Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCotUS to Look at Affirmative Action (Kind Of)Follow

#102 Feb 29 2012 at 1:57 AM Rating: Good
Gbaji wrote:


Yes, this is what people are taught. I find the whole "if you don't agree with us, you must be ignorant of the facts" argument weak at best. It avoids the actual question.


You would remove AA because you believe two people of two different races, given similar backgrounds, have an equal opportunity to succeed. I wish that were the case, but believe because of generational racism, that isn't the case. Since people of color start with a disadvantage, I've got no problem with AA and don't see AA as any sort of "advantage" for people of color.

You'd like to ignore the "problem" (if you even think it is one) & hope for the best. I don't think that "fixes" anything.
____________________________
"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


#103 Feb 29 2012 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Really? Why not read the **** citation Bijou linked? Here. Let me do you own research for you:

Quote:
The original homestead act, known as the Homestead Act of 1862, was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on May 20, 1862.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The law required three steps: file an application, improve the land, and file for deed of title. Anyone who had never taken up arms against the U.S. government, including freed slaves, could file an application to claim a federal land grant. The occupant also had to be 21 or older, had to live on the land for five years and show evidence of having made improvements.



I've seen ignorance, but that kinda takes the freaking cake.

Awesome. Now prove that those freed slaves were just as likely to get the land as the white guy applying at the same time, please.

Thank you. You're so kind to offer your assistance.
____________________________
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
#104 Feb 29 2012 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,219 posts
I'm glad to know that when I don't know what my own point is, I can come here and gbaji will tell me what I really mean to say.
____________________________
Banh
#105 Feb 29 2012 at 10:56 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Given land? Where the **** did you learn history?.


Homestead Act

You are now officially the dumbest person in this forum.


The homestead act granted land only to white people?

Did I say that? No.

Because they were white? And to no one else?

Did I say that? No.

Try learning history instead of assuming about it based on your current day biases.

Coming from you, that's pretty funny.


Thanks for trying to stuff words in my mouth, though.



If you jump in to defend what someone else said.......


Yeah, no. Are you **** blind? I jumped in to correct a direct statement by you that indicated you had no clue about American history. No amount of you whinging otherwise will change that.

Do you think you're clever when you change words and arguments? Do you think nobody notices?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#106 Feb 29 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,460 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Are you @#%^ing blind?
I don't see what you did there.

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 11:59am 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.
#107 Feb 29 2012 at 12:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Samira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
People who **** "Whom" denotes an object, "who" denotes a subject.


I can't help to notice the difference in tone when grammatically correcting someone else.


I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Lolgaxe, I sing that song more often than I like to admit.




Your correction was polite and professional. When I use wrong the wrong words, I get comments like "
"Preface", you **** idiot.", followed by posts on how confusing two words makes me an idiot.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#108 Feb 29 2012 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Your correction was polite and professional. When I use wrong the wrong words, I get comments like "
"Preface", you @#%^ing idiot.", followed by posts on how confusing two words makes me an idiot.


Well you do seem to have a way with people... Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#109 Feb 29 2012 at 1:29 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
People who **** "Whom" denotes an object, "who" denotes a subject.


I can't help to notice the difference in tone when grammatically correcting someone else.


I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Lolgaxe, I sing that song more often than I like to admit.




Your correction was polite and professional. When I use wrong the wrong words, I get comments like "
"Preface", you @#%^ing idiot.", followed by posts on how confusing two words makes me an idiot.


Why should I be polite and professional to you, exactly? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical. You've given me literally no reasons to do so, and a plethora of reasons not to.

You confusing two words doesn't make you an idiot, despite the fact that you do it with comedic frequency. It's more like a symptom of whatever caused you to be an idiot. The cause itself would be more innate...I'd guess bad genes, or a poor upbringing. I suspect your mom is partially to blame, somehow.

Now, you misunderstanding this, despite the simple logic of my insult, is also a symptom of your idiocy.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#110 Feb 29 2012 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
You would remove AA because you believe two people of two different races, given similar backgrounds, have an equal opportunity to succeed.


Poorly phrased IMO. I believe that two people of different races, given similar backgrounds *should* have an equal opportunity to succeed (which is not necessarily the same as equal outcomes). I believe that the best way to accomplish this is to eliminate racism within our society to the greatest degree possible. AA is a form of racism, thus it is a poor method to use if that is really our goal.

Quote:
I wish that were the case, but believe because of generational racism, that isn't the case.


I think that racism is less a factor than you do (in terms of its effect on keeping people of color from success), but even if you're right, then lets identify actual instances of racism and do something about it instead of trying to counter it with racism of our own.

Quote:
Since people of color start with a disadvantage, I've got no problem with AA and don't see AA as any sort of "advantage" for people of color.


I don't think that follows though. It's like you're arguing that a sledgehammer is a perfectly valid tool to use for dentistry, and when I argue that perhaps a smaller drill might work better, you counter that I must just not want people to have healthy teeth. It's not that though, I think that the tool you are using is causing more harm than good.


Quote:
You'd like to ignore the "problem" (if you even think it is one) & hope for the best. I don't think that "fixes" anything.



I'm not ignoring it though. I'm saying that your method is counterproductive and that a better approach will work better. Can you for a moment consider that AA might not actually be helping things? I've already explained at length in this thread why I believe that AA only treats the symptoms of racism and in the process perpetuates it. IMO, that's the absolute wrong approach.


Here's another way to look at it. Let's assume for the sake of argument that some percentage of white people are racist and will act in ways which put people of color at a disadvantage. So those people are committing racism and should be condemned for it (and stopped if/where we can). Those people are violating the law, both in spirit and letter. They're "bad people", right? Here's the problem though: By putting AA rules into place, our government is choosing to use racism itself. And all the citizens who allow such things are responsible to some degree. So while I might not ever act in a racist manner myself, my government is forcing me to by doing so on my behalf.


If it's wrong for individuals to act in a racist manner, it is 100x more wrong for our government to do so. Even with the best of intentions, it's still wrong. Because the individual racist is making his own choice to help or harm someone because of their skin color. When the government does it, we are all doing it. This is one of the reasons behind the principle of small government. The less our government does, the less we become forced to allow things to be done on our behalf which we may not agree with. It's one thing for government to act to prevent someone from harming someone else. It's quite another thing when it embarks on grand programs to try to "fix" society. Forcing everyone to become participants in racist social policy is just one example of the numerous problems you run into when you do that.


Even if you're sure that AA programs will fix everything, it would still be the wrong thing to do. And given that its pretty questionable as to whether it can fix anything, it's even more so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111rdmcandie, Posted: Feb 29 2012 at 5:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You should have stopped here because you pretty much emphasized the point of AA, and its usefulness in society. You know as well as anyone here that there is not equal footing in the US. Let alone much of the rest of the Western Hemisphere.
#112 Feb 29 2012 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Ya racism against white people, that undeniably have a clear cut advantage be they man or woman (with white men having the best chance at success).


Do they? How much of one? And how much of that is due to actual racism? You can't say, can you? But you support a racist program which attempts to counter something which is an unknown quantity.


Wouldn't it be better to actually fight against racism itself? If our objective is to actually have people's outcomes based on their abilities, this is the only way to get there.


Quote:
Quote:
Poorly phrased IMO. I believe that two people of different races, given similar backgrounds *should* have an equal opportunity to succeed (which is not necessarily the same as equal outcomes).



You should have stopped here because you pretty much emphasized the point of AA, and its usefulness in society. You know as well as anyone here that there is not equal footing in the US. Let alone much of the rest of the Western Hemisphere.


But even if we accept that as an absolute truth, you have still failed to show that AA is the best way to deal with this. Simply insisting "But white folks have an advantage" over and over doesn't constitute a valid argument for why AA is the right solution to the problem.


Quote:
(Not that I agree with AA or other forms of it on a personal level, ability should be the number one decider in success, but it isn't, unfortunately, so I support it as it benefits society in general)


But here's another part of the problem with AA. As long as AA exists, ability will *never* be the number one decider of success. You are employing a method that ensures that your ideal cannot ever happen. IMO, that's a pretty foolish way to approach this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Feb 29 2012 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
As opposed to what, maintain the status quo of "If it ain't white it ain't right." Racism in america is alive and well, and if you honestly believe AA hasn't led to the acceptance of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Natives, and Women you are delusional.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#114 Feb 29 2012 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
As opposed to what, maintain the status quo of "If it ain't white it ain't right."


Huh? I've said several times now: Actually fight against acts of racism when they occur. What part of that makes you think we just sit back and ignore/allow racism? I'm honestly confused where you got this idea that we only have two choices: AA or "nothing".

Quote:
Racism in america is alive and well, and if you honestly believe AA hasn't led to the acceptance of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Natives, and Women you are delusional.


I actually don't believe it's had much effect at all on acceptance of minority groups. I think that plain old social change has raised awareness and acceptance of different groups within our society. I mean, we somehow managed to pretty universally condemn segregation back in the 50s without needing AA to do it. Why assume that social changes can't occur unless some government program intervenes? I find that mind boggling.


It is only in the context of 20th century socialist movements that the idea that social change requires government action to occur has become popularly argued. One could accept their word in the face of massive historical evidence to the contrary, or one might assume that this is just what modern socialists say in order to make it easier to convince people to accept their big government social programs. I'm going with the latter.

Edited, Feb 29th 2012 6:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Feb 29 2012 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Huh? I've said several times now: Actually fight against acts of racism when they occur. What part of that makes you think we just sit back and ignore/allow racism? I'm honestly confused where you got this idea that we only have two choices: AA or "nothing".


So you are telling me that tomorrow morning that the world will wake up and Racism will have magically disappeared.

You think a Black Man would be president if it weren't for AA, allowing him the chance to at least pretend he was on par with white men.

What about Mrs. Clinton, or **** even Palin who was selected for VP.

You honestly think AA had nothing to do with the ability for these people to succeed in politics. Hard work lays the foundation, but if you are a white male you are starting the second floor already.

But its cool to dream I guess.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#116 Feb 29 2012 at 10:56 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Eske wrote:
Why should I be polite and professional to you, exactly?


What is "That's how professional and polite people behave"?

Eske wrote:
You've given me literally no reasons to do so, and a plethora of reasons not to.


Please name a few reasons that I have given you to do so.

Eske wrote:
You confusing two words doesn't make you an idiot, despite the fact that you do it with comedic frequency.


Just this morning, I've seen numerous typos, misuse of words and creation of new words... You don't even have to read the post, just the titles. For example, people CONSTANTLY write "your" for "you're" All the freakin time on this forum... Those are everyday words that are taught in the elementary school..

Eske wrote:
It's more like a symptom of whatever caused you to be an idiot. The cause itself would be more innate...I'd guess bad genes, or a poor upbringing. I suspect your mom is partially to blame, somehow.


That's a nice attempt to cover your douchebaggery. The reality is, you're a douchebag. You probably have low self-esteem and uses this forum as a way to be the "punk" that picks on you in real life. These are discussions over current events, there is no need for your unwarranted, immature behavior.

Eske wrote:
Now, you misunderstanding this, despite the simple logic of my insult, is also a symptom of your idiocy.


The irony in this (and yes, Allegory, Irony) is hilarious. I was merely pointing out that other people make the same mistakes and there are ways to correct them without being a douchebag. Now, you misunderstanding, despite the simple logic of my statement, is also a symptom of your douchebaggery.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#117 Mar 01 2012 at 12:19 AM Rating: Decent
Gbaji wrote:

Poorly phrased IMO. I believe that two people of different races, given similar backgrounds *should* have an equal opportunity to succeed (which is not necessarily the same as equal outcomes). I believe that the best way to accomplish this is to eliminate racism within our society to the greatest degree possible. AA is a form of racism, thus it is a poor method to use if that is really our goal.


AA is not racism, it is a response to racism that encourages diversity. Diversity in the workplace or college is a positive & should be encouraged. I believe race can be a factor when encouraging diversity in instances where other policies do not do a good job of doing so. Furthermore, any white person that honestly believes that AA is a form of racism is completely clueless about what it means to be a person of color in our society.

Gbaji wrote:
I think that racism is less a factor than you do (in terms of its effect on keeping people of color from success), but even if you're right, then lets identify actual instances of racism and do something about it instead of trying to counter it with racism of our own.


Racism isn't as blatant as it used to be, it's hidden but has become ingrained within our society- you don't see too many klan rallies nowadays. Because of generational racism & white privilege, a white person is considered "safe" and a black person "dangerous". A white person who's in charge of things like loaning money for housing, is going to approve a white person more times than a black person who has the same credit due to things like this. The person approving or denying the loan may not even be aware of it. Same thing happens when a cop pulls over a black guy because he looks "suspicious".

The solution to generational racism (Besides reparations), is diversity. AA encourages it and I support it.

Gbaji wrote:
I don't think that follows though. It's like you're arguing that a sledgehammer is a perfectly valid tool to use for dentistry, and when I argue that perhaps a smaller drill might work better, you counter that I must just not want people to have healthy teeth. It's not that though, I think that the tool you are using is causing more harm than good.


If the sledgehammer isn't getting the tooth out, why go smaller?

Gbaji wrote:

Here's another way to look at it. Let's assume for the sake of argument that some percentage of white people are racist and will act in ways which put people of color at a disadvantage. So those people are committing racism and should be condemned for it (and stopped if/where we can). Those people are violating the law, both in spirit and letter. They're "bad people", right? Here's the problem though: By putting AA rules into place, our government is choosing to use racism itself. And all the citizens who allow such things are responsible to some degree. So while I might not ever act in a racist manner myself, my government is forcing me to by doing so on my behalf.

If it's wrong for individuals to act in a racist manner, it is 100x more wrong for our government to do so. Even with the best of intentions, it's still wrong. Because the individual racist is making his own choice to help or harm someone because of their skin color. When the government does it, we are all doing it. This is one of the reasons behind the principle of small government. The less our government does, the less we become forced to allow things to be done on our behalf which we may not agree with. It's one thing for government to act to prevent someone from harming someone else. It's quite another thing when it embarks on grand programs to try to "fix" society. Forcing everyone to become participants in racist social policy is just one example of the numerous problems you run into when you do that.

Even if you're sure that AA programs will fix everything, it would still be the wrong thing to do. And given that its pretty questionable as to whether it can fix anything, it's even more so.


Again, I'll always support policies that encourage diversity that do not use race as a factor over policies thatdo (Provided said policy actually increases diversity). I don't think AA is racism at all and since racism in our society is mostly silent anyways (it's hard to get the bad guys when they're not wearing hoods), in a lot of cases all AA actually does is increase diversity. I can understand why a white dude passed over for a job might be resentful that it was given to a black guy, but simply by being there the office is more diverse - and not to mention less racist - than it was before which is a positive.
____________________________
"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


#118 Mar 01 2012 at 8:29 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Alma wrote:
Now, you misunderstanding, despite the simple logic of my statement, is also a symptom of your douchebaggery.


Smiley: lol

Do you know how to make a retort without saying "I know you are, but what am I?"
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#119 Mar 01 2012 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Do you know how to make a retort without saying "I know you are, but what am I?"
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Mar 01 2012 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,915 posts
A statistic that may or may not be true is: 40% of people you meet will like you. 40% of people you meet will dislike you. 20% of people you meet won't care one way or the other.

I don't know if this is real, or just a reassuring lie. But it demonstrates the corollary of something I think is true: I just happen to dislike certain people, and thus when I think about it I think it's my right to dislike people. It's only fair that other people have the right to dislike me.

This is not a professional space. Why should people act professionally here? In fact, what the **** are you thinking, Amalieque, expecting professional behaviour in The Asylum? Eat Chlorine and die.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#121 Mar 01 2012 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aripyanfar wrote:
This is not a professional space. Why should people act professionally here? In fact, what the **** are you thinking, Amalieque, expecting professional behaviour in The Asylum? Eat Chlorine and die.


Edited, Mar 1st 2012 1:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Mar 01 2012 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
Dibs on being Statler.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#123 Mar 01 2012 at 2:51 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I'm just wished I had a warm place to go when I can't be doing the typings well.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 2:51pm by Guenny
#124 Mar 01 2012 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Huh? I've said several times now: Actually fight against acts of racism when they occur. What part of that makes you think we just sit back and ignore/allow racism? I'm honestly confused where you got this idea that we only have two choices: AA or "nothing".


So you are telling me that tomorrow morning that the world will wake up and Racism will have magically disappeared.


No, of course not. But isn't that an unrealistic expectation? We've been implementing AA programs for 30-40 years in the US. Did racism magically disappear? You seem to still be acting on the assumption that by arguing against AA, I'm arguing against "fighting racism". My point is that I don't believe that AA is the best way to fight racism. In fact, I believe that it perpetuates racism instead of fighting it.

Quote:
You think a Black Man would be president if it weren't for AA, allowing him the chance to at least pretend he was on par with white men.


Yes, I do. It may or may not have happened in 2008, and it may or may not have been Barack Obama, but silly me, I actually do think we should strive for a society where people are judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. I don't think a program that by its very nature judges people based on their skin color can ever get us there.

Quote:
What about Mrs. Clinton, or **** even Palin who was selected for VP.

You honestly think AA had nothing to do with the ability for these people to succeed in politics. Hard work lays the foundation, but if you are a white male you are starting the second floor already.


I think that's the excuse people tell themselves to justify continuing to support a program that is clearly racist.

Quote:
But its cool to dream I guess.


Yes. It is. Some of us dream of a world where people really are treated equally. Others give up on that and accept a world where we selectively treat people unequally, and convince themselves that it's ok because the selective criteria they use is assumed to be helpful instead of hurtful. To me, it's still racism.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Mar 01 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
AA is not racism, it is a response to racism that encourages diversity.


Of course it's racism. Or, if you're an advocate of the more recent redefinition of the word, it is at the very least "racial discrimination". And I think it's a mistake to conflate the concepts of racism and diversity. Those really are two different things. While we can certainly say that racism will tend to prevent diversity, we can't say that a lack of diversity is the result of racism, nor can we say that increasing diversity decreases racism. They really are two different concepts.

Quote:
Diversity in the workplace or college is a positive & should be encouraged.


Diversity, when it occurs naturally is positive. When it's forced in order to make the stats look better, is isn't.

Imagine you run a diner and have 10 different menu items. Now, you could certainly say that if your customers order each of those 10 items in roughly equal amounts, that this means that all your dishes are equally "good" (or bad, I suppose). Thus, you might desire to obtain that balance. If you had a certain dish that was not ordered often, you might want to look into why this is happening and correct it, right? But can we agree that the absolute wrong thing to do would be to force customers to order the dishes you wanted them to order in order to ensure that a diverse set of dishes were eaten?


You want everything to be equally desired and equally chosen. But if you take out the choice element, then you haven't actually accomplished anything at all. Diversity is a good goal, but it has to happen as a result of people's natural and unmanipulated choices. Otherwise, it's meaningless.


Quote:
I believe race can be a factor when encouraging diversity in instances where other policies do not do a good job of doing so. Furthermore, any white person that honestly believes that AA is a form of racism is completely clueless about what it means to be a person of color in our society.


Of course it's a form of racism. The very fact that you seem to want to define racism based on the skin colors of those involved is bizarre. You're using the word "racism" because it has power, but are using it in a way which makes it meaningless.

Quote:
Racism isn't as blatant as it used to be, it's hidden but has become ingrained within our society- you don't see too many klan rallies nowadays. Because of generational racism & white privilege, a white person is considered "safe" and a black person "dangerous". A white person who's in charge of things like loaning money for housing, is going to approve a white person more times than a black person who has the same credit due to things like this. The person approving or denying the loan may not even be aware of it. Same thing happens when a cop pulls over a black guy because he looks "suspicious".


I think that's subjective interpretation though. You assume this is the case, but do you know it? I find it unusual that you readily accept the idea that a white person might be making racist choices without even being aware of it, but can't accept even the possibility that you might be making that false assumption without being aware of it.

You're assuming rationale after the fact. When a white cop pulls over a black person for being "suspicious", you assume racism. You make note of it and look for the racism. But if the same cop pulls over a white person for also looking suspicious, you don't take note. Thus, your own assumptions taint your perceptions of things. Similarly, you assume the white banker refused the loan to the black person because of racism, but don't notice when he refuses loans to white people.

You're using selection bias.

Quote:
The solution to generational racism (Besides reparations), is diversity. AA encourages it and I support it.


I disagree. I think diversity is the likely outcome in a society with less racism in it, but you can't force a diverse outcome and think you're solving anything. Doubly so if your method to do this requires that you yourself treat people differently based on their race.

Quote:
Again, I'll always support policies that encourage diversity that do not use race as a factor over policies thatdo (Provided said policy actually increases diversity).


I think you are placing more weight on the symptom (diversity) than the methodology (racism, or racial prejudice if you prefer).


Quote:
I don't think AA is racism at all and since racism in our society is mostly silent anyways (it's hard to get the bad guys when they're not wearing hoods), in a lot of cases all AA actually does is increase diversity. I can understand why a white dude passed over for a job might be resentful that it was given to a black guy, but simply by being there the office is more diverse - and not to mention less racist - than it was before which is a positive.


It may be more diverse, but it's also *more* racist. Because the office is basing its hiring policies on race. I think the problem is that you (and most people) have a blindness to this based on if the outcomes are what you think is "good", versus if they are "bad". If I believe that the best makeup of workers in my society is black folks working the menial low paying jobs, and white folks working the higher paying comfy jobs, then I might implement racist education and hiring practices in order to accomplish my "ideal" mix of society. If someone else decides that an equal mix is ideal, they might implement equally racist education and hiring policies. But it's still racist.


You've just decided that your social ideal is "good", and thus any method used to get there is good. But to me, the methods are what matter. It doesn't matter if your objective is to increase the number of black people holding higher paying positions, or to decrease that number. You're still using race to artificially influence the outcome. Diversity is a good outcome to strive for, but not if we lose the more important principles of equality under the law on the way there. Just like with my diner example, we should try to figure out why people aren't ordering one dish as much as another rather than forcing them to order them in the ratio we desire.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#126 Mar 01 2012 at 4:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
No, of course not. But isn't that an unrealistic expectation?


Yes it is an unrealistic expectation. It would be nice if racism magically vanished into non-existence. But it won't happen, 2000+ years of Racism being present in human society is evidence enough that it won't just go away.

Stop being Naive. All the human rights movements over the past 300-400 years have happened for a reason, that being that in order to achieve progress one must voice for it, not lay in bed in dream land wishing that one day whitey will treat you like kin.

Quote:
Yes. It is. Some of us dream of a world where people really are treated equally.


So lets take away a tool that directly assists in the equality of the races sexes and religions in Federally funded employment possibilities.



Edited, Mar 1st 2012 5:40pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#127 Mar 01 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Racism isn't as blatant as it used to be, it's hidden but has become ingrained within our society- you don't see too many klan rallies nowadays. Because of generational racism & white privilege, a white person is considered "safe" and a black person "dangerous". A white person who's in charge of things like loaning money for housing, is going to approve a white person more times than a black person who has the same credit due to things like this. The person approving or denying the loan may not even be aware of it. Same thing happens when a cop pulls over a black guy because he looks "suspicious".


gbaji wrote:
You're assuming rationale after the fact. When a white cop pulls over a black person for being "suspicious", you assume racism. You make note of it and look for the racism. But if the same cop pulls over a white person for also looking suspicious, you don't take note. Thus, your own assumptions taint your perceptions of things. Similarly, you assume the white banker refused the loan to the black person because of racism, but don't notice when he refuses loans to white people.


To throw this out there, after 12+ years in an inter-racial relationship I've seen plenty of both these things. There are a lot of people who are completely oblivious to how their behavior negatively impacts minorities, and could never be convinced otherwise. You'll never be rid of that kind of racial prejudice no matter how hard you try. It's excruciatingly difficult to put people into others shoes to the degree that would help them see the damage they do, just in my experience. How you compensate for that is isn't easy. The majority just won't admit to causing those kinds of problems, or trying to correct a problem they don't think exists.

On the other hand there's plenty of times I've seen minorities jump to the 'racism' explanation when there just isn't the justification. There's a fair amount of lingering suspicion and mistrust. Sometimes I suspect there are instances where it's nearly doing as much to hold people back as the racism itself is. No one wants to get bit a second time by the same dog, no matter if the dog has taken behavior training lessons, has become a guide dog for the blind, or whatever. So you see people not take opportunities because of the suspicion they will get rejected based on their race. Don't know how to make people see past that one either. Old habits don't die quickly.

*shrugs*

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 2:57pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#128 Mar 01 2012 at 6:50 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
No, of course not. But isn't that an unrealistic expectation?


Yes it is an unrealistic expectation. It would be nice if racism magically vanished into non-existence. But it won't happen, 2000+ years of Racism being present in human society is evidence enough that it won't just go away.


Ok. So why is that an argument against my idea, but not AA? If we both agree that neither of them will make racism magically end tomorrow, then shouldn't we go with the approach that isn't itself racially discriminatory?

Quote:
Stop being Naive. All the human rights movements over the past 300-400 years have happened for a reason, that being that in order to achieve progress one must voice for it, not lay in bed in dream land wishing that one day whitey will treat you like kin.


So you agree that human rights has advanced over the last 300-400 years. And for all but the last 40ish years, it happened without AA. So why do you assume that absent AA no social advance in the area of human rights, racism, etc can be obtained? Clearly, the evidence shows us that this isn't the case and that such advances can and have happened without the government creating preferential laws based on race, no matter how well intentioned.

Quote:
So lets take away a tool that directly assists in the equality of the races sexes and religions in Federally funded employment possibilities.


A tool that is not needed? A tool which many people believe isn't helping? A tool which uses the very racial discrimination that we're supposed to be fighting?


Yeah. You're **** right we should take that tool away. Why would anyone think otherwise?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Mar 01 2012 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts

Clearly, the evidence shows us that this isn't the case and that such advances can and have happened without the government creating preferential laws based on gender, no matter how well intentioned.


Exactly, DOMA needs to be repealed. Glad you came over to the winning side.
____________________________
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.

#130 Mar 01 2012 at 9:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Clearly, the evidence shows us that this isn't the case and that such advances can and have happened without the government creating preferential laws based on gender, no matter how well intentioned.


Exactly, DOMA needs to be repealed. Glad you came over to the winning side.


DOMA isn't a preferential law based on gender.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Mar 01 2012 at 9:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

Clearly, the evidence shows us that this isn't the case and that such advances can and have happened without the government creating preferential laws based on gender, no matter how well intentioned.


Exactly, DOMA needs to be repealed. Glad you came over to the winning side.


DOMA isn't a preferential law based on gender.


Really...
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#132 Mar 01 2012 at 10:01 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

Clearly, the evidence shows us that this isn't the case and that such advances can and have happened without the government creating preferential laws based on gender, no matter how well intentioned.


Exactly, DOMA needs to be repealed. Glad you came over to the winning side.


DOMA isn't a preferential law based on gender.


D'oh.
#133 Mar 02 2012 at 3:17 AM Rating: Good
Gbaji wrote:
Of course it's racism. Or, if you're an advocate of the more recent redefinition of the word, it is at the very least "racial discrimination". And I think it's a mistake to conflate the concepts of racism and diversity. Those really are two different things. While we can certainly say that racism will tend to prevent diversity, we can't say that a lack of diversity is the result of racism, nor can we say that increasing diversity decreases racism. They really are two different concepts.


While the government can regulate blatant discrimination, no employer/university is allowed to legally discriminate due to race, gender, sexual orientation, or age, it cannot regulate thought. The only way the government can attempt to reduce institutionalized racism is by encouraging diversity. And in cases where employers/universities do not diversify willingly, they must enforce diversity in order to reduce racism.

Any company or university that doesn't willingly diversify is being racist, regardless of whether it's blatant or hidden. A lack of diversity increases racism (An all white office is going to have a hard time getting away with "black" jokes when there's a black guy there). Diversifying makes white people get to know people of color, causing them to hopefully breakdown their racial stereotypes, & reduces racism. It exposes white folks to different cultures, which leads to tolerance, & eventually acceptance. This is partly why things like "forced" integration in the Boston area school systems happened - to reduce racism (And because of the huge disparity between white & black school systems).

Gbaji wrote:

Diversity, when it occurs naturally is positive. When it's forced in order to make the stats look better, is isn't.


Diversity is always a positive in the melting pot that is America. It's only ever "forced" due to racism, which is always a negative.

Gbaji wrote:
Imagine you run a diner and have 10 different menu items. Now, you could certainly say that if your customers order each of those 10 items in roughly equal amounts, that this means that all your dishes are equally "good" (or bad, I suppose). Thus, you might desire to obtain that balance. If you had a certain dish that was not ordered often, you might want to look into why this is happening and correct it, right? But can we agree that the absolute wrong thing to do would be to force customers to order the dishes you wanted them to order in order to ensure that a diverse set of dishes were eaten?


People choose where they eat, they don't get to choose their co-workers. Sure, HR & management do, but since all HR managers & management staff in this country are encouraged to diversify, your "point" is moot.

Gbaji wrote:
You want everything to be equally desired and equally chosen. But if you take out the choice element, then you haven't actually accomplished anything at all. Diversity is a good goal, but it has to happen as a result of people's natural and unmanipulated choices. Otherwise, it's meaningless.


Yet if given a choice, many white people will choose NOT to diversify, which only increases racism. We keep going round & round and you keep speculating that somehow without AA, people would diversify willingly. That is NOT reality, Gbaji. I hope given the opportunity people would willingly choose to do so & AA wouldn't be required, but history shows otherwise. Again, I am FOR any policy that increases diversity without using race as a requirement & would choose said policies over AA every time (See the OP). However, I'm not for rolling back AA without another program in place that accomplishes the goals of AA (diversity). If you've got an idea on how to do this, go for it.
____________________________
"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


#134Almalieque, Posted: Mar 02 2012 at 3:25 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Gbaji,
#135Almalieque, Posted: Mar 02 2012 at 3:28 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You would have had to call me a douchebag in order for your claim to be accurate.
#136 Mar 02 2012 at 5:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,284 posts
Smiley: facepalm
#137 Mar 02 2012 at 5:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,915 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm sorry, but who are you again?
Someone quoted in your sig.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#138 Mar 02 2012 at 5:55 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,929 posts
I like the random at signs in his sig. Like he was going to forget the a's so he circled them.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#139 Mar 02 2012 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm sorry, but who are you again?
Someone quoted in your sig.
It kind of requires a memory span.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#140 Mar 02 2012 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I like the random at signs in his sig. Like he was going to forget the a's so he circled them.


I'm pretty sure people **** about control + Fing their names and getting stuck in his f@il sig. Being the good little puppet he is, he appeased the masses.

Really, though, who creates a shrine of insults made against them? I want a spot. I wonder how many different ways I can call him a virgin before it is permanently etched after every post for all the see.
#141Almalieque, Posted: Mar 02 2012 at 2:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Insert smart come back*!!!!
#142Almalieque, Posted: Mar 02 2012 at 2:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I like how you consider non-douchebaggery as puppetry. That says volumes about your character.
#143 Mar 02 2012 at 2:32 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Oh? Do tell.
#144 Mar 02 2012 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Speaks. It speaks volumes about her character. For fuck sake.
____________________________
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
#145 Mar 02 2012 at 4:13 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
I think 6 letters is part of next months flash cards.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#146 Mar 02 2012 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
**
500 posts
Poverty doesn't discriminate. Poor is poor and in America poor means fuq'd. It's no better to be white and poor than black and poor. Actually, thanks to AA, if you simply must be poor, at least be smart enough to be a minority.


It's easily proven that there are far more economically disadvantaged blacks (as a percentage)than whites. The relevant questions are why? and what can be done about it?


Obviously there isn't one simple reason ( and blaming "racism" is about as overly simplistic, one reason catch all scapegoat as you can get). I personally think one of the main reasons is simply the much grater number of blacks raised in single parent households.

Here's a link:

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107


I could go on and on, but meh, many will already call me "racist" and go on and on about how much they oppose discrimination in any form, unless it's AA, then it's all good and necessary.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#147 Mar 02 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
The only way the government can attempt to reduce institutionalized racism is by encouraging diversity.


I disagree. Doubly so when racial discrimination is used to create a mathematical diversity. Unless your definition of "institutionalized racism" is radically different than mine. To me, that means racism promoted or enacted by an institution. So when an individual does it (intentionally or not), it's not "institutionalized". When the government does it. It is. AA creates institutionalized racism.


Quote:
And in cases where employers/universities do not diversify willingly, they must enforce diversity in order to reduce racism.


Must they? I disagree.

Quote:
Any company or university that doesn't willingly diversify is being racist, regardless of whether it's blatant or hidden.


But who gets to decide what is a sufficient amount of "diversity"? Isn't that the problem here? If the lack of diversity is because of racism, you're correct. But if the lack of diversity is not, then you are incorrect.


The problem with AA is that it can only increase diversity in the latter case (where its lack is *not* caused by racism). University racial admissions bonuses for minorities work by giving certain racial groups a bonus to their admissions score. They only have an effect in the cases where the actual score (based on grades, extra curriculars, etc) is not sufficient to allow them to be admitted, but where the adjusted score (adjusted solely by race) does.

But those admission scores are based on actual student ability and history. They are, to the best we can obtain, an objective, non racist measurement of the qualifications of a potential student. So if the resulting student body isn't diverse (enough), then it's not because of racism, but because that's the correct ratio of races in the student body based on the actual objective, non-racial, qualifications.

When we apply AA bonuses in that case, we are not fighting racism at all. We're creating racism.


Quote:
Gbaji wrote:

Diversity, when it occurs naturally is positive. When it's forced in order to make the stats look better, is isn't.


Diversity is always a positive in the melting pot that is America. It's only ever "forced" due to racism, which is always a negative.


False. Absolutely demonstrably false. AA is precisely about "forcing" diversity in cases which have nothing to do with racial discrimination at all (until the AA program comes along and makes it about race, of course). You make these broad assumptive statements, but I don't see you providing any logical reason why you think they're true.

Think about what AA does. Think about the cases in which it has an effect. It is not countering racism. It's countering a lack of diversity, overwhelmingly in cases where racism is not involved at all. Now, if you want to make the argument that diversity by itself is so important that it's worth using racist policies to create it, then that's a valid direction to go. But it's completely wrong to insist that AA is about fighting racism itself. It's not. It's about perpetuating racism.

Quote:
People choose where they eat, they don't get to choose their co-workers. Sure, HR & management do, but since all HR managers & management staff in this country are encouraged to diversify, your "point" is moot.


No, it's not. If HR and management is hiring based on the best qualified applicants, but you decide that the resulting mix of employees isn't diverse enough, then you are forcing them to hire less qualified applicants purely because of that diversity goal. Unless you have evidence other than the insufficiently diverse outcome to claim that there's racial discrimination in the hiring process, then it's you who are instituting racism into the hiring process, not the other way around.


I happen to agree with you about the benefits of diversity in a society. I just don't believe that enforcing unequal hiring and admissions and contract granting processes via AA is the right way to do it. I happen to think it'll happen naturally on its own if you give it time. And the result by following that path will be much better than if you attempt to force it using AA.


Quote:
Yet if given a choice, many white people will choose NOT to diversify, which only increases racism.


Why single out white people? Many people of all colors might choose not to diversify. But that's their choice. And that doesn't increase racism. If their choice is based on racism, then all that's happening is a result of racism that already exists. The amount that's there, is the amount that's there. IMO, your mistake is somehow assuming that any time there isn't some ideal mix of races somewhere, that this must be occurring because of racism. But that's not the case.

People often make the mistake of assuming that "random" is the same as "even". A common game statistics teachers will use to illustrate this is to have everyone in the class but one write down a list of random "heads/tails" sequences on a piece of paper (say 50 flips). They're instructed to attempt to duplicate what they think a random distribution of flips would result in. One person in the class is given a coin and told to actually flip it 50 times and write the results in order down on a piece of paper.

At the end of the game, the teacher will take all the papers and can easily find the one generated by the guy who flipped the coin because it'll be the only one with sets of 6-8 heads or tails in a row on it.

Random effects produce uneven outcomes. All the time. Similarly, the outcomes of millions of people taking different courses in their lives, choosing which schools to attend, which classes to take, which fields to enter into, and thousands of other choices (or random effects) will *not* be homogeneous. Ever.


What we're doing with AA is seeing a streak of heads, deciding that this must mean that the coin is biased towards heads, and then deciding to make the outcome what we think it should be and not what it really is. It's wrong when a group of students think that's the right answer, and it's wrong when we do it in the real world. Even with no bias at all, the odds of every racial group having even close to statistically similar outcomes is astonishingly low. But you assume the opposite.

You're wrong. Just like the students who assume that the resulting coin flips should be evenly spread, with only minor deviations are wrong.

Quote:
We keep going round & round and you keep speculating that somehow without AA, people would diversify willingly.



You're focusing on the wrong half of my argument. Before we can even talk about whether people diversify willingly or not, we need to determine how me should be measuring diversity. You seem to think that anything other than an even spread of racial groups in every business and school is an indication of something wrong. I don't believe that this is the case. So IMO, you're trying to fix the wrong problem, and frankly using the wrong tool to do it too boot.


Quote:
Again, I am FOR any policy that increases diversity without using race as a requirement & would choose said policies over AA every time (See the OP). However, I'm not for rolling back AA without another program in place that accomplishes the goals of AA (diversity). If you've got an idea on how to do this, go for it.


Again, this is meaningless if we can't decide what our diversity goals are, and determine if those goals are really indicative of a society free(er) of racial discrimination.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2012 4:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#148 Mar 02 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
No, it's not. If HR and management is hiring based on the best qualified applicants, but you decide that the resulting mix of employees isn't diverse enough, then you are forcing them to hire less qualified applicants purely because of that diversity goal.


Nothing stopping them from saying that Whitey is more qualified then Darky publicly and behind closed doors say they would rather a white person represent organization.

Oh wait there is.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#149 Mar 02 2012 at 9:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,284 posts
Guenny wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I like the random at signs in his sig. Like he was going to forget the a's so he circled them.


I'm pretty sure people **** about control + Fing their names and getting stuck in his f@il sig. Being the good little puppet he is, he appeased the masses.

Really, though, who creates a shrine of insults made against them? I want a spot. I wonder how many different ways I can call him a virgin before it is permanently etched after every post for all the see.

Alma doesn't realize that they're all insults. He truly believes those sarcastic remarks were people agreeing with him.
#150 Mar 02 2012 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
**
500 posts
Hmm, I'm seeing a lot of good stuff about embracing diversity and eradicating racism. Followed by white bashing. There's a word on the tip of my tongue. almost have it. What is it? Hmm, Hypodermic? No, Uh, Hypersonic? no. Maybe Hippocrates? Damn! What is it???
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#151 Mar 02 2012 at 10:53 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
Hmm, I'm seeing a lot of good stuff about embracing diversity and eradicating racism. Followed by white bashing. There's a word on the tip of my tongue. almost have it. What is it? Hmm, Hypodermic? No, Uh, Hypersonic? no. Maybe Hippocrates? Damn! What is it???


Stop humiliating yourself.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 48 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Samira, Anonymous Guests (46)