Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) Refers to Obama as "Boy"

[mykevermin]

ERLANGER - The racially charged overtones of the Democratic presidential primary has ensnarled Congressman Geoff Davis after a comment he made about Barack Obama during a Saturday night speech.

During his talk at Saturday's Fourth District Lincoln/Reagan Day Dinner in Boone County, Davis, a Hebron Republican seeking re-election, made the following comment when questioning the national security credentials and experience of Obama, an African-American from Illinois:

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."
ADVERTISEMENT

Davis is taking criticism because referring to an African-American as a "boy" is considered by many as racist and pejorative.

But Davis campaign spokesman said Davis misspoke and was not directing a racist statement at Obama but instead calling into question his qualifications for office.

"He simply misspoke," said Jeremy Hughes, Davis' campaign spokesman.

Scott Jennings of Louisville, a national Republican strategist and former Special Assistant to the President, attended Saturday's dinner and said Davis was making a valid point with his comment about Obama's experience.

"However poor a word choice it was, anyone who knows Geoff Davis knows that he wasn't making a comment about race, but rather about national security, an issue on which he is expert," Jennings said.

"I've known Geoff Davis for a number of years and he is, above all, someone who believes that all citizens are equal," he said. "Every politician has 'oops' moments, but poor word choice is usually just that - a poor choice of words, and nothing more. Geoff Davis, a decorated military officer who served alongside people of all races and backgrounds, is certainly not a racist, and anyone who alleges otherwise is trying to score cheap political points."

The dinner, one of the largest Northern Kentucky GOP events of the year, drew a crowd of about 400 to the Cincinnati Airport Marriott Hotel.

In the same speech, Davis recognized two employees of the hotel's wait staff who became U.S. citizens after escaping war torn Bosnia in the 1990s. Davis also presented Meliha and Senad Sahdan with a United States flag flown over the Capitol Building.

"The speech was well-received by those who heard it," Hughes said.

Davis and his oldest daughter, Becky, have served the African American-community as a mentor in inner-city Cincinnati schools.


The comment was posted Saturday on Bluegrass Bulletin.com, a blog written by Marcus Carey, a former Fourth District GOP chairman who attended the dinner.

"I have never heard Congressman Davis speak in any way which would suggest a racial prejudice, bias or hatred," Carey wrote. "And yet, in this highly charged environment where discussions about race are commonplace, there seems to have developed a hypersensitivity to the words being spoken by candidates and others."

The comment was also reported on PolWatchers, the Lexington Herald-Leader politics blog.

Campbell County Democratic Party Chairman Ken Mullikin said he could "not believe" Davis would make such a comment.

"When you get somebody in an emotionally charged situation they speak what is on their mind," Mullikin said. "That comment clearly shows what Geoff Davis really believes about African-Americans."

But Northern Kentucky Republicans strongly disagree that Davis is a racist. They said it is Obama who has slammed small town America and working class people with his recent comments that those voters are "bitter" and clinging to guns and religion.

"Geoff Davis is absolutely not a racist," said Fourth District GOP Chairman Kevin Sell of Alexandria, who attended Saturday's dinner but said this morning he does not recall Davis using the word "boy" to describe Obama.

"I've known this man since 2001, and have campaigned with him," Sell said. "This is a man of integrity. All he was doing in that speech was questioning the experience of a candidate and the defense of our country. There was no question about that."

http://news.nky.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080414/NEWS0103/304150022&nocache=1

I'd be willing to give Davis the benefit of the doubt, but I can honestly say I don't ever, ever recall hearing a congressperson refer to another congressperson as "boy" (or "girl" for that matter). It's a too infrequently used word in the given context to be a mere slip of the tongue.

Christ, b/w Davis' "boy" in my neck of the words (he's my distrct's Representative) and Bill "Barack Hussein Obama" Cunningham just to my north in Cincinnati, I'm surrounded by racist fucking morons. But I already knew that.

[Ikohn4ever]

i just love how the "bitter" topic even comes up in this, the old Republican Switcheroo

[VanillaGorilla]

But someone else has said it before, so it's ok for him to do so.

[HotShotX]

Wow, I guess we can never refer to black kids under the age of 13 as "boy" either, that might be RACIST!

For God's sake, by comparison Obama is the "boy" of this election. That's part of his campaign, to offer young and fresh ideas to take the country out of the stale degradation it is currently in.

"When you get somebody in an emotionally charged situation they speak what is on their mind," Mullikin said. "That comment clearly shows what Geoff Davis really believes about African-Americans."

I hate people that think that way, as if everyone is a natural-born racist and even the slightest HINT of a race tinted comment sets them all up in flames.

It's funny how the slightest word, like "lynch", "boy", or "raccoon" leads all these "anti-racism" advocates to grab the "noose" right away. Know what I mean?

He made a comment about seniority. Go about your lives, people. Or better yet, if you really want to feel like you've accomplished something good in this country, stop attacking little things like this and go after the real issues, like poverty.

You may succeed here and get another white person fired because they said something you didn't like, but while you're at home patting your backs for a "job well done", poverty and disease wipes out about dozen or so of your own.

Good fucking job. You deserve a medal.

~HotShotX

[Ikohn4ever]

It's funny how the slightest word, like "lynch", "boy", or "raccoon" leads all these "anti-racism" advocates to grab the "noose" right away. Know what I mean?


~HotShotX



How often do these words just pop out in your every day speech. Do you find yourself calling black people Coons all the time out of accident. People need to take responsibility for what they say. I am sick of misspoke crap. Maybe he is racist, maybe he isn't either way it was stupid of him to say. If he were to just apologize to Obama shit would be over and it would be done with.

[Msut77]

It was certainly meant to be an insult, trying to claim the insult was meant one way and not the other puts you in some tricky territory.

[HotShotX]

It was certainly meant to be an insult, trying to claim the insult was meant one way and not the other puts you in some tricky territory.

Yes, it was meant to be an insult, but it was not meant to be a RACIST insult, there is a difference.

How often do these words just pop out in your every day speech. Do you find yourself calling black people Coons all the time out of accident. People need to take responsibility for what they say. I am sick of misspoke crap. Maybe he is racist, maybe he isn't either way it was stupid of him to say. If he were to just apologize to Obama shit would be over and it would be done with.

The raccoon reference was actually pertaining to an issue I went through no less than last week.

Long story short, a girl on my campus writes about the trashy condition of the residence quad, and the number of cigarette butts everywhere. While she admits the trash everywhere might be raccoons, she very much doubts that they are lighting up in the quad.

I reply with "Well, given the proximity of East University (a well-known shithole and drug area) to campus, I wouldn't be that surprised if they (the raccoons) were".

Lo and behold, someone flips a shit and writes the Dean of Students, demanding that I be severely reprimanded/punished or he's going to take this "story" to the local media, and expose my college to be the racist campus it is.

To me, these kinds of stories and people are all bullshit excuses for people to think they are doing a good job at lifting up their own race or people in general.

It's one thing to tell an outright lie (Bosnia Sniper), it's another to mean one thing and then to be considered a racist because it was interpreted wrongly.

People can only be held accountable for the things they mean, not what others interpret them as.

And let's give people a bit of credit. If they really want to be racists, they'll call you a $$$$er and skip all this "misspoke" bullshit. But a lot of us simply don't care and go about our business.

Let's put it this way, there are three levels when it comes to racial interaction: (Politically Correct, Neutral, Racist) The biggest misconception that seems to get the most airtime is that if you aren't PC, you must be a Racist, and that isn't true.

Some of us just don't give two shits about your race or anyone else's, including our own. I don't care whether you're white, black, red, green, yellow, or blue. All I care about is whether your competent and intelligent enough to be a contribution member of society.

~HotShotX

[SpazX]

It was certainly meant to be an insult, trying to claim the insult was meant one way and not the other puts you in some tricky territory.

This. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not racist, but he should know (especially considering his age) that "boy" is an insult to black men and if he just wanted to insult him for his age he chose the wrong word for the wrong guy.

And btw, Obama isn't under 13 years old.

[homeland]

I don't remember anyone calling Edwards boy. Can someone post examples of when elder politicians called a white junior politician boy? Really curious as I'd be interested in seeing if it is or isn't used in those situations.

[bigdaddy]

I don't want anyone's finger on the nuke "button".

[Msut77]

Apparently Geoff Davis is three years older than Obama. Make of that what you will.

[Dead of Knight]

Apparently Geoff Davis is three years older than Obama. Make of that what you will.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I don't think he's being racist, he's just being a dumbass, unless he has a history of being racist (which he may well have, being from KY and a Republican).

[bigdaddy]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I don't think he's being racist, he's just being a dumbass, unless he has a history of being racist (which he may well have, being from KY and a Republican).

There is such thing as a non racist Republican? :oldman:

:)

[RAMSTORIA]

being a moron does not always equate racism. and it certainly was moronic.

[mykevermin]

He's fewer than 3 years older.

[VanillaGorilla]

Erlanger, Kentucky is the home of Airheads, the best candy in the Universe.

[mykevermin]

The VanMelle factory, yep. Caught some serious fire a few years back.

[JolietJake]

He's a southern Republican, i'm leaning towards racism solely because of that. I can say that, because i am from the south and have frequent contact with the redneck republicans here. Plus, if you're only a few years older than someone, you have no business calling them boy/girl. Someone could say the same thing about his ass.

[thrustbucket]

Wow, so much generalization in this thread, it's no wonder you don't see anything wrong with it when your own candidates do it.

Anyone that wants to even claim that there was a tone of racist intent behind his words, must also concede that Obama comfortably surrounds himself with racist people and he himself makes dangerously generalizing remarks, or you are a hypocrite.

Obviously Obama's small town remarks recently, the way they were worded, were meant to be a gross generalization of white people, yet again. Yet, none of that bothers people. He's given a free pass because he's almost a black man.

Absolutely astonishing. Yet, not surprising.

[thrustbucket]

There is such thing as a non racist Republican? :oldman:

:)

Yes, of course. Anyone that's white and doesn't feel guilty for it, not for mass reparations, affirmative action, and totally one sided racial joke Political Correctness is a racist. Obviously.

[BigT]

Well, according to Obama, "a typical white person" like me wouldn't understand... but come on... "boy" is now an insult? Calling someone by their middle name is a horrible crime? Take that Hillary RODHAM Clinton! ;)

Plus, it was the Southern DEMOCRATS who were most prominently against the civil rights movement... overall, by percentage, more republicans voted for the civil rights act than democrats...

[JolietJake]

Wow, so much generalization in this thread, it's no wonder you don't see anything wrong with it when your own candidates do it.

Anyone that wants to even claim that there was a tone of racist intent behind his words, must also concede that Obama comfortably surrounds himself with racist people and he himself makes dangerously generalizing remarks, or you are a hypocrite.

Obviously Obama's small town remarks recently, the way they were worded, were meant to be a gross generalization of white people, yet again. Yet, none of that bothers people. He's given a free pass because he's almost a black man.

Absolutely astonishing. Yet, not surprising.Gross generalization? He was dead on in some of it. It's like white people have some kind of denial about it or something. Thats coming from a white guy too, even i see it.

[Msut77]

Well, according to Obama, "a typical white person" like me wouldn't understand... but come on... "boy" is now an insult? Calling someone by their middle name is a horrible crime? Take that Hillary RODHAM Clinton! ;)

Plus, it was the Southern DEMOCRATS who were most prominently against the civil rights movement... overall, by percentage, more republicans voted for the civil rights act than democrats...

You emphasized the wrong word, it would make much more sense if it read "SOUTHERN Democrats", the point lying in the fact that pretty much all of those racist SOUTHERN Democrats were welcomed into the Republican fold.

[thrustbucket]

Gross generalization? He was dead on in some of it. It's like white people have some kind of denial about it or something. Thats coming from a white guy too, even i see it.

Yes. Gross Generalization. Saying that small town people (which are predominantly white, which was his point) live in fear, clutching their guns and their silly religions while blaming the government for their ills is a silly generalization.

It would be just as silly and poorly chosen words if a white candidate said inner city people waste their time abusing welfare, listening to rap music, and doing drugs.

I just love how the OP is only an issue because of the race and home state of Rep. Davis. Had a black Rep said it about a white person, it would be a non-issue.

As I've said many times, PC is going to shred this country apart.

[Msut77]

As I've said many times, PC is going to shred this country apart.

Yes, because this country was the epitome of racial harmony before it became taboo to use racial and ethnic slurs.

[rumblebear]

Oh come on! Now "boy" is a racist term? I've heard that term used on all races in a casual tone, as well as older folks casting light on other's youthful negligence. Obama does look younger than most other politicians as well. This is just complete political correctness overkill. Is every criticism against Obama going to be spun into racism now?

[SpazX]

Oh come on! Now "boy" is a racist term? I've heard that term used on all races in a casual tone, as well as older folks casting light on other's youthful negligence. Obama does look younger than most other politicians as well. This is just complete political correctness overkill. Is every criticism against Obama going to be spun into racism now?

How old are you? "Boy" was used to degrade black men.

[Msut77]

How old are you? "Boy" was used to degrade black men.

Specifically it was used to feed the lie that black people are inferior (specifically child like and irresponsible) no matter how old they actually were. I had made the assumption that Davis was in his 70's and could be given somewhat of a pass but for a person three some odd years older to use that in an attempt to insult someone as being unable to handle the government does not leave a lot of wiggle room.

This whole thing is getting to be moot anyway, Davis has apologized and Obama is probably going to accept it and let it die.

[trq]

Obviously Obama's small town remarks recently, the way they were worded, were meant to be a gross generalization of white people, yet again. Yet, none of that bothers people. He's given a free pass because he's almost a black man.

Absolutely astonishing. Yet, not surprising.

Uh ... what? There are no black people who live in small towns or cities that have suffered economic downturns since the '70s, so it must've been a comment about white folks? Right. I'll be sure to mention that to the black folks I know who live outside Detroit and Kansas City that they must not exist.

Yes, of course. Anyone that's white and doesn't feel guilty for it, not for mass reparations

Must've missed that. When, exactly, did they give out those 40 acres and a mule? Or are you trying to say you don't feel guilty ... about something that never happened?

Had a black Rep said it about a white person, it would be a non-issue.

Of course it would be a non-issue. That's the whole goddamn point. It's not a word with any meaning to white folks. Does "cracker" offend black people? Jesus christmas.

[thrustbucket]

Uh ... what? There are no black people who live in small towns or cities that have suffered economic downturns since the '70s, so it must've been a comment about white folks? Right. I'll be sure to mention that to the black folks I know who live outside Detroit and Kansas City that they must not exist.

Go to any small town, especially in Pennsylvania, and compare the percentages of black people to large cities. His comment was clearly aimed at his impression of white culture.


Must've missed that. When, exactly, did they give out those 40 acres and a mule? Or are you trying to say you don't feel guilty ... about something that never happened?
That comment was made in sarcasm.


Of course it would be a non-issue. That's the whole goddamn point. It's not a word with any meaning to white folks. Does "cracker" offend black people? Jesus christmas.

So then, you would concede that "typical white female" is and should be offensive when verbalized by someone identifying themselves as black?
You can't have it both ways.

[trq]

Go to any small town, especially in Pennsylvania, and compare the percentages of black people to large cities. His comment was clearly aimed at his impression of white culture.

Yes, there are more white people than black people in small towns in PA, and yes, there are more black people in urban areas than in rural areas in PA as well, but there are more white people than black people in most parts of the U.S., and there still are black people in rural PA.

To follow your train of thought, any insult directed towards "people" in general should "clearly" be taken as racist against whites, since they're the majority of the U.S. population.

"People are stupid."
"Racist! Most people in the U.S. are white, and since you said people are stupid, you must mean white people are stupid!"

So then, you would concede that "typical white female" is and should be offensive when verbalized by someone identifying themselves as black?
You can't have it both ways.

While I applaud your attempt at consistency (yes, really), I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. "Boy" is a slur to black people, just like "n***er." I wouldn't be offended by either of these precisely because I'm not black. So your point that a black rep saying it to a white colleague wouldn't be a big deal is both obvious and pointless. It's like calling a white man a "dyke" or a "wetback." It's meaningless, because they're not in the group the insult is meant for, not because of a double standard. I say again: black folks don't typically get upset if you call one a "cracker," do they?

[RAMSTORIA]

I say again: black folks don't typically get upset if you call one a "cracker," do they?

i think you mean african american folks... racist.

[HotShotX]

i think you mean african american folks... racist.

I hope that was sarcasm. As I said before, not being politically correct does NOT make you a racist.

If we want to be racist, we will call you a $$$$er and call it a day. Give us saltines enough credit, we've been doing this racist shit long enough to know how to do it properly. But, as I said, some of us don't give enough of a damn to pander to either end of the spectrum anymore.

/sarcasm

~HotShotX

[mykevermin]

If we want to be racist, we will call you a $$$$er and call it a day. Give us saltines enough credit, we've been doing this racist shit long enough to know how to do it properly.

I'll say! Instead of taking the overt road, how about we (speaking in terms of nationwide social patterns) disproportionately hire whites over equally qualified blacks, disproportionately deny rent and mortgages to blacks in favor of whites, and then simply sit back and express ire at the fact that anyone would dare call us racist!

There's plenty of evidence of "under the radar" racism (or "colorblind racism") in this day and age; and far less "oh, hey $$$$er!" racism. It's absurd to think that we haven't changed the language and form of racist talk. The very fact that Davis' remark is newsworthy is evidence enough, no?

[JolietJake]

Yes. Gross Generalization. Saying that small town people (which are predominantly white, which was his point) live in fear, clutching their guns and their silly religions while blaming the government for their ills is a silly generalization.

It would be just as silly and poorly chosen words if a white candidate said inner city people waste their time abusing welfare, listening to rap music, and doing drugs.

I just love how the OP is only an issue because of the race and home state of Rep. Davis. Had a black Rep said it about a white person, it would be a non-issue.

As I've said many times, PC is going to shred this country apart.
Yes, because we know that small town people hate guns and have no use for religion. Plus, they blame no one but themselves for their problems.

[HotShotX]

I'll say! Instead of taking the overt road, how about we (speaking in terms of nationwide social patterns) disproportionately hire whites over equally qualified blacks, disproportionately deny rent and mortgages to blacks in favor of whites, and then simply sit back and express ire at the fact that anyone would dare call us racist!

There's plenty of evidence of "under the radar" racism (or "colorblind racism") in this day and age; and far less "oh, hey $$$$er!" racism. It's absurd to think that we haven't changed the language and form of racist talk. The very fact that Davis' remark is newsworthy is evidence enough, no?

While I agree that colorblind racism does exist and is a contributing factor to the state of blacks in this country, I think the "all whites are racists" approach taken up by the vocal black community invokes a reaction (such as here and the Tiger Woods "lynching" comment) that is taking the issue too far and blowing it out of proportion.

In essence, these activists believe that they have enough evidence in a minute's worth of soundbite taken out of context to classify the entire life of a single person as a racist lifestyle. The sad part of this is that it is often viewed as an acceptable form of behavior and the consequences are carried out against the individual in question.

Honestly, I relate the entire situation to that of a bad parent giving into the demands of a irate 3 year old. This kind of ideology really needs to stop, people need to stop giving a damn, and start pouring their effort and resources into tackling real issues like poverty and health.

Like I said, while you succeeded in spending 2 weeks, hours of man power, and got hundreds involved with the persecution of a single person, there are still thousands of blacks AND whites sleeping on a park bench tonight, thousands wondering where their next meal is coming from, and millions questioning whether next week's paycheck will cover the bills.

Good thing you got rid of that pesky suspected racist, huh? That certainly solved the problem. Good fucking job.

~HotShotX

[thrustbucket]

While I agree that colorblind racism does exist and is a contributing factor to the state of blacks in this country, I think the "all whites are racists" approach taken up by the vocal black community invokes a reaction (such as here and the Tiger Woods "lynching" comment) that is taking the issue too far and blowing it out of proportion.

In essence, these activists believe that they have enough evidence in a minute's worth of soundbite taken out of context to classify the entire life of a single person as a racist lifestyle. The sad part of this is that it is often viewed as an acceptable form of behavior and the consequences are carried out against the individual in question.

Honestly, I relate the entire situation to that of a bad parent giving into the demands of a irate 3 year old. This kind of ideology really needs to stop, people need to stop giving a damn, and start pouring their effort and resources into tackling real issues like poverty and health.

Like I said, while you succeeded in spending 2 weeks, hours of man power, and got hundreds involved with the persecution of a single person, there are still thousands of blacks AND whites sleeping on a park bench tonight, thousands wondering where their next meal is coming from, and millions questioning whether next week's paycheck will cover the bills.

Good thing you got rid of that pesky suspected racist, huh? That certainly solved the problem. Good fucking job.

~HotShotX

Well said.

I understand what mykevermin is saying, and I agree that it does happen. But there is a very real flip side to that coin as well. I personally know people who have been passed over for promotions for LESS QUALIFIED people of color. They do this because, especially in government jobs, they have to show that they are hiring a certain percentage of minorities that are applying, regardless of performance. Do you think that sort of thing helps the race situation in this country? Or does it perpetuate it?

In addition, as I've said before, I have heard employers privately discuss why they usually shy away from hiring minorities. It has nothing to do with being racist, it's because they have had such a very very hard time in the past firing them. You need 5x the documented evidence when you fire a minority, than you do when you fire a white. Why risk hiring a minority that doesn't perform, but you can't fire, when you can hire a white guy that you could fire the next week without any trouble?

I'm not saying this is the case everywhere, and all the time. But this is the problems PC brings society. I don't want to live in a society like this. We really need to start figuring out how to ingrain in everyone that they are equal to everyone, and stop with the pandering and government sponsored forced racial help - it's only making things worse.

[mykevermin]

What is the current air of antiblack discrimination in preferential treatment of whites over blacks in hiring, renting, moneylending, if not "forced racial help?"

thrust, you are at any time wholly welcome to find me a single audit study that shows whites are discriminated against disproportionately to blacks. They can even be equally qualified, rather than less qualified. In the interest of fairness, you are welcome to find me a study that demonstrates if this is, in fact, the case of larger social patterns *anywhere*. Because I'm not going to fight your anecdotes with data I've seen and read (an army of "people you know" versus an army of "thousands of individual cases randomly selected") and deal with another round of "academia is biased, research is biased, and the five people I self-selected as my friends are right while the research is bogus" sorts of arguments.

Thanks.

[thrustbucket]

What is the current air of antiblack discrimination in preferential treatment of whites over blacks in hiring, renting, moneylending, if not "forced racial help?"

thrust, you are at any time wholly welcome to find me a single audit study that shows whites are discriminated against disproportionately to blacks. They can even be equally qualified, rather than less qualified. In the interest of fairness, you are welcome to find me a study that demonstrates if this is, in fact, the case of larger social patterns *anywhere*. Because I'm not going to fight your anecdotes with data I've seen and read (an army of "people you know" versus an army of "thousands of individual cases randomly selected") and deal with another round of "academia is biased, research is biased, and the five people I self-selected as my friends are right while the research is bogus" sorts of arguments.

Thanks.

Proportion is not the issue here. It's the methods used to "Fight racism" and the feelings they perpetuate.

When you tell people that they can't progress because someone else, of color, needs to, it creates more racial tension, it doesn't fight it.

I don't care if 1000 occurances of racisim against blacks occur to every 1 for a white (like I described). That isn't the point. My point is, the methods through laws and policy to make things "fair" aren't defeating racism. They meet short term goals of helping minorities out with long term consequences of creating hidden social bitterness. People rarely act out their racial beliefs, because it's very unacceptable socially. But those feelings are still there, and they continue to be perpetuated. That's what I'm trying to address.

Not every discussion needs to come down to spreadsheets, data, studies. All the data in the universe don't change how real people in real life actually FEEL deep down. And how people FEEL about other races is the core problem here.

You can show so-called academic proven research until you are blue in the face about anything, but that doesn't and can't measure how people feel inside. People lie in surveys, and they behave differently than they feel, which means you can't measure it. But you talk to anyone long enough to gain their trust and you find out.

[mykevermin]

I would suspect that attitudes and feelings undoubtedly underlie the vast research that demonstrate that racist actions benefit whites. The attitudes and feelings that blacks are unreliable, unemployable, unrelatable, incompetent, unlikeable, problematic, less intelligent.

Unless, of course, you happen to think that, time and time again when research demonstrates that blacks are the victims of racism (and not whites), that it's simply a matter of chance. It's pure circumstance that you can bet your house (and win!) that audit studies will show a clear and consistent antiblack pattern.

If that isn't the result of feelings, then what could it possibly be?

There are inherent issues with quotas and affirmative action policies. That is true. There are greater problems, at the moment, with the affirmative action and racial preferences that assist whites in the job market that we have existed throughout American history up until and including today.

[thrustbucket]

mykvermin....

I guess you are agreeing with me, but I can't really tell. All I am pointing out is that what is being done, on a Federal level now, to fight racism, is ultimately not helping.

The only real fix to this, like most things, starts in the home. Children need to be raised to see all people equally. When we have a generation that truly believes this, then the problem should be mostly solved. But that problem CAN'T be solved if people can continue to play a race card to get an "edge" over others. And that goes for any race.

[mykevermin]

That's naive idealism. Like Marxism. If we're going to play that game, here's mine:

I will vote Republican when inequalities are eliminated, because I support a meritocracy so long as all participants are given equal footing.

Now, while I genuinely believe that, it's an absurd statement that has little meaning because of the improbability/impossibility of it. I may as well be Miss America, clamoring for "world peace."

Back on subject, have you ever even considered that the current state of affairs we live in equally benefits whites and blacks? Do you even agree that the current state of affairs disproportionately favors whites over black?

[thrustbucket]

That's naive idealism. Like Marxism. If we're going to play that game, here's mine:

Of course it's idealism. But handouts and programs aren't working. So if you want to continue with more statistics and studies and try to let government interfere more to eternally try to "equalize" everyone.... Then we'll see where that takes us. But I think that's just as absurd, naive, and ultimately unachievable as the example you gave.

Back on subject, have you ever even considered that the current state of affairs we live in equally benefits whites and blacks?
I think people have, for the most part, worked it out on their own without programs, policies, and the NAACP. Things are not perfect, but I think things are fair more often than they aren't.

Do you even agree that the current state of affairs disproportionately favors whites over black?

I would agree that in some cases, sometimes, it does. But I think there is much to be made from multiple factions by over-emphasizing and inflating that disproportion. Entire campaigns depend on that disproportion, as we are watching now.

Like I said above, yes blacks, in general, have unique and sometimes harder situations to overcome than whites. But I think that A) It's not nearly as prevalent as the picture we often get painted by the media. and B) People, much like children, work problems out on their own usually - without a sit down talk by the parents. Often, a sit down talk by the parents makes things worse by bringing up a lot of issues neither child ever thought of, or opening old wounds.

I honestly see as much if not more racism against Indians. But as much as they might bitch about it, nobody cares about them.

In summary, yes I agree with your analysis, for the most part, of the problems. But government is rarely the answer to social problems such as these. The most government can do to stop racisim is simply promote a change in culture. And they can do that without mandating quotas.

[CocheseUGA]

What is the current air of antiblack discrimination in preferential treatment of whites over blacks in hiring, renting, moneylending, if not "forced racial help?"

thrust, you are at any time wholly welcome to find me a single audit study that shows whites are discriminated against disproportionately to blacks. They can even be equally qualified, rather than less qualified. In the interest of fairness, you are welcome to find me a study that demonstrates if this is, in fact, the case of larger social patterns *anywhere*. Because I'm not going to fight your anecdotes with data I've seen and read (an army of "people you know" versus an army of "thousands of individual cases randomly selected") and deal with another round of "academia is biased, research is biased, and the five people I self-selected as my friends are right while the research is bogus" sorts of arguments.

Thanks.

Wouldn't you agree that you're more likely to hear a story or study that finds one minority is discriminated against than a majority is discriminated against?

[trq]

Of course it's idealism. But handouts and programs aren't working. So if you want to continue with more statistics and studies and try to let government interfere more to eternally try to "equalize" everyone.... Then we'll see where that takes us. But I think that's just as absurd, naive, and ultimately unachievable as the example you gave.

I think people have, for the most part, worked it out on their own without programs, policies, and the NAACP. Things are not perfect, but I think things are fair more often than they aren't.

I would agree that in some cases, sometimes, it does. But I think there is much to be made from multiple factions by over-emphasizing and inflating that disproportion. Entire campaigns depend on that disproportion, as we are watching now.

Like I said above, yes blacks, in general, have unique and sometimes harder situations to overcome than whites. But I think that A) It's not nearly as prevalent as the picture we often get painted by the media. and B) People, much like children, work problems out on their own usually - without a sit down talk by the parents. Often, a sit down talk by the parents makes things worse by bringing up a lot of issues neither child ever thought of, or opening old wounds.

I honestly see as much if not more racism against Indians. But as much as they might bitch about it, nobody cares about them.

In summary, yes I agree with your analysis, for the most part, of the problems. But government is rarely the answer to social problems such as these. The most government can do to stop racisim is simply promote a change in culture. And they can do that without mandating quotas.

This is actually a really good post that I agree with much of (though obviously not all). I'm really just quoting it as a marker so that when I have more time, I can come back and edit my response more fully.

[mykevermin]

Of course it's idealism. But handouts and programs aren't working. So if you want to continue with more statistics and studies and try to let government interfere more to eternally try to "equalize" everyone.... Then we'll see where that takes us. But I think that's just as absurd, naive, and ultimately unachievable as the example you gave.

Well, audit studies are very telling things. Let's use that to penalize those who are shown to exhibit racial/ethnic preferences instead of instituting a quota system (which is, I bet you didn't know, a far more prominent tenet of Affirmative Action legislation than this 'quota' crap you keep harping on).

So John Q. Employer gets audited: two completely identical candidates (education, pedigree, experience, even # of children and the size of their lawn if necessary) apply for a job. The only difference? One is white, one is minority (typically black, but you can vary if it suits you). See who gets the callback or the job offer. Now, one incident alone is not very telling - but several audits on the same place can demonstrate racial/ethnic bias.

So let's give John Q. Employer a warning for a first offense. No fine. Not yet. Show him how your audit works, and that, without exception, John Q. defaulted to hiring the white candidate 3 times out of 3, all things being equal. Warn him that, if a followup continues to show this pattern, he can and will be fined for violating EOE laws.

No racial quota, no racial preference. Hows'at for policy? Here's the catch if you're scared that this means employers will default towards always hiring a minority candidate: give them the same warning w/ a fine followup if they show preference for any racial/ethnic group. Offer the black candidate the job and never the white? Preferential racial treatment; Bakke v. California would be proud of this policy.

That's the wonder of an audit: not everyone gets it, but if done thoroughly, employers will behave in order to comply with these laws. Better yet? If they're afraid of preferential racial treatment in any direction, they'll have to rely on (get this!) hiring the most qualified candidate for the job! They'll be looking at skills and abilities, rather than disregarding an application because the first thing they see is the name "Jamal" on the top!

While these sorts of audits are done, they're so infrequent, and ultimately toothless in terms of reaction, that nobody cares if they get caught showing racial preferences.

I'd also suspect that it's a case-by-case issue as well, as it has to relate to the kind of business itself (e.g., hiring females more than males for waitstaff at Hooters) or the location it is in as well.

I think people have, for the most part, worked it out on their own without programs, policies, and the NAACP. Things are not perfect, but I think things are fair more often than they aren't.

I would agree that in some cases, sometimes, it does. But I think there is much to be made from multiple factions by over-emphasizing and inflating that disproportion. Entire campaigns depend on that disproportion, as we are watching now.

Like I said above, yes blacks, in general, have unique and sometimes harder situations to overcome than whites. But I think that A) It's not nearly as prevalent as the picture we often get painted by the media. and B) People, much like children, work problems out on their own usually - without a sit down talk by the parents. Often, a sit down talk by the parents makes things worse by bringing up a lot of issues neither child ever thought of, or opening old wounds.

I honestly see as much if not more racism against Indians. But as much as they might bitch about it, nobody cares about them.

Native Americans or Asian Indians?

Eh, I see some kind of weak-kneed admittance that racism exists in this day and age, coupled with an unprovable "it matters less now than it did 30 years ago" maxim. I'd argue that racism is plenty prevalent in all aspects of society, and it's simply more candy-coated than it was before (again, which is why we express outrage when someone calls Obama "boy" - it's less common today, and a relic of racism of the past). The difference between you and me, again, and as always: I can back up my claims with data and facts.

[thrustbucket]

Well, audit studies are very telling things. Let's use that to penalize those who are shown to exhibit racial/ethnic preferences instead of instituting a quota system (which is, I bet you didn't know, a far more prominent tenet of Affirmative Action legislation than this 'quota' crap you keep harping on).

So John Q. Employer gets audited: two completely identical candidates (education, pedigree, experience, even # of children and the size of their lawn if necessary) apply for a job. The only difference? One is white, one is minority (typically black, but you can vary if it suits you). See who gets the callback or the job offer. Now, one incident alone is not very telling - but several audits on the same place can demonstrate racial/ethnic bias.

So let's give John Q. Employer a warning for a first offense. No fine. Not yet. Show him how your audit works, and that, without exception, John Q. defaulted to hiring the white candidate 3 times out of 3, all things being equal. Warn him that, if a followup continues to show this pattern, he can and will be fined for violating EOE laws.

No racial quota, no racial preference. Hows'at for policy? Here's the catch if you're scared that this means employers will default towards always hiring a minority candidate: give them the same warning w/ a fine followup if they show preference for any racial/ethnic group. Offer the black candidate the job and never the white? Preferential racial treatment; Bakke v. California would be proud of this policy.

That's the wonder of an audit: not everyone gets it, but if done thoroughly, employers will behave in order to comply with these laws. Better yet? If they're afraid of preferential racial treatment in any direction, they'll have to rely on (get this!) hiring the most qualified candidate for the job! They'll be looking at skills and abilities, rather than disregarding an application because the first thing they see is the name "Jamal" on the top!

While these sorts of audits are done, they're so infrequent, and ultimately toothless in terms of reaction, that nobody cares if they get caught showing racial preferences.

I'd also suspect that it's a case-by-case issue as well, as it has to relate to the kind of business itself (e.g., hiring females more than males for waitstaff at Hooters) or the location it is in as well.

I can concede that a sytem like that may indeed work. I really don't know. But I'd like you to address the situation, that I've dealt with second hand, where employers get very weary of having to have far more documented reasoning to fire a minority (even a woman) than a white male, because it's so easy to be threatened with a lawsuit claiming racisim. Is that not a valid fear of an employer? What can we do to address those types of issues?



Native Americans or Asian Indians?
Native Americans.

Eh, I see some kind of weak-kneed admittance that racism exists in this day and age, coupled with an unprovable "it matters less now than it did 30 years ago" maxim. I'd argue that racism is plenty prevalent in all aspects of society, and it's simply more candy-coated than it was before (again, which is why we express outrage when someone calls Obama "boy" - it's less common today, and a relic of racism of the past).

We've been through this before. You've made it very clear, with all your links to studies, and research, that you think Racisim is a huge problem in america today. So be it. Maybe it is. But I argue that running around crying about it, pointing out silly misnomers like "boy" being said only perpetuate the problem. The fact that you did not create a thread for Obama calling his grandmother a "typical white woman" is telling.

What begins as a valid concern for equality in this country has turned into a crusade against racisim that brings with it a growing list of double standards which can be nearly as dangerous as racism itself. And guess what? That's how I, and many others feel. And we don't need studies and academics to validate those feelings. I'm sure you'll call that ignorance, but people are always going to feel things without academic validation, so you better find a way to work around that.

You seem to be acutely and intentionally blind to the fact that many of the causes you champion based on your so-called "statistics" often have very real side effects, that left unchecked, can create just as many problems.

The difference between you and me, again, and as always: I can back up my claims with data and facts.

No, the difference between you and I is that my reality isn't defined by people with academic after their names, or studies, or statistics, or research papers, or past legal cases. As you've pointed out multiple times, yours is.

But the main difference between you and I, is that anyone that chooses not to construct their reality in such a superficial way, you clearly deem ignorant, think less of, and think yourself better. I've met many like you. Where as, I emphasize the importance in my life of accepting others ways of viewing the world as just as valid as mine.

[elprincipe]

So John Q. Employer gets audited: two completely identical candidates (education, pedigree, experience, even # of children and the size of their lawn if necessary) apply for a job. The only difference? One is white, one is minority (typically black, but you can vary if it suits you). See who gets the callback or the job offer. Now, one incident alone is not very telling - but several audits on the same place can demonstrate racial/ethnic bias.

As someone who's done a decent amount of hiring, I can tell you that no two applicants are exactly the same. Even if, for argument's sake, you had two applicants for the same position that went to the same schools, had the same degrees, same grades, had the same experience, even then there is just no possible way the interviews would be exactly the same. People are not identical, even if they are identical twins. There would be clues in the interview as to different applicants' compatibility with the open position. So these kinds of situations, which for some reason are quoted like they would ever happen by so-called "affirmative action" supporters, are a figment of someone's imagination.

That said, I am not discounting the usefulness of said audits/studies or their conclusions, although I would dispute the supposed advantages of having the government sanction certain groups as needing special government preferences as compared to other groups.

[thrustbucket]

As someone who's done a decent amount of hiring, I can tell you that no two applicants are exactly the same. Even if, for argument's sake, you had two applicants for the same position that went to the same schools, had the same degrees, same grades, had the same experience, even then there is just no possible way the interviews would be exactly the same. People are not identical, even if they are identical twins. There would be clues in the interview as to different applicants' compatibility with the open position. So these kinds of situations, which for some reason are quoted like they would ever happen by so-called "affirmative action" supporters, are a figment of someone's imagination.

That said, I am not discounting the usefulness of said audits/studies or their conclusions, although I would dispute the supposed advantages of having the government sanction certain groups as needing special government preferences as compared to other groups.

I am curious if you have any input towards trying to terminate bad employees of different races. Does the difficulty/stress factor increase based on race?

[mykevermin]

But the main difference between you and I, is that anyone that chooses not to construct their reality in such a superficial way, you clearly deem ignorant, think less of, and think yourself better. I've met many like you. Where as, I emphasize the importance in my life of accepting others ways of viewing the world as just as valid as mine.

Woah. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. You got that part of me right.

The guy who thinks Obama is a muslim does not have as valid a viewpoint as I do.
The person who thinks Iraq was involved in 9/11 does not have as valid a viewpoint as I do.
The member of the Christian Identity church, who belives blacks are soulless mud creates, does not have as valid a viewpoint as I do.

I do not accept all viewpoints as equal. Mine are clearly better than others. What's so scary or narcissistic about that? I study society, so I better be an expert at it. Likewise, I'm sure you program (? I think you program for a living) far better than I do. Likewise, my buddy is a better personal trainer than I am, because that's what he does.

Now, I don't "have a viewpoint" for a living (some may argue otherwise), but I do study racial inequality, social stratification, and crime for a living. I read studies that demonstrate that racism is far more powerful and pervasive than most anyone would admit; and many non-blacks become very defensive and scared when confronted with that fact. Blacks, on the other hand, recognize the daily patterns of antiblack discrimination they feel in their daily lives as the result of the behaviors of others. Meanwhile, I'm told that my kind of political ideology has created the problem by making the diagnosis. Do you blame your physician for giving you a disease?

Let me be clear: I am armed with knowledge and facts. Like you perform in your daily work and hobbies, you are armed with the knowledge and facts that requires. There's nothing ideological about telling you that racism is rampant in modern American society. It's proven.

You can call me names, that's fine. You can call me arrogant, and I may well be. But until you can move beyond mocking the idea that I back up my viewpoints with research and data and findings, throwing out "ivory tower" ad hominems and the like, and trying to act as if we all have equally valid viewpoints on all things in life (so would you trust me to repair your broken down Subaru as much as you would a mechanic?), then you have very little to add or offer to the conversation.

[mykevermin]

That said, I am not discounting the usefulness of said audits/studies or their conclusions, although I would dispute the supposed advantages of having the government sanction certain groups as needing special government preferences as compared to other groups.

Tell me more about this.

I see what you're getting at by claiming that no two interviews are alike; that's the thing about audits, is that they're scripted *very* meticulously because of the need to control for everything except for race/gender/whatever's being audited. In an ideal universe, anyway; we all know that something as innocuous as a glance in the wrong direction may trigger a response that could ruin the "test" itself.

[thrustbucket]

Woah. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. You got that part of me right.

No. But all viewpoints should be equally tolerated. Unless, of course, they bring harm to people, or in a court of law.

I do not accept all viewpoints as equal. Mine are clearly better than others. What's so scary or narcissistic about that? I study society, so I better be an expert at it. Something is unsettling about that statement. The word "society" is a pretty damn big damn general word. To claim expertise in "society" almost sounds as if you know how everyone in society thinks. I know that's not what you meant. You might be an expert at analyzing social issues based on studies, I'll concede that much...

Likewise, I'm sure you program (? I think you program for a living) far better than I do. Not really. I'm honestly hesitant to mention what I do because after observing your posts for as long as I have, I assume you will attempt somehow use it against me, pre-judge me and condescend me in later arguments.... No offense.

Now, I don't "have a viewpoint" for a living (some may argue otherwise), but I do study racial inequality, social stratification, and crime for a living. I read studies that demonstrate that racism is far more powerful and pervasive than most anyone would admit; and many non-blacks become very defensive and scared when confronted with that fact. Blacks, on the other hand, recognize the daily patterns of antiblack discrimination they feel in their daily lives as the result of the behaviors of others. Meanwhile, I'm told that my kind of political ideology has created the problem by making the diagnosis. Do you blame your physician for giving you a disease?
I wasn't referring to the diagnosis. I was referring to some of your suggested solutions.

Speaking of diagnosis, I have a hypothetical for you: Let's say you took two black people, put them in separate rooms, and asked each one just how much racism they feel they encounter daily. The first one says a lot, throughout their day they feel racial tension and feel downtrodden for their skin color constantly. The second one says sometimes, but not that often.

What would your explanation for that be? Would you tend to say that the second one is living a sheltered life, or is he blind and ignorant, or could it be something else? Or... I'm half expecting your answer to be along the lines of "both would be like the first".


Let me be clear: I am armed with knowledge and facts. Like you perform in your daily work and hobbies, you are armed with the knowledge and facts that requires. There's nothing ideological about telling you that racism is rampant in modern American society. It's proven.

Racism is one of a myriad of bigoted issues rampant in society. I don't need to be armed with knowledge and facts to know that. Everyone knows that, because everyone participates in it. The fact that so many are so addicted to consistently singling out one age-old prejudice is another discussion.

The ideology is what you do about it. How to combat it. How much you should shirk up and deal with, and what types of bigotry you shouldn't. Maybe bigotry of all kinds should be combated instead of separated out and dealt with differently?

Nobody needs your level of "knowledge and facts" to be allowed to offer possible solutions to it. They only need them to impress you, and those that think like you.

You can call me names, that's fine. You can call me arrogant, and I may well be. But until you can move beyond mocking the idea that I back up my viewpoints with research and data and findings, throwing out "ivory tower" ad hominems and the like,

Sigh. Myke, I know a lot of people like you. Many of them are lawyers or programmers. They only know how to express how they feel and believe through what they perceive to be proven facts, statistics, mathematical certainties... etc. It can be excruciatingly difficult to try and have a discussion about just about anything with people like that. Because feelings don't matter. Personal experience doesn't matter. Only what could possibly win a case in a court of law is what matters. Nobody enjoys casual discussion with a lawyer, unless he can turn that off.

I can only imagine trying to sustain a marriage like that. "Honey, I probably should not fold the laundry, because in 1996 there was a study at Princeton that showed that men that did too many chores around the house were more likely to become sterile..... I'm not making excuses honey, those are verifiable facts. I'll show you on the internet...."

See where I'm getting? Probably not. I still enjoy trying to have conversations with you, even though yes, you do come off very condescending most of the time.

BTW, none of your examples really apply, because we are just talking about having a discussion. Not getting a car fixed, or programming. Simply having a discussion with someone.... anyone - I do not first attempt to find out if I know more than they do, and then attempt to point out to them that their opinion can not possibly matter as much as mine on the subject, nor is it valid. Why? Because they are PEOPLE. People with opinions. And everyone deserve to be heard with an open mind even if they have a very rudimentary understanding of the subject. The best politicians understand this. Your favorite candidate has gained immense popularity by learning that lesson.

It actually IS possible to listen to people, have a conversation with them, and not put them in a court of law to prove your superiority. And furthermore, it's even possible to gain something from it... hard as that might be to believe. As argumentative as I might sometimes seem, I ultimately am searching for, and learning, new things. I naively assume everyone strives to, without prejudice.

and trying to act as if we all have equally valid viewpoints on all things in life (so would you trust me to repair your broken down Subaru as much as you would a mechanic?), then you have very little to add or offer to the conversation.

See what I mean? No, I would not want you to try and fix my Subaru. But if you wanted to discuss my Subaru, in any way, I'd listen. And I'd listen without trying to pre-judge what you are saying by your mechanical experience.

You are essentially saying that without the proper credentials, you can't be bothered with opinions form the less knowledgeable. There is a word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry)for that, which I mentioned above. I guess the subtle hypocrisy in your posts are what keep me reading and responding. When people believe so much in regulated tolerance and fairness, as long as it's outside yourself, it always fascinates me. But no worries - most people (especially die-hard liberals) are like that.
And I don't mean that offensively. Seriously.

[elprincipe]

I am curious if you have any input towards trying to terminate bad employees of different races. Does the difficulty/stress factor increase based on race?

Happily, I cannot answer this question.

[elprincipe]

Tell me more about this.

I see what you're getting at by claiming that no two interviews are alike; that's the thing about audits, is that they're scripted *very* meticulously because of the need to control for everything except for race/gender/whatever's being audited. In an ideal universe, anyway; we all know that something as innocuous as a glance in the wrong direction may trigger a response that could ruin the "test" itself.

More about what? I mean I don't doubt the conclusions that there is still some discrimination in hiring. I think that anyone who lives in this country would be deluding themselves to think that all people are colorblind in this regard. But I do disagree with the remedies we currently use.

[BigT]

Not really. I'm honestly hesitant to mention what I do because after observing your posts for as long as I have, I assume you will attempt somehow use it against me, pre-judge me and condescend me in later arguments.... No offense.


Come on, sharing is caring :D, the whole point of this board is to use a mocking and condescending tone to belittle others...

Me first, me first... Sociology... what do I know about sociology... probably not much... but I do know that it was the major that 3 types of people took at my school:
1. Athletes to have an easy ride.
2. The popular cool people to have an easy ride.
3. Activists because they actually cared.
(Personally, I perceived the field to be a bit less concrete than I like... but then again, so is much of medical research... as I would find out later...)

... but my view may be limited because I spent 99% of my time on the engineering and physical sciences side of campus. (Insert antisocial book worm or lab rat joke here). Now its the fun field of medicine (insert comments about how I refuse to treat indigent patients while taking kickbacks from pharma and driving the cost of care up).

See making fun of others and of oneself is fun! ;)

[thrustbucket]

Come on, sharing is caring :D, the whole point of this board is to use a mocking and condescending tone to belittle others...

Me first, me first... Sociology... what do I know about sociology... probably not much... but I do know that it was the major that 3 types of people took at my school:
1. Athletes to have an easy ride.
2. The popular cool people to have an easy ride.
3. Activists because they actually cared.
(Personally, I perceived the field to be a bit less concrete than I like... but then again, so is much of medical research... as I would find out later...)

... but my view may be limited because I spent 99% of my time on the engineering and physical sciences side of campus. (Insert antisocial book worm or lab rat joke here). Now its the fun field of medicine (insert comments about how I refuse to treat indigent patients while taking kickbacks from pharma and driving the cost of care up).

See making fun of others and of oneself is fun! ;)

Alright. You seem cool. And if your goona show yours, I'll show mine.

I'm just a game designer for a large developer that you've likely not heard of.

[Sarang01]

Ok I'm going to say my piece here. I believe the comment at Obama was clearly meant as an insult and whether racist or not I'm sure he knew it would be construed that way if he knew ANY history on the Blacks in this country.
To HotShotX you realize they have that reaction because of seeing all that racist/biased treatment all through their life right? it's really easy to say "Well don't overreact." but how would you feel if you were periodically followed and pulled over by police for DWB. Another example is being followed all around the store because you're expected to shoplift since you're Black.
THIS is where I get annoyed with some Libertarians and Republicans with that attitude. You need some empathy and to place yourself in their shoes for a minute. Just THINK for a second, for crying out loud. You also can't tell me throughout his life, at least, here, Obama hasn't heard at least ONE racial slur against him. I expected better from you HotShot.
Thrust while I agree Affirmative Action isn't solving the problem and I can see not hiring Blacks when you have firing turn into a pain in the ass if they're incompetant there's more.
Besides the equality schtick, teaching kids that and ACTING upon it as well, we need to make sure both sides get the SAME standard of education. This is part of the reason, not just discrimination, for AA.
Say I have two candidates and this is a BIG what if?. But say I have two candidates, one White and one Black and they both only have HS Diploma's. Now the White guy went to an inner city school with low test scores and I know this and the Black guy went to the Suburb one. All things being equal I might hire the Black guy instead.
Anyway part of the issue on funding is this and it's huge. Blacks LEFT the inner city when shopping. Black businesses in the city don't get the mney that will pay for a proper education there. That being said I'm sure towns which have been destroyed by Wal-Mart coming in and most of the money leaving the town there is still subsidized by the State, Government or both so that's NO excuse.
Bottom line, this CAN be done and should be, then eventually we can take AA off the books. The issue is actually taking that step. No one wants to because they want to use it as an issue.

[HotShotX]

Ok I'm going to say my piece here. I believe the comment at Obama was clearly meant as an insult and whether racist or not I'm sure he knew it would be construed that way if he knew ANY history on the Blacks in this country.
To HotShotX you realize they have that reaction because of seeing all that racist/biased treatment all through their life right? it's really easy to say "Well don't overreact." but how would you feel if you were periodically followed and pulled over by police for DWB. Another example is being followed all around the store because you're expected to shoplift since you're Black.
THIS is where I get annoyed with some Libertarians and Republicans with that attitude. You need some empathy and to place yourself in their shoes for a minute. Just THINK for a second, for crying out loud. You also can't tell me throughout his life, at least, here, Obama hasn't heard at least ONE racial slur against him. I expected better from you HotShot.
Thrust while I agree Affirmative Action isn't solving the problem and I can see not hiring Blacks when you have firing turn into a pain in the ass if they're incompetant there's more.
Besides the equality schtick, teaching kids that and ACTING upon it as well, we need to make sure both sides get the SAME standard of education. This is part of the reason, not just discrimination, for AA.
Say I have two candidates and this is a BIG what if?. But say I have two candidates, one White and one Black and they both only have HS Diploma's. Now the White guy went to an inner city school with low test scores and I know this and the Black guy went to the Suburb one. All things being equal I might hire the Black guy instead.
Anyway part of the issue on funding is this and it's huge. Blacks LEFT the inner city when shopping. Black businesses in the city don't get the mney that will pay for a proper education there. That being said I'm sure towns which have been destroyed by Wal-Mart coming in and most of the money leaving the town there is still subsidized by the State, Government or both so that's NO excuse.
Bottom line, this CAN be done and should be, then eventually we can take AA off the books. The issue is actually taking that step. No one wants to because they want to use it as an issue.

The first step in all of that is to stop giving a damn about race at all, which is what I believe is the best method. That's the methodology I carry in my life and I'm going to keep doing that regardless of whether or not the country feels "it is time" to end racism. Fuck them, they can catch up to me. :)

I'm not arguing that racism isn't still a component in society, I'm arguing against ASSUMING it is present every time someone of one race makes a criticism of someone of another race. That's the problem in my eyes, people in society today want to be as PC as possible in hopes that they won't offend ANYONE of another race or creed, but that same policy does nothing but drive wedges between us since we cannot instill any emotion into interacting with one another. In reality, it's nothing more than a cleverly guised "separate, but equal" policy, and the sad part is that too many people have bought into this bullshit and deemed it a good idea.

Too bad, I'm not buying. Consider me inconsiderate or whatever, but I guarantee you that you're going to get the best damn chance at anything with someone like me than any of these other AA assholes. Why?

Because I'm actually going to judge you based on who you are and what you're capable of (intelligence and professionalism).

How would you feel being an intelligent black man, college education, engineering degree, hoping to achieve your dream career, only to find out you were hired mostly to fulfill a racial quota?

I'd be pretty damn offended.

~HotShotX

[Sarang01]

Like I said HotShot, it's hard NOT for anyone being bombarded over their life with bullshit like DWB and being followed around the store expected to steal something TO help jade them into that line of thought.
And don't even try to argue DWB doesn't exist because it does. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are some cops who truly go by the book and pull anyone over, Black or White, for suspcious behavior but I also think Racial Profiling is around as well.

[pittpizza]

Because I'm actually going to judge you based on who you are and what you're capable of (intelligence and professionalism).
~HotShotX

Funny you should mention it, because this is EXACTLY what AA aims to acheive.

[rumblebear]

Specifically it was used to feed the lie that black people are inferior (specifically child like and irresponsible) no matter how old they actually were. I had made the assumption that Davis was in his 70's and could be given somewhat of a pass but for a person three some odd years older to use that in an attempt to insult someone as being unable to handle the government does not leave a lot of wiggle room.

.

Oh please. 'Boy' insult is used on all races. It's ridiculous how radical PC leftist are clinging onto this as some sort of racist insult used exclusively on black people.

[thrustbucket]

Oh please. 'Boy' insult is used on all races. It's ridiculous how radical PC leftist are clinging onto this as some sort of racist insult used exclusively on black people.

The insane amount of hypocrisy for Obama supporters is off the charts, that's for sure.

Obama's race gives him just the right balance of PC armor to say things no other candidate could, be associated with the type of people no other candidate could, and be offended at things no other candidate can be.

It's amazing to watch.

[Ikohn4ever]

Oh please. 'Boy' insult is used on all races. It's ridiculous how radical PC leftist are clinging onto this as some sort of racist insult used exclusively on black people.


yes I often call my chinese delivery man, boy, and my mexican gardener, boy. In fact rumblebear be a good boy and tell me who do you insult by callin boy to since apparently all races have that term used on them. Also the fact that if its a racist insult used on all races, its still a racist insult.

[CocheseUGA]

yes I often call my chinese delivery man, boy, and my mexican gardener, boy. In fact rumblebear be a good boy and tell me who do you insult by callin boy to since apparently all races have that term used on them. Also the fact that if its a racist insult used on all races, its still a racist insult.

My great-grandfather called me 'boy' all the time. It's doubtful he thought of me as a young black person.

It's just as much a product of older culture as it is racist.

[Msut77]

My great-grandfather called me 'boy' all the time. It's doubtful he thought of me as a young black person.

It's just as much a product of older culture as it is racist.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p34/Msut77/fail-24.jpg

[rumblebear]

yes I often call my chinese delivery man, boy, and my mexican gardener, boy. In fact rumblebear be a good boy and tell me who do you insult by callin boy to since apparently all races have that term used on them. Also the fact that if its a racist insult used on all races, its still a racist insult.

well by that logic, any form of insult is racist... but of course it can only be called out as such as long the receiver of the insult is black. Yay for Obama-loving P.C. leftist, now let's call majority of non-Obama supporters racists as well.

[Msut77]

well by that logic, any form of insult is racist... but of course it can only be called out as such as long the receiver of the insult is black. Yay for Obama-loving P.C. leftist, now let's call majority of non-Obama supporters racists as well.

Boy has a special history of being applied to black people as I have pointed out before.

If you would like to whine and/or deny reality feel free, no one expects anything better from you.

[elprincipe]

Funny you should mention it, because this is EXACTLY what AA aims to acheive.

Of course it is. Nobody here, I expect, would question the goal of "affirmative action," which is to level the playing field. The problem is that this line of reasoning is misguided since it creates as many problems as it solves. Surely you don't find unreasonable an argument that holds government-enforced preferences exacerbate animosity between "favored" groups and those left out.

[HotShotX]

Boy has a special history of being applied to black people as I have pointed out before.

If you would like to whine and/or deny reality feel free, no one expects anything better from you.

Again, I don't think anyone here is arguing against the obvious racial past the context of the word "boy" has been used in.

However, that means we are arguing over the context of the word used, which in this case, can also be aptly applied to show seniority.

That being said, there are two legitimate contexts in which this word was used, so I think it's pretty stupid that everyone's all up in arms over the racial version, not because it might have been actually used, but because it was simply available.

The only person who can honestly state the context of the word is the speaker themselves. If Davis said he didn't mean it in the racist context, who are you to say he's lying?

If I say Fuck!, are you going to assume it to be my method of expressing anger or frustration, or the green light to commence fornication?

Regardless of which context you choose, it still ultimately comes down to the context I chose to use when I said it, not whichever works best for your agenda.

~HotShotX

[Msut77]

However, that means we are arguing over the context of the word used, which in this case, can also be aptly applied to show seniority.

No.

That being said, there are two legitimate contexts in which this word was used

And No.

[HotShotX]

No.



And No.

Well at this point I don't think there's really anything else to discuss with you then, now is there? You can go seek racism all you want in life and try digging it up wherever you want, even if it doesn't exist. Continuously perpetuating it in whatever manner gives you a stiffy best, instead of trying to see through all the bullshit, both racist and politically correct, and just see the damn person and words at the value of intention, not whatever way you feel you can twist them.

~HotShotX

[Msut77]

Well at this point I don't think there's really anything else to discuss with you then, now is there? You can go seek racism all you want in life and try digging it up wherever you want, even if it doesn't exist. Continuously perpetuating it in whatever manner gives you a stiffy best, instead of trying to see through all the bullshit, both racist and politically correct, and just see the damn person and words at the value of intention, not whatever way you feel you can twist them.

~HotShotX

Look I know you feel like you have been mugged by some big meanies in the past but I really do not give a shit.

Even if it was not racist (consciously or subconsciously) it was still nowhere near legitimate, especially using your criteria i.e. Davis is not senior he was elected in 2004 just like Obama and is close in age. If you think someone is just going to concede those major points to make you feel better fuck off.

Anyhoo this is basically moot. What is important is that Davis apologized in a serious manner which is pretty rare these days.

[thrustbucket]

Well at this point I don't think there's really anything else to discuss with you then, now is there? You can go seek racism all you want in life and try digging it up wherever you want, even if it doesn't exist. Continuously perpetuating it in whatever manner gives you a stiffy best, instead of trying to see through all the bullshit, both racist and politically correct, and just see the damn person and words at the value of intention, not whatever way you feel you can twist them.

~HotShotX

You should probably join the growing club of people that have Msut77 on ignore. He rarely has anything useful to say. He's only interested in name calling and flame throwing.

[CocheseUGA]

You should probably join the growing club of people that have Msut77 on ignore. He rarely has anything useful to say. He's only interested in name calling and flame throwing.

I thought everyone had him on ignore.

[Msut77]

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p34/Msut77/toadbanditmr6.jpg

Yeah I am a rebel.

[mitchondria]

unfortunately this is my states rep. and yes i also have to deal with willy cunnigham, also just north of me....

where are you located at anyway op./

[pittpizza]

Of course it is. Nobody here, I expect, would question the goal of "affirmative action," which is to level the playing field. The problem is that this line of reasoning is misguided since it creates as many problems as it solves. Surely you don't find unreasonable an argument that holds government-enforced preferences exacerbate animosity between "favored" groups and those left out.

Ehh, I bet you some people here would question the goal of affirmative action. But that isn't really your point.

Your main point is that there is a good argument that government preferences that aim to level the playing field and provide equal opportunity "exacerbate animosity between 'favored' groups and those left out." You're right. There are good arguments. Allow me to switch onto your side for a while and lay them out:

1). By simply acknowledging race, and considering it in any way at all, you're being racist. <--Colorblind theory

2). By engagign in AA, you're creating animosity because the white male will have more hatred towards the minority, and will feel that minorities only got the job b/c of their race and he didn't get the job b/c he is white.

3). By engaging in AA, you're sending a message to minorities that they're inferior, can't be successful on their own, and filling them with a sense of "Well, I only got this job b/c I'm black."

There are more but those are the three big ones.

And I don't buy em one bit! True, some of these arguments are valid, so I guess it's not that I don't buy em. It's just that I feel that the positives of AA outweigh the negatives. Empirically we know racism won't get rid of itself w/out government intervention. Time and the history of our country has shown us this.

So in the analysis we're starting from the floor. From the two Lowest Common Denominator basement assumption that (almost) NOBODY will argue with: (1) Racism is bad, and (2) Racism still exists in our country and will not go away on its own.

What follows from these truths IMO, is that we ought to do something to make it go away, which is what AA does. You and I may disagree on whether it works, but is it your position that we shouldn't even TRY?

Hey Elprincipe, you're way ahead of most people. Most fucks I have this conversation with think along the lines of:

Racist fuck: "Well if I'm running my own private business on my property, I'm allowed to hire and fire whoever the fuck I want, for any reason I want. Let the free market system punish me for being racist!"

Me: "Umm...no you're not you racist fuckin bigot! It's called Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." G-d I hate racism!

[thrustbucket]

1). By simply acknowledging race, and considering it in any way at all, you're being racist. <--Colorblind theory
I actually sort of do believe this (big surprise, I know).

Until we raise a generation that is NOT encouraged to define their identity by race, sexuality, or family history, the problems you want to try and fix with bandaid approaches like AA, will always exist.

2). By engagign in AA, you're creating animosity because the white male will have more government sponsered encouragement for perpetuating hatred towards the minority, and will feel know that minorities only got the job b/c of their race and he didn't get the job b/c he might be white more qualified.

Few fixes, but you almost had it.

3). By engaging in AA, you're sending a message to minorities that they're inferior, can't be successful on their own, and filling them with a sense of "Well, I only got this job b/c I'm black."
I'm not too sure about that being a big issue behind AA. I'm more worried about the long term effects it has on a person to essentially keep them on training wheels their whole life.


Empirically we know racism won't get rid of itself w/out government intervention. Time and the history of our country has shown us this.
Making sure the government, itself, does not discriminate in it's activities, is the best"intervention" they could provide.

So in the analysis we're starting from the floor. From the two Lowest Common Denominator basement assumption that (almost) NOBODY will argue with: (1) Racism is bad, and (2) Racism still exists in our country and will not go away on its own.
Number 1 is obvious.

Number 2 is nebulous. Eliminating something like racism requires fundamentally changing the way every single person thinks, on a very base level. Assuming that's even possible, the only outside force that has a even a prayer of doing that is parents/family. Your likelihood of doing that is as likely as eliminating the emotions of hate and fear. In fact, maybe we should be focusing on the root causes of racism on an internal level instead of measurable outward racism itself.

It's absurd to believe that having the government constantly slapping everyone hands and reminding us we are bad racists in every aspect of society will help eliminate racism.

What follows from these truths IMO, is that we ought to do something to make it go away, which is what AA does. You and I may disagree on whether it works, but is it your position that we shouldn't even TRY?

Of course we should try. But like with many things, it can only really be done in the home and on the personal level.

AA type programs have been in effect for 50 years in some form or another. Is racism gone? How much longer should we wait before we can admit they don't work?


Racist fuck: "Well if I'm running my own private business on my property, I'm allowed to hire and fire whoever the fuck I want, for any reason I want. Let the free market system punish me for being racist!"

Me: "Umm...no you're not you racist fuckin bigot! It's called Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." G-d I hate racism!

Well of course. We always need the government to tell us what to think, how to behave, how to run our businesses, who we can hire and when we can fire. It's only fair.

You sure say "G-d" a lot..... Is there a good reason for having trouble with the spelling? Afraid you'll offend a deity?

[mykevermin]

Let me ask you, thrust, since you're advocating this argument:

Until we raise a generation that is NOT encouraged to define their identity by race, sexuality, or family history, the problems you want to try and fix with bandaid approaches like AA, will always exist.

Which is pretty much saying "once we start raising people in ways that nobody, historically, has ever raised people, things will be different," first and foremost.

But let's not delve into that just yet. My question for you is this: do you advocate a "sexblind" society in order to minimize gender-based differences as well? Do you think that a society who is "sexblind" is possible in the way you seem to exalt "colorblindness" as an ideal?

[thrustbucket]

Which is pretty much saying "once we start raising people in ways that nobody, historically, has ever raised people, things will be different," first and foremost.

Well that's a great point. And partially my own point. Because I turn that around and use that logic on AA advocacy.

"Once we employ just the right AA government programs, we'll finally change the way people have, historically, always thought. And things will be different".

Unless what you ultimately are suggesting that racism can never be eliminated, and instead we should just employ a permanent and artificial mechanism of fairness to try and eliminate it's effects.

But let's not delve into that just yet. My question for you is this: do you advocate a "sexblind" society in order to minimize gender-based differences as well? Do you think that a society who is "sexblind" is possible in the way you seem to exalt "colorblindness" as an ideal?

Well first of all, I didn't really mean gender. I didn't mean a society that ignores gender, if anything our society would probably benefit more if we did more focusing on gender differences (each sex inherently specializing in something beneficial to society).

I was referring to sexual behavior being embraced as part of one's identity. Sexual orientation, sexual prowess, sexual preferences are all things I think are silly to embrace as part of one's identity.

For example:

What I do with my cock, doesn't/shouldn't define who I am.
What color my skin is, doesn't/shouldn't define who I am.
Where my ancestors came from, doesn't/shouldn't define who I am.

On the other hand:

My feelings and thoughts do/should define who I am.
How I spend my time does/should define who I am.
And most importantly, how I treat other people does/should define who I am.

Our society seems obsessed with the emphasis of embracing ancient tradition/culture, having "pride" in your race, externally glorifying what you do in the bedroom, and defining yourself by your family history.

I happen to feel that's at least half of our problems.

I am not suggesting people forget the past, or ignore their heritage. But I am suggesting we start teaching kids that those things don't determine WHO THEY ARE, and instead start promoting that ultimately choice, belief, and action determine who they are.

[mykevermin]

I don't think you mentioned sex/gender at all in your post.

Nevertheless, there is sexism in society just as there is racism.

Knowing that, should we try to move towards a sexblind society where we no longer acknowledge sex?

Not orientation, not gender, but good ol' biological what-were-you-born-with sex? Should we strive towards sexblindness to eliminate sexism?

[thrustbucket]

I don't think you mentioned sex/gender at all in your post.
In post #78 I did:

Until we raise a generation that is NOT encouraged to define their identity by race, sexuality, or family history, the problems you want to try and fix with bandaid approaches like AA, will always exist.
So I thought that's what you were referring to.


Not orientation, not gender, but good ol' biological what-were-you-born-with sex? Should we strive towards sexblindness to eliminate sexism?

No. Not to the extent that we should try and all dress the same and become a unisex society. That would go against nature and probably be harmful to society. Nature relies on the differences between the sexes to persist. It does not rely differences things like family heritage, race, or nationality to persist. As near as I can tell, the sooner we shed such ancient dogmatic tradition, the better.


Ultimately the big thing I advocate is accepting the things you were born with and move past it as quickly as possible. Find a way to define yourself outside what you were born with. There is no room for pride in the thing's I have mentioned in my last post. Pride in those things, I feel, have done more harm for humanity than even religion. And presently our society dangerously promotes pride in born differences.

I honestly cringe every time I hear someone mention "black pride", or "brown pride", or "proud of my heritage". I know that they are meant as harmless statements, but I truly do feel that talk and feelings such as those are at the root of all that you and I fight against. Removing focus from all that stuff is of paramount importance.

[mykevermin]

Nature relies on the differences between the sexes to persist.

But nature relies on the biological differences to persist.

Not the social.

[elprincipe]

I think thrust pretty much said most of what i would say in response here. The government encouraging classification of people based on the color of their skin is not going to help society stop judging people by the color of their skin. Instead, the government should be doing the opposite: trying to eliminate consideration of skin color as a defining characteristic in our society. If we keep insisting that all people with black skin are to be treated one way and all people with white skin are to be treated another way, what hope is there of a future where these petty differences are dismissed for that they are in society at large?

[pittpizza]

I think thrust pretty much said most of what i would say in response here. The government encouraging classification of people based on the color of their skin is not going to help society stop judging people by the color of their skin. Instead, the government should be doing the opposite: trying to eliminate consideration of skin color as a defining characteristic in our society. If we keep insisting that all people with black skin are to be treated one way and all people with white skin are to be treated another way, what hope is there of a future where these petty differences are dismissed for that they are in society at large?

So do you feel the government shouldn't sanction those who don't hire, fire, or take some adverse employment action against somebody just because of their color, race, sex, religion or national origin?

Or is it your position that sanctioning these actions are okay, but taking affirmative actions to remedy/fight past racism and current racism respectively is going too far?

Obviously I feel that the government should maintain the first policy, but I have no strong opinion one way or the other about AA. Punishing a bigot for bigotry is one thing, but requiring that racist to not be racists anymore is another. Well, when I say it like that I guess I do support AA in some respects.

Eh fuck it. If AA is good enough for the USSC then it's good enough for me; those are some smart fuckers up on that bench, who know a thing or two about law and policy, so if they buy it I'll buy it too.

[thrustbucket]

But nature relies on the biological differences to persist.

Not the social.

The social benefits come FROM the biological.

Humans don't biologically receive social benefits from skin color. Which is why it's dangerous to attempt to conjure them through policy.

[elprincipe]

So do you feel the government shouldn't sanction those who don't hire, fire, or take some adverse employment action against somebody just because of their color, race, sex, religion or national origin?

Or is it your position that sanctioning these actions are okay, but taking affirmative actions to remedy/fight past racism and current racism respectively is going too far?

Obviously I feel that the government should maintain the first policy, but I have no strong opinion one way or the other about AA. Punishing a bigot for bigotry is one thing, but requiring that racist to not be racists anymore is another. Well, when I say it like that I guess I do support AA in some respects.

Yes, I feel the government needs to aggressively combat the sort of bigotry you are mentioning for the good of society. Obviously since we believe in free speech and freedom to think what you want to think we cannot legislate away racism, but we can make it illegal to discriminate based on race in terms of employment or allowing someone in your restaurant.

Eh fuck it. If AA is good enough for the USSC then it's good enough for me; those are some smart fuckers up on that bench, who know a thing or two about law and policy, so if they buy it I'll buy it too.

Be careful, these are the same guys who came up with Kelo v. New London, the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century.