Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Affirmative ActionFollow

#102 Nov 21 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Nilatai wrote:

In 2008 the American Humanist Association published an article which argued that if emancipated slaves had been allowed to possess and retain the profits of their labor, their descendants might now control a much larger share of American social and monetary wealth.[11] Not only did the freedmen and -women not receive a share of these profits, but they were stripped of the small amounts of compensation paid to some of them during Reconstruction. The wealth of the United States, they say, was greatly enhanced by the exploitation of Black slave labor.[21] According to this view, reparations would be valuable primarily as a way of correcting modern economic imbalance. The US Department of Commerce has calculated that in modern US dollars calculated for inflation and interest, slavery generated trillions of dollars for the US economy.[22]


Their rationale makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you?


Nope. And not because of some strawman you're trying to build here, but because the rationale grossly overestimates the value of slave labor to the economy as a whole, and plays games with the concepts of national wealth versus personal wealth.


Quote:
Cue gbaji's 25 paragraph post about how the actions of past generations are irrelevant today.


That's the strawman. It's not that they are irrelevant, but they become less significant factors the farther back in time you go.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#103 Nov 21 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
gbaji wrote:


That's the strawman. It's not that they are irrelevant, but they become less significant factors the farther back in time you go.
Not if the actions of the past are cause of societal strife.

Sure, it was generations ago that we enslaved blacks - we need to get over what can't be undone. But, there's good reason to believe that their lag in accumulated wealth continues to present barriers to equality - even today.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#104 Nov 21 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's the strawman. It's not that they are irrelevant, but they become less significant factors the farther back in time you go.
Not if the actions of the past are cause of societal strife.


But it's not. Demonstrably not, in fact. If that were true, then only those blacks who are direct descendants of slaves would be in the group performing statistically poorly. But the same poor performance is present among blacks who have no US slaves in their ancestry.

Clearly some more recent socio-economic factors are involved which have a much stronger role in this than whether someone was a slave back in the 19th century.

Quote:
Sure, it was generations ago that we enslaved blacks - we need to get over what can't be undone. But, there's good reason to believe that their lag in accumulated wealth continues to present barriers to equality - even today.


And there are much stronger reasons to argue that more recent social factors are far more significant in terms of socio-economic outcomes of African Americans today than just wealth loss resulting from unpaid slave labor.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Nov 21 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's the strawman. It's not that they are irrelevant, but they become less significant factors the farther back in time you go.
Not if the actions of the past are cause of societal strife.


But it's not. Demonstrably not, in fact. If that were true, then only those blacks who are direct descendants of slaves would be in the group performing statistically poorly. But the same poor performance is present among blacks who have no US slaves in their ancestry.

Clearly some more recent socio-economic factors are involved which have a much stronger role in this than whether someone was a slave back in the 19th century.

No shit sherlock. It's called bigotry. You still think you're better than a black man.



Edited, Nov 22nd 2011 2:00am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#106 Nov 21 2011 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Elinda wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
We need more scholars posting in this thread so we can reach our quota. no more new sage or guru posters in here until we get more scholar posters.
This would be an awesome new admin tool

The admins have the power to go one better than affirmative action. They can make us all equal in the eyes of the internets.

One color to rule us all.....



People would probably be cranky if I just reset everyone back to 3.00 though.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#107 Nov 21 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's the strawman. It's not that they are irrelevant, but they become less significant factors the farther back in time you go.
Not if the actions of the past are cause of societal strife.


But it's not. Demonstrably not, in fact. If that were true, then only those blacks who are direct descendants of slaves would be in the group performing statistically poorly. But the same poor performance is present among blacks who have no US slaves in their ancestry.

Clearly some more recent socio-economic factors are involved which have a much stronger role in this than whether someone was a slave back in the 19th century.

No shit sherlock. It's called bigotry.


Bigotry causing negative effects on black people since the end of slavery. So, now we're getting somewhere! We agree that the economic cost of slavery isn't the major cause of economic problems for black people today. Hurray! There's hope for us yet.

Quote:
You still think you're better than a black man.


Really? I'm trying to get you to see that it's been racism and bigotry since the end of slavery and *not* just lost wages during slavery that is the problem and you throw this at me? Could you at least try to be civil?

Edited, Nov 21st 2011 5:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Nov 21 2011 at 10:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
5,452 posts
Nilatai wrote:
In 2008 the American Humanist Association published an article which argued that if emancipated slaves had been allowed to possess and retain the profits of their labor, their descendants might now control a much larger share of American social and monetary wealth.[11] Not only did the freedmen and -women not receive a share of these profits, but they were stripped of the small amounts of compensation paid to some of them during Reconstruction. The wealth of the United States, they say, was greatly enhanced by the exploitation of Black slave labor.[21] According to this view, reparations would be valuable primarily as a way of correcting modern economic imbalance. The US Department of Commerce has calculated that in modern US dollars calculated for inflation and interest, slavery generated trillions of dollars for the US economy.[22]


Their rationale makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you?


It makes sense, except that (and this really is nitpicking, but whatever) the source they cite for "In 2008 the American Humanist Association published an article which argued that if emancipated slaves had been allowed to possess and retain the profits of their labor, their descendants might now control a much larger share of American social and monetary wealth" isn't the article they're talking about.

Instead of an article proving their claim, it's this. It's an article in the school newspaper of the University of Washington talking about Congress issuing a formal apology for slavery in August 2008. The closest the article mentions is "The argument for reparations is really quite simple. If emancipated slaves had been allowed to retain the profits of their labor, their descendants might now control a much larger share of U.S. social and monetary wealth."

It talks about the logic behind the argument, but again provides no evidence. I realize this thing is hard to measure, but I can't find any actual statistics showing that slavery directly correlates to the current economic state of affairs for the average black citizen.

Like I said, it's nitpicking, but I feel like that's kind of important, and school has hardwired me to be dubious of everything that doesn't cite a proper source. Dammit. Smiley: glare

Edited, Nov 21st 2011 11:28pm by IDrownFish
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist anus.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129

#109 Nov 22 2011 at 12:29 AM Rating: Good
Gbaji wrote:
But it's not. Demonstrably not, in fact. If that were true, then only those blacks who are direct descendants of slaves would be in the group performing statistically poorly. But the same poor performance is present among blacks who have no US slaves in their ancestry.


I'm only talking about African Americans (descendants of slaves). If you'd like to lump all black people together, have at it. I'd love to see a cite though.

Gbaji wrote:
Clearly some more recent socio-economic factors are involved which have a much stronger role in this than whether someone was a slave back in the 19th century.


It's certainly a combination of factors; but the fact is the biggest factor in how much money someone is going to make over their lifetime is whom their parents are (& how much wealth they have). The fact is, the descendants of slaves have always been at a disadvantage when compared to the descendants of slave owners & very little has ever been done to try & close that gap. Further more, most white people are fairly ignorant when it comes to just HOW bad African Americans have it.

Here's a link to a study from Ohio state. In it, they ask the very simple question: "How much would you need to be paid to live the rest of your life as black?"

Most answered at or under $10K.

In contrast, they said they'd need to be paid about $1 million to give up TV fo rthe rest of their lives.

In reality, "white households average about $150,000 more wealth than the typical black family. Overall, total wealth for white families is about five times greater than that of black families, a gap that has persisted for years."

In regards to reparations, "data suggest that such resistance [to reparations]is not because white Americans are mean and uncaring, morally bankrupt, or ethically flawed,” Banaji said.

“White Americans suffer from a glaring ignorance about what it means to live as a black American.”

THEN, when you remove the black-white connotations, and people are instead given a choice of being born in a fictional country as a minority, they'd want $500k - $1million to be born that minority. This further supports that whites are pretty blind towards the inequalities that African Americans face in the USA.

Once again, I don't think AA or Reparations are the best solutions. However, I don't think the former solves the problem that being born the descendant of an African American is a disadvantage. And the latter is a fantasy, but would address that issue.

I'm fine if any & all of you disagree with me, but what would you do to fix the problem?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#110 Nov 22 2011 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Could you at least try to be civil?
That's so adorable.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#111 Nov 22 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Reparations strike me sort of like "Deport all the illegals" arguments. A shallow solution that sounds good for a half second before realizing that it's logistically impossible and time would be better spent on addressing the issue from a more systemic standpoint.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112 Nov 22 2011 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
But it's not. Demonstrably not, in fact. If that were true, then only those blacks who are direct descendants of slaves would be in the group performing statistically poorly. But the same poor performance is present among blacks who have no US slaves in their ancestry.


I'm only talking about African Americans (descendants of slaves). If you'd like to lump all black people together, have at it. I'd love to see a cite though.


Given that it's hard to even statistically determine what percentage of blacks are descendants of US slaves, much less which ones specifically, its hard for me to believe that the volumes of studies showing discrepancies between black and white in this country magically take that into account. What do you want me to cite for this? I'm not even sure what you're asking me to do here. The US census does not distinguish based on slavery in someones ancestry. Where do you think most of our socio-economic data comes from?

Do you really need me to link to some one else on the interwebs pointing this out?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Clearly some more recent socio-economic factors are involved which have a much stronger role in this than whether someone was a slave back in the 19th century.


It's certainly a combination of factors; but the fact is the biggest factor in how much money someone is going to make over their lifetime is whom their parents are (& how much wealth they have).


Absolutely. But less significant is their grandparents, or their great grandparents, and so on. There's a point at which the current fortunes of each individual today are influenced very little by the specific conditions of their ancestors over 130 years ago. Even group statistics should have been normalized over that period of time if all we were looking at was economic conditions.


Quote:
The fact is, the descendants of slaves have always been at a disadvantage when compared to the descendants of slave owners & very little has ever been done to try & close that gap. Further more, most white people are fairly ignorant when it comes to just HOW bad African Americans have it.


Or we can say that some scholars fail to see what that gap really means. I think that most people don't see money as being the problem, and that's what's reflected in that studies results.

Quote:
In reality, "white households average about $150,000 more wealth than the typical black family. Overall, total wealth for white families is about five times greater than that of black families, a gap that has persisted for years."


I'd really need to know how they calculated wealth there. And again, wealth has less to do with how much you start with and more to do with what you do with what you have. While Trading Places is an hilarious film, it's not indicative of the likely result. Whether someone accumulates or loses wealth is mostly determined by their own actions, and that is most influenced by their own learned habits. I suspect that much of the gap this study focuses on is white people assuming that if *they* were black, their outcomes would not be affected much.

Obviously, this is going to depend on how much you view black success/failure as being influenced by what they are taught at home growing up and their own expectations and actions and habits. I think it's reasonable to expect that a white person magically transformed into a black person but otherwise possessing the same memory, personality, skills, habits, etc would perform better economically than someone who has been black all his life.

Quote:
In regards to reparations, "data suggest that such resistance [to reparations]is not because white Americans are mean and uncaring, morally bankrupt, or ethically flawed,” Banaji said.

“White Americans suffer from a glaring ignorance about what it means to live as a black American.”


Again, I disagree. I think that white americans understand better than the typical sociology professor that being raised in a black (American) household has a greater negative effect than simply "being black". But it's a factor that most race studies folks don't want to look at because it shifts the blame for the results from external racism to internal factors within the black community as a whole.

Quote:
THEN, when you remove the black-white connotations, and people are instead given a choice of being born in a fictional country as a minority, they'd want $500k - $1million to be born that minority. This further supports that whites are pretty blind towards the inequalities that African Americans face in the USA.


Or they don't agree with those conducting the study that being a minority in the US is really as much of a hardship. I think that most white americans really do believe that each individual can succeed no matter what their skin color. Again, this comes down to how much you see the group outcomes deriving from actions/habits within that group, or some sort of external racism expressed towards that group.

Quote:
Once again, I don't think AA or Reparations are the best solutions. However, I don't think the former solves the problem that being born the descendant of an African American is a disadvantage. And the latter is a fantasy, but would address that issue.


I don't think either solves anything. It's a topic that is brought up mostly as an attempt to paint those who disagree as racists or bigots, and not a whole lot more.

Quote:
I'm fine if any & all of you disagree with me, but what would you do to fix the problem?


I think we should first identify what the problem actually is, what is causing it, and *then* look at solutions. But I think that most of those pushing for a solution today don't want to do this because they wouldn't like what they might find.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Nov 22 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Decent
Gbaji wrote:
Or they don't agree with those conducting the study that being a minority in the US is really as much of a hardship. I think that most white americans really do believe that each individual can succeed no matter what their skin color.


Life's good when you're the slavemaster.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#114 Nov 22 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
I think we should first identify what the problem actually is, what is causing it, and *then* look at solutions. But I think that most of those pushing for a solution today don't want to do this because they wouldn't like what they might find.


Well, golly, gbaji, please go ahead and tell us what the problem is instead of dancing around the question?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#115 Nov 22 2011 at 7:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Liberals.

The answer is always liberals.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#116 Nov 22 2011 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think we should first identify what the problem actually is, what is causing it, and *then* look at solutions. But I think that most of those pushing for a solution today don't want to do this because they wouldn't like what they might find.


Well, golly, gbaji, please go ahead and tell us what the problem is instead of dancing around the question?


I thought I was pretty clear:

gbaji wrote:
Whether someone accumulates or loses wealth is mostly determined by their own actions, and that is most influenced by their own learned habits.


Quote:
Obviously, this is going to depend on how much you view black success/failure as being influenced by what they are taught at home growing up and their own expectations and actions and habits.


Quote:
Again, I disagree. I think that white americans understand better than the typical sociology professor that being raised in a black (American) household has a greater negative effect than simply "being black". But it's a factor that most race studies folks don't want to look at because it shifts the blame for the results from external racism to internal factors within the black community as a whole.


Quote:
Again, this comes down to how much you see the group outcomes deriving from actions/habits within that group, or some sort of external racism expressed towards that group.



The largest factor affecting statistical outcomes of blacks in America is the actions and learned habits of blacks in America *today*. While we can certainly attribute those to historical patterns, I think it's absurd to blame economic losses during slavery for this, or even economic disadvantage during the period of segregation. It's been nearly 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, and we've done a pretty good job of stamping out real institutional racism which might hinder a black persons success. Yet during the last 50 years, not only have blacks not roared into success (when measured as a group), but in many socio-economic indicators are actually performing worse in both real and relative terms.


We can speculate as to a host of possible causes which may be to varying degrees to blame, but if I were asked to say what I believe is the largest factor (and I have), I would argue that the organization of blacks into a political block, while extremely useful in the period leading up to and during the Civil Rights movement, has since been used to effectively neuter black success in this country. It has been hijacked and transformed into some sort of social experiment testing the effectiveness of group advocation as a means to advancement. In the pursuit of this, black Americans have been encouraged (strongly) to move from rural communities and into inner cities in order to strengthen their political power, but in doing so lost much of their ability to individually affect their own outcomes. They have been taught more than any other group in our country that they cannot succeed on their own, and thus must work as part of a larger community to succeed. And they've been taught that the route to success lies not in pursuing better jobs and lives for themselves, but via political action to force the creation of and funding of government programs to make their lives better.


This is why there's such a disconnect. A person raised in a (white) home and taught that he can succeed through hard work and personal accomplishment will tend to believe he can do this no matter what his skin color (and statistics for black children raised in "white" homes tends to bear this out). But someone raised in a home where he is taught constantly to accept as assumed truth that he cannot succeed on his own, that the deck is stacked against him, and that no one will treat him fairly purely because of his skin color, will be more likely to blame any failure he encounters on racism, and be more likely to give up when faced with any sort of failure. So bad grades in school, failing to get that first job, boss telling him he needs to work harder, cops pulling him over, all end out being interpreted within the lens of racism he's been taught to see everywhere. How can we not expect this to affect his outlook on the world around him and ultimately his own outcomes?


So yeah, in short: Liberals. Smiley: grin


The solution is to not do this. But unfortunately, at this point, this would require such a massive change in entrenched political organizations which have tied themselves to the perpetuation of these very assumptions and methodologies that it seems unlikely. When a black person who succeeds without being a part of that larger organized structure is labeled an Uncle Tom, it's hard to imagine that those doing the labeling are likely to change their approach any time soon. There's too much political power and cultural influence at stake, and frankly the poor statistical state of Black America benefits those who's political fortunes rest on that condition continuing. It's a gross marriage of a socialist movement which desires people to support big government and social activists more than willing to sell their own group into poverty to be used as tools for that movement in return for immediate political power for themselves.


I know it's unpopular, but I really do believe that the biggest cause of poverty and suffering by blacks in America is not white racism, but the actions of black leaders who seem to care more about using black suffering for their own benefit (and political ideology) than to actually do anything about that suffering. The cause is more important than the people in it. And that's why the people suffer.


How's that for not dancing around the question?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#117 Nov 22 2011 at 10:11 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Southern Strategy didn't quite work out the way you'd hoped? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#118 Nov 23 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Once again, I don't think AA or Reparations are the best solutions. However, I don't think the former solves the problem that being born the descendant of an African American is a disadvantage. And the latter is a fantasy, but would address that issue.

I'm fine if any & all of you disagree with me, but what would you do to fix the problem?

Affirmative Action is sort of like the argument for pumping money into education.

Most people would agree that the largest barrier to a good education is disengaged parents. If the parents don't care, don't bother to reward good grades or take action when there's bad grade, the student probably just isn't going to do well. Unfortunately, the school is trapped in a situation where they have an obligation to provide the best education possible and they can't mandate that the parents give a shit so the best they can do is try to essentially "buy" enough education to make up for the parents.

Likewise, as much as Gbaji would like to pretend that institutional racism is a thing of the past, the fact remains that race is still a barrier in our society. For lack of the ability to mandate "Don't be racist", the government instead tries to legislate fairness in their obligation to protect the supposed equality of men. It's not perfect, sometimes it might not even be "good" but the tools they have are limited and the alternative is to pretend the problem doesn't exist.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Nov 23 2011 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,272 posts
Racism exists still and it won't be going away anytime soon. The biggest reason I dislike where I live is the fact racism runs rampant, but I don't feel throwing money at the problem will ever solve anything like this. In fact I really don't feel there is any way to solve the problem that slavery caused. What has been done cannot be changed, nothing you can do will ever change that fact.

My mother and her family came over to the states from Germany in 1962 so for my Opa to find a job it was **** near impossible with all the preconceived notions about Germans. My great uncle was a GI in the war and resented my Opa because of his nationality. I'm no stranger to this one-sided thinking but the last thing my Opa ever would have wanted was a hand out because he had it harder than someone else. My point in all of this is yes, slavery probably did push back the progress of blacks but the fact remains that if you want to better your life you can. You want to sit on your **** and collect welfare don't expect to be living in some huge mansion. It doesn't matter what color your skin is, handouts don't help anything. They stagnate people's work ethics and are a catalyst to laziness.

You want to go to college and further your life, strive to get scholarships, work on your grades, prove to the administration you're worth an academic scholarship. Student loans exist for a reason IE: Stafford Loans, Pell Grants and consolidated low interest loans. If you're going to abuse a flawed system to half **** it through school then you do not deserve it.
____________________________

(V)(;,,;)(V) Why not Zoidberg?
#120 Nov 23 2011 at 12:40 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,308 posts
The only thing that will end racism as we know it on Earth is the impending invasion of the Zorgons in 2215.

As Terry Pratchett put it, "racism isn't nearly as much fun as speciesism. Black, white, red, and yellow can all gang up together on green."
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#121 Nov 23 2011 at 1:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Any day of the week in 1962 I'd have rather been a German immigrant than a native born black American.

Edited, Nov 23rd 2011 1:06pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Nov 23 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
***
3,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Any day of the week in 1962 I'd have rather been a German immigrant than a native born black American.

Edited, Nov 23rd 2011 1:06pm by Jophiel


What if you were a black german immigrant...
____________________________

(V)(;,,;)(V) Why not Zoidberg?
#123 Nov 23 2011 at 1:32 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Oooooh, chicken and beer as far as the eye can see.

Edited, Nov 23rd 2011 2:33pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#124 Nov 23 2011 at 1:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Can I be a black German Jewish immigrant?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#125 Nov 23 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,299 posts

The largest factor affecting statistical outcomes of blacks in America is the actions and learned habits of blacks in America *today*


They were totally asking for it wearing those DaiShikis. Also, society didn't leave any marks, so, you know....
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#126 Nov 23 2011 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Affirmative Action is sort of like the argument for pumping money into education.


Except for the whole "We're going to target the money based on people's skin color" part, sure. Oh wait. They really aren't anything at all alike.

Quote:
Most people would agree that the largest barrier to a good education is disengaged parents.


No. The largest barrier is the lack of time or money to obtain it. That's why we fund education, so that those who could not otherwise afford an education can receive at least enough to be contributing members of the work force. Having already decided to fund education, the next biggest barrier might be disengaged parents, but that has nothing to do with the decision to fund education in the first place.

Quote:
If the parents don't care, don't bother to reward good grades or take action when there's bad grade, the student probably just isn't going to do well. Unfortunately, the school is trapped in a situation where they have an obligation to provide the best education possible and they can't mandate that the parents give a shit so the best they can do is try to essentially "buy" enough education to make up for the parents.


I think you're getting the motivation completely wrong, but that's really beside the point. Even to the degree that a school may attempt to counteract the effect of disengaged parents, we target that based on the situation for each individual student. Teachers know which kids have engaged parents and which don't, and may work harder with the "at risk" kids to try to get them interested in their education, but they don't look at statistics for at risk kids based on race and decide to dedicate X number of additional hours of instruction/interaction with kids based on their race. That would be insane, right? You help the kids who need help. You don't provide additional help to all kids of one racial group and less to kids of another simply because of some broad social statistics.


So, no. Nothing like Affirmative Action.


Quote:
Likewise, as much as Gbaji would like to pretend that institutional racism is a thing of the past, the fact remains that race is still a barrier in our society.


Bait and switch. Is "racism" the primary problem? You're looking at statistical outcomes based on race and then leaping to an assumption about the cause. I think that's a poor methodology.

Quote:
For lack of the ability to mandate "Don't be racist", the government instead tries to legislate fairness in their obligation to protect the supposed equality of men. It's not perfect, sometimes it might not even be "good" but the tools they have are limited and the alternative is to pretend the problem doesn't exist.



Whether what you're doing is pretending the problem doesn't exist really kinda depends on what the problem *is* though. If you're wrong about the cause of outcome differences based on race, then launching into a program designed to counter the assumed cause at the very least ignores the real problem, and may in fact make things worse. AA perpetuates and institutionalizes the assumption that those outcome differences are caused by racism against the targeted group. By merely adopting such programs you reinforce that assumption. But if the real problem is the group itself failing to perform because it believes that the deck is stacked against them, you're absolutely making things worse.


Edited, Nov 23rd 2011 3:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#127 Nov 23 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh

So much wrong, I don't even care enough to bother.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128 Nov 23 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smiley: laugh

So much wrong, I don't even care enough to bother.


Interesting how often that's the response when someone's hard held assumptions are challenged.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Nov 23 2011 at 6:48 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
You sound like Alma when he desperately yells "you're proving my point for me!!!"
#130 Nov 23 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Not nearly as interesting as calling things irrelevant when it suits you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#131 Nov 23 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Interesting how often that's the response when someone's hard held assumptions are challenged.

Yeah, because I've never spent pages arguing with you before. If I say I don't feel like bothering, it must be because I'm just scared Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#132 Nov 23 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Not nearly as interesting as calling things irrelevant when it suits you.


You'd have a point if I just called something irrelevant without actually spending any time or effort supporting the claim.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Nov 23 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Interesting how often that's the response when someone's hard held assumptions are challenged.

Yeah, because I've never spent pages arguing with you before. If I say I don't feel like bothering, it must be because I'm just scared Smiley: laugh


I didn't say you were scared. I didn't attribute any emotion or motivation to your actions at all. I just made note of a trend I see. The more my argument requires one to examine and defend their own base assumptions, the less likely they are to actually engage in argument and the more likely they are to toss out a dismissive comment (or change the subject).

You're free to speculate as to *why* you (and many other posters) do this, but that doesn't really change anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#134 Nov 23 2011 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
gbaji wrote:
No. The largest barrier is the lack of time or money to obtain it. That's why we fund education, so that those who could not otherwise afford an education can receive at least enough to be contributing members of the work force. Having already decided to fund education, the next biggest barrier might be disengaged parents, but that has nothing to do with the decision to fund education in the first place.

Didn't you say in that other thread that education was solely the responsibility of the parent, and not of the state?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#135 Nov 23 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
How's that for not dancing around the question?


Pretty good!

Now provide the solution.Smiley: tongue
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#136 Nov 23 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh

NOW Gbaji has turned into Alma!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 Nov 23 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Not nearly as interesting as calling things irrelevant when it suits you.
You'd have a point if I just called something irrelevant without actually spending any time or effort supporting the claim.
Your spending a lot of time trying to convince yourself something is irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant in reality. Smiley: smile
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#138 Nov 24 2011 at 3:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Smiley: laugh

NOW Gbaji has turned into Alma!
Sometimes you go too far. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#139 Nov 25 2011 at 2:13 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Can I be a black German Jewish immigrant?


I'll allow it!
____________________________

(V)(;,,;)(V) Why not Zoidberg?
#140 Nov 27 2011 at 1:33 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,950 posts
Vageta wrote:
Name one that addresses the generational wealth that give white's an inherent advantage over the descendants of slaves whom don't have that advantage.


Post #1.

Only because I know that you didn't actually read it, let me recap it for you.. It's EDUCATION!!! Giving someone money isn't going to address any of the historical disadvantages. Businesses can always hire the Mexicans to be their janitor, the women to be their secretory and the token Black/Asian person at some low level management to fulfill their race/sex quota. That doesn't solve the problem.

People have to be educated with a goal and motivation to obtain that goal. Once you become independent, then there isn't a great necessity for government intervention. This is not to say that people ARE NOT educated now, but the focus of education has to change. Since there is a generational gap of disadvantages, the focus has to be different than the typical white counterpart. That was the initial purpose of BET, JET and other predominately black forms of media. The issues that effect the black community aren't the same as the issues that affect the white community and if those issues aren't addressed as such, they will be lost.

Here's a Dave Chappelle reference on what would happen if you just give people money without any education.


Edit: I meant this video


Vageta wrote:
No one "relies" on AA. It's similar to charter school lotteries in that only the "luckiest" of minorities actually get to benefit from it. Any white's that feel disenfranchised because of AA, kindly take a gander at post #15 again.


My original comparison was better. It's like school vouchers and the concept of "luck" does not solve the problem.


Edited, Nov 27th 2011 10:01pm by Almalieque

Edited, Nov 27th 2011 10:02pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#141 Nov 27 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,950 posts
gbaji wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
Slavery reparations would even the playing field, dramatically. It'll never happen, but it's the simplest way to reduce the advantage many whites have by way of the inherent wealth they enjoy for no other reason than they were not born the descendant of a slave.


What's bizarre is that I've been reading this thread, and Alma does have a legitimate question/point/whatever with regard to your response, but it's not the one he keeps making.

IIRC, someone asked why his family, who weren't in this country when slavery existed, should have to pay reparations for those actions just because he happens to be white? As an extension, we could ask how one would determine who gets those reparations as well, but that's a separate question.

Alma quoted that question and asked you to respond. Your response was simply "post 15". The problem is that the cartoon does not address the question which was asked. The kid who's up top isn't the same kid who stepped on the other 150+ years ago. And in many cases, he's not descended from that kid, nor are many who might demand AA descended from the kid who was stepped on either.


You might have a point if AA and even reparations were aimed at just those who were descended from slaves. But they're not. And the arguments for why they aren't get more and more tortuous the farther you delve into them. It's certainly not as simple as the cartoon makes it out and it's kinda silly to refuse to provide any more argument *except* that cartoon. Now admittedly in this case, it appears to be working, but let's not think that you're really winning any great mental battles here, shall we?


Exactly this. I tried pointing that out. They are two different people. Just because you're white, doesn't mean you will be treated better than everyone else. If you're the minority, you probably wont be treated the same as in a place where you are the majority.

Nilatai wrote:
The kid is representing white people as a whole, the other kid represents black people as a whole.


I can't believe I really had to explain that cartoon...


Read above.

Gbaji wrote:

They are statistically worse off. Is this a direct result of slavery though?


I would argue mostly. There are now definitely "self-inflicting" wounds, but the root of them all comes from the root of it all, slavery.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#142 Nov 27 2011 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,950 posts
Vageta wrote:
Here's a link to a study from Ohio state. In it, they ask the very simple question: "How much would you need to be paid to live the rest of your life as black?"

Most answered at or under $10K.

In contrast, they said they'd need to be paid about $1 million to give up TV fo rthe rest of their lives.


Although I don't disagree with the topic of the article, what exactly does that answer mean? You literally couldn't pay me enough money to change my race or live without TV. Their answer could be a result of a "lack of pride", "love of money" or any other thought.

Vageta wrote:
I'm fine if any & all of you disagree with me, but what would you do to fix the problem?


Post #1

Jophiel wrote:
Reparations strike me sort of like "Deport all the illegals" arguments. A shallow solution that sounds good for a half second before realizing that it's logistically impossible and time would be better spent on addressing the issue from a more systemic standpoint.


Smiley: smile Me and Jophiel agree on something

Gbaji wrote:
A person raised in a (white) home and taught that he can succeed through hard work and personal accomplishment will tend to believe he can do this no matter what his skin color (and statistics for black children raised in "white" homes tends to bear this out). But someone raised in a home where he is taught constantly to accept as assumed truth that he cannot succeed on his own, that the deck is stacked against him, and that no one will treat him fairly purely because of his skin color, will be more likely to blame any failure he encounters on racism, and be more likely to give up when faced with any sort of failure. So bad grades in school, failing to get that first job, boss telling him he needs to work harder, cops pulling him over, all end out being interpreted within the lens of racism he's been taught to see everywhere. How can we not expect this to affect his outlook on the world around him and ultimately his own outcomes?


Although, this is true, that still doesn't neglect the current difference in treatment. The past few years, I've noticed a lot of unfair sociological treatment. Due to the fact that black Americans were stripped away from their culture, it's always been a goal to recreate something that is "black", i.e. the "black power movement". Something to call "ours" and be proud of it. When other cultures do it, they are accepted. When black people do it, it's frowned upon and called words like "ghetto".

"Ghetto" has a negative connotation to it and mostly things that are only done by black people are called "ghetto", even though the word isn't bound to a certain race.

Gbaji wrote:
I know it's unpopular, but I really do believe that the biggest cause of poverty and suffering by blacks in America is not white racism, but the actions of black leaders who seem to care more about using black suffering for their own benefit (and political ideology) than to actually do anything about that suffering. The cause is more important than the people in it. And that's why the people suffer.


Read above. While I don't deny that is often true, that isn't ALWAYS true.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#143 Nov 27 2011 at 2:45 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,950 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Except for the whole "We're going to target the money based on people's skin color" part, sure. Oh wait. They really aren't anything at all alike.


I would argue that they are very much a like. Throwing money at education only helps education if the environment is susceptible for the positive change.

Gbaji wrote:
No. The largest barrier is the lack of time or money to obtain it. That's why we fund education, so that those who could not otherwise afford an education can receive at least enough to be contributing members of the work force. Having already decided to fund education, the next biggest barrier might be disengaged parents, but that has nothing to do with the decision to fund education in the first place.


Read above. Money is not the issue. It's the educational system and the environment that is directly connected to it. Believe it or not, you don't need fancy desks and current up to date books to learn Algebra. Money is nice, but we take that money and invest it on things that don't matter. We focus on standardized tests to get better scores just to get more money to put in things that are irrelevant in education, i.e. sports.

Gbaji wrote:
I think you're getting the motivation completely wrong, but that's really beside the point. Even to the degree that a school may attempt to counteract the effect of disengaged parents, we target that based on the situation for each individual student. Teachers know which kids have engaged parents and which don't, and may work harder with the "at risk" kids to try to get them interested in their education, but they don't look at statistics for at risk kids based on race and decide to dedicate X number of additional hours of instruction/interaction with kids based on their race. That would be insane, right? You help the kids who need help. You don't provide additional help to all kids of one racial group and less to kids of another simply because of some broad social statistics.


So, no. Nothing like Affirmative Action.


It's the concept of throwing money to a specific group of unfortunate people in hopes of resolving a problem. Children receiving school vouchers to a "better school" is conceptually the same as an adult receiving a minority scholarship to a university.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#144 Nov 27 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Did you really just cite comedian Dave Chappelle as a reference to what would happen if you handed money out.?

You are terrible at arguing a point. But this is just retarded.

Least you could have used the bailout as an example...oh wait nvm that was giving out money to rich educated white men in charge of the countries financial sector I forgot.

also last I checked everyone has access to education, via public schools, private schools, and yes even learning from home via internet schooling. shocking isn't it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#145 Nov 27 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
I would argue that they are very much a like. Throwing money at education only helps education if the environment is susceptible for the positive change.


I believe "conducive" was the word you were looking for, there.Smiley: schooled



On that note, are you arguing that the fault lies not with racism but with terrible parents?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#146 Nov 28 2011 at 2:33 AM Rating: Decent
Alma wrote:
Only because I know that you didn't actually read it, let me recap it for you.. It's EDUCATION!!! Giving someone money isn't going to address any of the historical disadvantages. Businesses can always hire the Mexicans to be their janitor, the women to be their secretory and the token Black/Asian person at some low level management to fulfill their race/sex quota. That doesn't solve the problem.


We already provide free public education to children of all races. However, white kids tend to do better with their education because of whom their parents are as opposed to black kids who's parents are statistically lower income than their white counterparts (Again, due to the generational wealth that the descendants of slaves do not benefit from).

It stands to reason that IF those black parents were closer in income to their white counterparts, education for their children could take a higher priority than :Doing whatever needs to be done to survive" in a lower income urban environment.

While I certainly do agree that pumping more money into education for lower income families is a good thing, it doesn't fix the generational wealth gap.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#147 Nov 28 2011 at 3:09 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,950 posts
Bijou wrote:
I believe "conducive" was the word you were looking for, there.Smiley: schooled


Thanks, but I meant "susceptible".


Bijou wrote:



On that note, are you arguing that the fault lies not with racism but with terrible parents?


We're talking about several issues. Which one are you referring to? We made an analogy of the AA solution with the school voucher solution. Those are two different social issues. The comparison was pointed at the solution, not the problem.

Vageta wrote:

We already provide free public education to children of all races. However, white kids tend to do better with their education because of whom their parents are as opposed to black kids who's parents are statistically lower income than their white counterparts (Again, due to the generational wealth that the descendants of slaves do not benefit from).

It stands to reason that IF those black parents were closer in income to their white counterparts, education for their children could take a higher priority than :Doing whatever needs to be done to survive" in a lower income urban environment.


Did you read the rest of my post? Your response says that you didn't.

Almalieque in the same post that you quoted from wrote:
People have to be educated with a goal and motivation to obtain that goal. Once you become independent, then there isn't a great necessity for government intervention. This is not to say that people ARE NOT educated now, but the focus of education has to change. Since there is a generational gap of disadvantages, the focus has to be different than the typical white counterpart. That was the initial purpose of BET, JET and other predominately black forms of media. The issues that effect the black community aren't the same as the issues that affect the white community and if those issues aren't addressed as such, they will be lost.


Vageta wrote:
While I certainly do agree that pumping more money into education for lower income families is a good thing, it doesn't fix the generational wealth gap.


I actually said the exact opposite.

Almalieque wrote:
Money is not the issue. It's the educational system and the environment that is directly connected to it. Believe it or not, you don't need fancy desks and current up to date books to learn Algebra. Money is nice, but we take that money and invest it on things that don't matter. We focus on standardized tests to get better scores just to get more money to put in things that are irrelevant in education, i.e. sports.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#148 Nov 28 2011 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
IDrownFish wrote:
Affirmative action? Fuck no.

In Texas, we have a state law saying that if you are in the top 10% of your graduating class, then you get automatic admission to all Texas public colleges. They decided to implement this because the Texas legislature decided that there wasn't enough ethnic variety at Texas public schools.

Now, there is certainly more, say, inner-city kids at schools like UT, but we've run into the issue where schools are having to take only top 10% kids because after the kids they are required to take, they simply don't have the room to take anyone else.

The school I wanted to go to, University of Texas, even has had an exception made for them. This past year, they only had to take the top 8% of students, because they are quickly reaching overpopulation. They have ~50,000 students, and no room to grow, being in the middle of Austin. They only made the exception because they predicted that this past year 75% of students would be getting in for this top 10% rule.

Now, you're probably thinking this is fair. Everyone has a the same chance to be top 10% in their school, right? Wrong. I went to a very good public school. Ranked 98 in the country by Newsweek. You think the top 10% at my school, with a graduating class of about 1,000 students was, as easy to get as the top 10% in podunk West Texas? **** no.

My GPA was 3.8. I was rank 300. Top third. That's it. I would be top 10% easy at many other schools in Texas. I was accepted to Baylor, SMU, and many other private schools that didn't have to deal with the top 10 rule. Do I think I would have been accepted at UT if the rule weren't in place? Maybe. I don't know. I'm not arrogant enough to say yes. But I will say that in Texas that rule is an example of affirmative action, and is completely unfair.

The law was even implemented because affirmative action in college admission is illegal. This was a freaking workaround.

So no, I don't' support affirmative action. All men are created equally? Then give us all an equal chance, for crap's sake.
Lol, so all things being equal pick me because I'm white, I went to a better high school and I deserve it more than them poor black slobs.

Nice example for AA proponents to make their case.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#149 Nov 28 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
Almalieque wrote:
ArexLovesPie wrote:
You could be like the Indian tribes up in ND. Complain about the UND Sioux nickname, and then get free tuition if you can prove your at least 1/16th Indian or more.


For real? Hmmm. I should check that out...

Are you an African American Indian?

I have American Indian in my blood on my paternal grandmas side. We're not allowed to talk about it. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#150 Nov 28 2011 at 7:59 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Did you really just cite comedian Dave Chappelle as a reference to what would happen if you handed money out.?
Apparently Dave Chappelle is "legendary" to Alma.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#151 Nov 28 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Did you really just cite comedian Dave Chappelle as a reference to what would happen if you handed money out.?
Apparently Dave Chappelle is "legendary" to Alma.

Well, he's more principled and likely more intelligent than Rush or that other guy.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
ElneClare, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (57)