determinism, meanwhile, you seem to put zero emphasis on it and that's pretty much unforgivable. It lumps you in with either the racists or the truly ignorant people who just "don't get it." You can either be racist or completely out of touch with the reality of racial disparity in America. Pick one.
I find it very hard to believe that anyone can look at the recent stats concerning racial disparity, then cross reference it with what's been going on in mainstream culture and society and claim that "a significant enough number do overcome this to such a point that I would have little moral/ethical objection to dishing out the responsibility for one's actions."
That's completely rediculous. Maybe if you're white (though with the gap between the white middle class and the rich middle class widing, I really fucking doubt it)...but sorry, not if you're black.
He told me one story and left me a wiki-link for a trial that is barely relevant to my argument. You idiots have spent the last 100 posts bungling my message because you have a difficult time understanding or responding to it. It's call cognitive dissonance and you are guilty as charged. Here's a primer.
1. There's nothing wrong with Affirmative Action when you don't live in a 100% meritocratic state free of any type of discrimination or corruption. You don't get ahead in America by playing by the rules. Turner, Microsoft, Enron, Hollywood and our political system have proven this 1,000 times over. You're never going to be able to convince me, a 25 year old black man, that Hard Work is the cure for everything. I'm sorry, but I've simply experienced FAR too much to the contrary.
2. There's nothing wrong with Affirmative Action if a meritable black candidate is chosen over a white one. But, what is to be done about all the white unmeritables that have been chosen over black candidates? "Civil Rights Enforcement" is not an acceptable answer because "Civil Rights Enforcement" has been going on for the last 40 years and since then the racial disparity has GROWN.
3. What I call for is an end to white privilege that is prevalent in our culture and disproportionate to our population. Any person who says it doesn't exist needs to gain some fucking perspective; and are a part of the problem.
4. If AA can be tweaked so that a poor black meritable candidate can be chosen over a middle class white meritable canidate, then we do what offers the most help from a pure moral and ethical perspective. We should be a society that offers helps based on need (not want) and evens the playing field at any cost even if that means discriminating against "America's favorite most hardworking (LOLZ!) race."
Hey I just thought of something. Wouldn't it be simpler just to stop non-whites having children? If race doesn't matter it shouldn't matter what race the next generation is and if they are all the same race it makes it harder for people to be racist.
I really don't understand the tactic of using our names. This happens everytime a certain someone (>>247) lacks the ability to confront my argument head-on. I really don't mind, since all I have to do is launch into a violent profane word-string to prove that you're just another fucktard with a ocean of jizz where his brain should be.
It's just that it does nothing but confuses my point. I've been sitting here the last couple of posts re-explaining my stance over and over. For a change of pace- can you directly address what's said in >>245? Without glossing over the points your wee-baby mind isn't comfortable with?
Name:
AC2006-12-14 14:23
>>249
Hey, don't use my name! I spend hours each day trying to fool... i mean prove my point to others on this thread that will probably be dead in a month (or however long it takes to reach 1000 posts). Don't you think I at least deserve the credit?
Name:
anti2006-12-14 15:39
>>250
Oh you nerds! So caught up in this Anon-bullshit. This isn't about credit, but identification. I resent the fact that there are people here posting the same bullshit over and over acting as if they are a different poster. It's especially sad when you've basically got their silly little idiosyncrises down and you know it's "A Wyatt Man" posting as a "Gay Black Libertarian", LULZ.
and oh lawd is that some DODGING THE DEBATE? I thought so.
hey and here's another tip- you cum-swirled shitstain...SAGE GOES IN THE EMAIL FIELD
>>245
"He told me one story and left me a wiki-link for a trial that is barely relevant to my argument."
It was entirely irrelevant. You had asked him to give an example of how AA discriminated against candidates for a given position, and he posted that story, which was an example of exactly that.
"There's nothing wrong with Affirmative Action when you don't live in a 100% meritocratic state free of any type of discrimination or corruption."
Wrong. Affirmative action only means more people get discriminated against based on nothing but race - which should not be a factor at all. Nothing should be considered for employment but merit.
"You don't get ahead in America by playing by the rules."
Yes you do. There are plenty of success stories. There are, even today, poor as shit immigrants who come here from a hell of a lot more disadvantaged a position than many minorities already here, and build successful lives for themselves. Guess what? Many of them are black. Millions upon millions of people are able to make good lives for themselves here playing by 'the rules'.
"2. There's nothing wrong with Affirmative Action if a meritable black candidate is chosen over a white one."
There is something wrong with government programs that give preference based on race. Race does not equate to merit, and has no place at all in the decision of whether or not a person gets a position.
I don't give a fuck if the employer wants to do that, that's fine. If both candidates are equal in terms of merit, then it doesn't matter who gets the position really, since... both have equal qualification.
"But, what is to be done about all the white unmeritables that have been chosen over black candidates?"
There are already laws on the books pertaining to hiring practices.
""Civil Rights Enforcement" is not an acceptable answer because "Civil Rights Enforcement" has been going on for the last 40 years and since then the racial disparity has GROWN."
So what? Racial disparity doesn't equate to discrimination. There are already laws on the books regulating hiring practices.
"4. If AA can be tweaked so that a poor black meritable candidate can be chosen over a middle class white meritable canidate, then we do what offers the most help from a pure moral and ethical perspective."
Nothing matters except qualification.
"We should be a society that offers helps based on need (not want)"
As long as the most qualified candidate gets the position, that's all that matters. If both candidates are equally qualified, it doesn't matter who gets picked.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-15 10:29
>>253
Keep telling myself to keep telling AC to keep telling itself that anonymous is all 1 person and that there is no such thing as a non-liberal black person?
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-15 12:17
>>255
Of course there is no such thing as a non-liberal black person. If you disagree, you must be racist.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-15 15:24
>>256
Wouldn't it be racist too believe that all blacks are liberals?
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-15 15:24
>>256
Wouldn't it be racist to believe that all blacks are liberals?