Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCotUS to Look at Affirmative Action (Kind Of)Follow

#77 Feb 27 2012 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Yes , I like batteries too.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#78 Feb 27 2012 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Edit: Oh, I meant to put this in the other thread where he was going on like he was Ray Crock's apprentice. Works just as well here, I guess.

The weekend I proposed to Flea, we stayed at the hotel on their corporate campus. I think that makes Jophiel V3.0 a junior VP or something.
Did you ask her if she wanted fries with that polish sausage?






Hey, look, another hack joke from 20 years ago.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

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

My Anime List
#79 Feb 27 2012 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Did you ask her if she wanted fries with that polish sausage?

It sounds like she got the full-meal deal.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#80 Feb 27 2012 at 9:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wokka-wokka-wokka!

I'm in favor of AA because I'm pretty sure it means my half-immigrant kids* get free college forever and then a welfare Cadillac upon graduation.


*I'm passing the first one off as half-Senegalese or something
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Feb 27 2012 at 3:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Tirith wrote:
Certainly not "a lot" of my success being contributed to my ***/race instead of earning it through work, as Omegavegeta stated..


You're ancestors benefited from being white. They were probably legal immigrants to this country during a time period when immigrants of other ethnicities were restricted. They also chose to come here, and once here didn't have to relocate unwillingly. They lived on land that used to belong to other people, as you do currently. Your ancestors may have even been given their land from the federal government & had it subsidized/supported too. Your parents may have, and your grandparents probably went to racially segregated schools. Your grandparents worked jobs that people of color were excluded or black-balled from doing & could vote without having to worry about poll taxes, literacy tests, or other forms of discrimination. Your grandparents didn't have to worry about using subpar facilities because of their color. Your parents didn't need to use their race as a factor in where they lived or went to school & neither do you.


It's a good thing no one's painting with a massive racial stereotype brush here. Cause that would just be crazy!

Seriously? You honestly think that's even remotely close to the typical experience of any group in America? Cause all those Irish immigrants just had it easy peasy once they arrived here in the US. Same with the Italians, the Polish, Greeks, etc. Given land? Where the **** did you learn history?

Quote:
You probably live in a neighborhood that people of color were once discriminated against living in. You most definitely live somewhere where people of color are still discriminated against when applying for housing and loans. You probably still live in a school district that spends more money on schools that mostly white kids go too. Kids of color in those schools are disciplined more than their white counterparts, are more likely to be tracked into "nonacademic" programs, & read about "heroes" whom owned their ancestors. You were encouraged to go to college by your teachers, parents, tutors, and advisers. You're going to college & received loans. You can always vote for candidates that reflect your race. You live somewhere that has better police, fire, & emt services than where people of color live. Most of what you own is made by woman & children of people of color here & abroad.


Here's the problem though. You're conflating a history of actual legal conditions which negatively impacted certain ethnic groups with resulting outcomes *today*. But those really are two different things. It's what I was trying to explain to you last week, but you didn't get it (or choose not to).

The biggest determinant of success in the US is not skin color but the economic condition of one's parents. Period. The better off your parents, the better off you will be statistically. It's far and away the 800lb gorilla in terms of socio-economic outcomes. The reason the statistics indicate that there's an advantage to being white is because right now whites are statistically more likely to be better off economically. Thus, the average white kid will do better than the average black kid. But it's a mistake to get lost in the statistics without paying attention to what causes those statistics to be. It's not "being white" which causes that resulting statistical difference. It's the economic condition of your parents. We know this because black kids adopted into middle class white families do similarly well to white kids raised in the same conditions. Wealthy black families children do similarly well to wealthy white kids. It's not the race that's affecting the outcome. It's the starting condition.


The problem is that the starting condition can't be changed via government action. That's what the left has been trying for the last 40+ years, and it really hasn't worked. And the reason is that it's not the amount of dollars, or the house you live in, or the cars you drive that make the difference. It's what your parents teach you and show you as you grow up. Parents who are well off financially will tend to also be organized, skilled, with a good work ethic, and they pass those things on to their children. No amount of giving someone money, housing, transportation, and food, will have the same effect.


IMO, racially targeted AA actually *hurts* the groups they are targeted at. If we accept that it's the traits of success passed on to children, and not just the result of success that affects the child's own success, then by artificially enabling success in cases where success would not otherwise have occurred, we're just faking out the stats. We're making someone look like they're in a similar economic state, but they are not (or would not be) without the AA intervention. Thus, any AA which grants benefits solely because of someone's skin color is a bad idea. It's a bad idea first because it's unfair to everyone else. But it's also a bad idea because it doesn't really help the recipient much.


Let everyone compete on an equal playing field. That way, those who succeed will do so because they have adopted and employed the skills and habits of success and will be more likely to pass those on to their children. They in turn will be an example of how one can succeed without worrying about race. Do this for a few generations, and no one will consider race anymore and you'll see the racial group outcomes become more equal. Continue trying to game the stats after the fact and you just perpetuate the very problem you claim to be trying to solve.

Quote:
You don't need to think about race and racism everyday. You can choose when and where you want to respond to it.


I think obsessing about race is the wrong approach though. It makes every problem appear to be a racial problem and blinds you to other much better solutions.

Quote:
A lot of what you have is because you're white, dude. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.


I don't think it's about hurting anyone's feelings. It's about doing what is right.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Feb 27 2012 at 4:06 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Quote:
I don't think it's about hurting anyone's feelings. It's about doing what is right.


If it ain't white it ain't right?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#83 Feb 27 2012 at 4:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I don't think it's about hurting anyone's feelings. It's about doing what is right.


If it ain't white it ain't right?


More about equality under the law, but never let a good bit of silly rhetoric get in the way, I suppose!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Feb 27 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,526 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I'm of the mind that the goal should be to prop up everyone who's shut out by being too poor, or without the opportunity for education. There are plenty of disenfranchised whites out there, too. I don't think our approach should be "Ah, fuck 'em. They're white...they should be able to go it alone."


yeah, this is where I lean too. As someone who was actually homeless in college - I went to the student aid/counselor people and they actually asked me "you aren't by any chance part _minority_ are you?"

and I said, "not that I'm aware of"

and they said "well then I am afraid we can't help you"

So, yeah, it sucks pretty hardcore to exclude people who need help from getting it simply because they don't have an oppressed enough ethnicity. That said, I managed to get by and do pretty well anyway. Maybe it is cause I'm white or *** or female or something, or maybe I just have a horseshoe up my a$$
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#85 Feb 27 2012 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Olorinus wrote:
So, yeah, it sucks pretty hardcore to exclude people who need help from getting it simply because they don't have an oppressed enough ethnicity. That said, I managed to get by and do pretty well anyway. Maybe it is cause I'm white or *** or female or something, or maybe I just have a horseshoe up my a$$


Or maybe it's because, knowing that there was no special help or support for you to fall back on, you knew you had to work hard to be successful, and thus you actually did work harder. At the risk of falling back to a tired cliche, if you feed people fish every day, they're less likely to ever learn how to fish for themselves. You had to learn how to manage your own finances and make things work. I'm sure it required sacrifices. But it also prepared you for real life a **** of a lot better than the alternative.

I'm not saying this is 100% one way or the others. There's a whole range of degrees in between. But I'm a firm believer that you can't hand people success in life. They have to go through the process of earning it. Otherwise, it's not success at all. It's someone else giving you something, and you know it, and they know it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Feb 27 2012 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Agree with Gbaji, Success is something people work for, and something they earn.

That being said, its nice to know if you are white and have a ***** you have a head start.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#87 Feb 27 2012 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good
Gbaji wrote:

It's a good thing no one's painting with a massive racial stereotype brush here. Cause that would just be crazy!


People with white ancestors have most of that in common, depending on when their ancestors immigrated. Regardless of "when" that immigration had it, white immigrants have always had it easier than people of color. White people have been given land by the government lots of times (Early settlers, Louisianan Purchase Land Grants, Texas land grants, Oklahoma, railroad grants, et. al)and continue to subsidize some of it (oil, farming, etc.).


Gbaji wrote:
The problem is that the starting condition can't be changed via government action. That's what the left has been trying for the last 40+ years, and it really hasn't worked. And the reason is that it's not the amount of dollars, or the house you live in, or the cars you drive that make the difference. It's what your parents teach you and show you as you grow up. Parents who are well off financially will tend to also be organized, skilled, with a good work ethic, and they pass those things on to their children. No amount of giving someone money, housing, transportation, and food, will have the same effect.


The child of a black family that makes $100K a year is at a disadvantage to a white child born to a family making the same amount of money. This is not the black child's fault, nor is it the white child's, it's our fault as a society and the fault of our forefathers.

White people whom ***** about AA are ignorant to what it means to be a person of color in our society, because they think that because they chose to think about race once in awhile they're not racist.
____________________________
"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


#88 Feb 27 2012 at 10:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,223 posts
People who *****. "Whom" denotes an object, "who" denotes a subject.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#89 Feb 27 2012 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
Given land? Where the **** did you learn history?.


Homestead Act

You are now officially the dumbest person in this forum.
____________________________
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.
#90 Feb 28 2012 at 1:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
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.


He's not the dumbest person in this forum.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#91 Feb 28 2012 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Wokka-wokka-wokka!

I'm in favor of AA because I'm pretty sure it means my half-immigrant kids* get free college forever and then a welfare Cadillac upon graduation.


*I'm passing the first one off as half-Senegalese or something
Don't worry, he can pass as Argentinian.



Also, I got a buffet.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#92 Feb 28 2012 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,526 posts
gbaji wrote:

Or maybe it's because, knowing that there was no special help or support for you to fall back on, you knew you had to work hard to be successful, and thus you actually did work harder.


No man, I was lucky. I know lots of people who have worked just as hard as me, who aren't doing half as well. Whether that luck is being extremely literate despite my background, or meeting the right people at the right time who gave me big breaks - it is luck nevertheless.

Hard work alone can make you manager of mcdonalds- breaking into an industry that usually requires a degree when you couldn't afford to finish one - that requires a lot of luck.

Edited, Feb 28th 2012 9:52am by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#93 Feb 28 2012 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
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? Because they were white? And to no one else?

Try learning history instead of assuming about it based on your current day biases.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 Feb 28 2012 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
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.

Thanks for trying to change the discussion in mid-stream, though.

Thanks for pretending you have any inkling of my politics, beliefs, education or anything else about me, though.


You know literally 2000x less than you think you do.
____________________________
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.
#95 Feb 28 2012 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
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? Because they were white? And to no one else?

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

Citation proving that this wasn't the case?
____________________________
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
#96 Feb 28 2012 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
The child of a black family that makes $100K a year is at a disadvantage to a white child born to a family making the same amount of money.


Do you have a source for this? One that actually looks only at well-off black families and their children, and doesn't just look at broad "all black" vs "all white" stats?

Quote:
This is not the black child's fault, nor is it the white child's, it's our fault as a society and the fault of our forefathers.


And if there's some actual racism which is making two people with identical backgrounds, identical skills, and identical work have significantly different outcomes based purely (or primarily) on race, then we should be identifying those instances and correcting them. I still believe it's the wrong approach to attempt to use the government to institutionalize some offsetting racist advantage. Aside from the whole "perpetuating racism in society" angle, you're trying to calculate the effect of something you aren't measuring and then offsetting it. How can you possibly do that accurately?

Quote:
White people whom ***** about AA are ignorant to what it means to be a person of color in our society, because they think that because they chose to think about race once in awhile they're not racist.


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Feb 28 2012 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Nilatai 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? Because they were white? And to no one else?

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

Citation proving that this wasn't the case?


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Feb 28 2012 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Sigh... Follow the stream:

gbaji wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
You're ancestors benefited from being white. ... They lived on land that used to belong to other people, as you do currently. Your ancestors may have even been given their land from the federal government & had it subsidized/supported too.

Given land? Where the **** did you learn history?


Omegavegeta wrote:
White people have been given land by the government lots of times (Early settlers, Louisianan Purchase Land Grants, Texas land grants, Oklahoma, railroad grants, et. al)and continue to subsidize some of it (oil, farming, etc.).



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, perhaps you should pay attention to what they actually said. Omega was specifically claiming that "white people" were given land. My response about "given land?" was in that context. Of course I know about various land grants over the course of US history. But I also know that they did not grant land to people because they were white. Thus, it was not just "white ancestors" who benefited from these things (and absolutely not because they were white). And thus it's wrong to argue that such things constitute some magical benefit which all white people have today and no black people do.


And that's discounting the fact that I don't know a single person (of any skin color) who owns land which was granted to them via some sort of homesteading act. Do you? So can we stop pretending that this is some kind of major factor which affects people's socio-economic status today?


Oh. And also discounting that some of my ancestors were among those whose land was taken away to give to others in those homestead acts. So do I get to go harass some black farmer whose family land was a homestead because he took my land and demand reparations 120 years after the fact? That's silly. There are so many fortune shifts which have occurred between then and now that it's pointless to try to do that. Which is why I don't buy that as an argument for AA (or reparations, or anything like that).

Edited, Feb 28th 2012 7:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Feb 28 2012 at 10:29 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
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.
#100 Feb 28 2012 at 10:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,667 posts
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#101 Feb 28 2012 at 11:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,223 posts
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.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (59)