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 crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#103 Feb 29 2012 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 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
*****
13,251 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
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,283 posts
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?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#106 Feb 29 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,673 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#108 Feb 29 2012 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 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
****
6,471 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.
#110 Feb 29 2012 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 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
******
34,867 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
****
7,546 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#114 Feb 29 2012 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 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
****
7,546 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#116 Feb 29 2012 at 10:56 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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 crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#118 Mar 01 2012 at 8:29 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 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?"
#119 Mar 01 2012 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
******
49,673 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
*****
15,952 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
******
49,673 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
****
4,042 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
******
34,867 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
******
34,867 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
****
7,546 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (46)