Affirmative Action Banned!

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. 

>>34
>>35

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.

>>36

"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?

>>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.

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.

http://www.cre.gov.uk/gdpract/em_faq.html

>>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.

>>41

"Are you sure you fully understand what AA is?"

Actually, I think it is YOU who doesn't. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

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. 

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.

>>42

"That about covers it.

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.

>>45

I have Wikipedia too, you know...

"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? 

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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...

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.

>>51

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.

Fucking signed,
Anti-Chan.

>>52

Hey, everybody: It's semantics! ^_^

WEEABOO YOUR ASS ON OUTTA HERE.

>>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.

>>55

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?

>>52
Sensible.

>>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

q: what is the end benefit of racial diversity?

a: it eases your white man guilt

>>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.

California should have waited until I was in 4-year college to ban it. :(

>>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.

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.

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.

>>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. 

Promoting diversity is just as pointless as promoting genetic purity. Don't let your race bullshit bother the smooth running of society.

>>62
http://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical/dp/0300107757/sr=8-12/qid=1164080786/ref=pd_bbs_12/104-4668493-6087905?ie=UTF8&s=books

Pluralism over conservatism

>>58
Those are words, not actions you spermwhore.

>>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.

>>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.

>>70

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.

>>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.

>>71
Its spelled 'privilege' you stupid faggot.

>>72

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.

>>73

Yawn. Tell that to >>72

>>74
"I'm not declaring anyone guilty of anything."

You are declaring white people guilty of privilege, and claiming that they need to be discriminated against for being more successful.

"AA persecutes the private sector for discrimination and that's it."

Wrong. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

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.

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.

>>75

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.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

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.

>>76

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.

>>78

Nigger

>>77
"They are more successful because of the privilege and because of events in history."

'They'? Not all white people had slaves.  Not all black people living here are the descendents of slaves.

As for whether they are more successful on average because of privilege or not? This might have something to do with that: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cranial_capacity-IQ.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Students_who_scored_600_or_more_on_the_math_SAT.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2003_SAT_by_race-ethnicity.png

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.