2012 Election Thread

[quote name='egofed']You got it man! Free market! If a private company is ignorant and doesn't want to hire gays, then let them. It's not the government's place to regulate morals. Public institutions need regulations for this because of taxpayer funding, but let private jerks be jerks. They will take their chances in the court of public opinion.[/QUOTE]

I wish places could deny jobs to gays and other minorities. That way, I'd know which companies to avoid giving my money to.
 
[quote name='egofed']You make a lot of wild assumptions. Correcting injustices with new injustices...fixing cronyism with all powerful government cronyism...I can't accept that logic.[/quote]
A white student rejected from Harvard will still have other opportunities that a black student won't, but that still doesn't take away from other whites sliding through in greater numbers that are "less qualified."

I take it by your reply that you dislike Israel's reformation. I think the placement had a lot to do with historical ownership. It's weird that it fits in with Biblical prophecy also. Just don't take any marks on your hand or head/;-)
Click to expand...
It was a cynical move because Europeans didn't want them in Europe and not some altruistic reason. Not to mention that in the bible, god was supposed to smite the Jews first. It's a win-win for christians.
 
[quote name='Clak']I was also thinking about the self regulation argument the other day, since it seems to be something libertarians salivate for. I was actually thinking of discrimination laws though, and the idea that even without them, companies still wouldn't discriminate simply because it would be in their own best interest.

Then I thought about Chik-fil-A. In their case, discriminating against gays might actually make them MORE popular, especially with certain crowds. They don't' seem to be hurting, despite everyone knowing what they support (or rather, don't support). If they came out and openly said they wouldn't hire or serve gays, I don't think it would hurt them much to be honest. If they did lose any business from certain groups, they'd probably gain some from others.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking about that, too. There are just so many ways to discriminate that would not affect business (if they were even noticed) and in fact, might be applauded or improve business.

Libertarianism's valid complaints seem to be rooted in governmental corruption. I think that's a matter of education and people not realizing that as a group they have some control and need to learn about these things to hold elected officials accountable.

The solutions it suggests mostly seem outlandish from what I've heard so far.
 
[quote name='dohdough']A white student rejected from Harvard will still have other opportunities that a black student won't, but that still doesn't take away from other whites sliding through in greater numbers that are "less qualified."
[/QUOTE]

Oh boy, here comes that white guilt!
 
I swear that if I didn't know better I'd think Temp was from the south. You should move dude, you'd fit right in. Hell, I'll switch places with you.
 
"A white student rejected from Harvard will still have other opportunities that a black student won't, but that still doesn't take away from other whites sliding through in greater numbers that are "less qualified." "

If you are saying that the white student was passed over for a minority with a worse application, and are applauding that, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Public colleges should admit based entirely on non racial data. Fair is fair. A "diversity of test scores", as that chick on Maher was in favor of, is ridiculous.
 
[quote name='egofed']"A white student rejected from Harvard will still have other opportunities that a black student won't, but that still doesn't take away from other whites sliding through in greater numbers that are "less qualified." "

If you are saying that the white student was passed over for a minority with a worse application, and are applauding that, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Public colleges should admit based entirely on non racial data. Fair is fair. A "diversity of test scores", as that chick on Maher was in favor of, is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Nah man, you're just being racist. Like, totally move to the south.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']From the dude who equates Libertarianism with Anarchism and doesn't know the difference between "small" and "none"...[/QUOTE]
Look up my post about minarchism, fuck face.

[quote name='egofed']You got it man! Free market! If a private company is ignorant and doesn't want to hire gays, then let them. It's not the government's place to regulate morals. Public institutions need regulations for this because of taxpayer funding, but let private jerks be jerks. They will take their chances in the court of public opinion.[/QUOTE]
That really worked for Jim Crow.

[quote name='egofed']If you are saying that the white student was passed over for a minority with a worse application, and are applauding that, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Public colleges should admit based entirely on non racial data. Fair is fair. A "diversity of test scores", as that chick on Maher was in favor of, is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I said that there are other white students that get accepted with lower scores, but you only have a problem with the token non-white ones.

There's also more to being competent than test scores. Why do you think high achieving Asians get rejected while having a better stacked application works against them? Seems to me that whites are getting far more affirmative action at a higher rate than everyone else. You dumb fucks don't know shit about higher ed.

[quote name='egofed']Dang it! I hate when I'm being racist by using reason and logic....[/QUOTE]
Actually, you're being racist because of the opposite of reason and logic while reveling in being racist.

[quote name='Temporaryscars']Oh boy, here comes that white guilt![/QUOTE]
Yeah, I got so much white guilt that I turned black.
 
Weird...

[quote name='dohdough']Right! It's not like Spokker cited 2 sources that conflict with eachother or anything!

Btw, I'm not black, but I guess it's easy to assume so because only black people with chips on their shoulders talk about racism amirite...:roll:[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='dohdough']Seems to me that whites are getting far more affirmative action at a higher rate than everyone else.[/QUOTE]

White folks have been living in a perpetual state of systematic affirmative action stacked in their favor since this country began. Why is it considered such a 3rd rail topic to suggest that stacking the deck in someone else's favor every once in a while isn't the end of the world?
 
Nobody sees white privilege as racist besides non-white people. Those non-white people have less power generally, therefore nothing really gets done about it. When you stack the deck in someone else's favor, they (whites) see that as racism, because they've never experienced it before. They basically feel like they should be able say "ok, racism is over" and that be the end of it, no repercussions for years of oppression, it's just over, lets go on. Actually now that I think about it, it's not unlike what Mittens wanted to do with his etcha-sketch.
 
[quote name='Clak']Nobody sees white privilege as racist besides non-white people. Those non-white people have less power generally, therefore nothing really gets done about it. When you stack the deck in someone else's favor, they (whites) see that as racism, because they've never experienced it before. They basically feel like they should be able say "ok, racism is over" and that be the end of it, no repercussions for years of oppression, it's just over, lets go on. Actually now that I think about it, it's not unlike what Mittens wanted to do with his etcha-sketch.[/QUOTE]

Well said, sir. I get very tired of having to laboriously explaining that fact to people. Its a similar effect when it comes to the "war on Christianity/Christmas" Suddenly having to play by the same rules as everyone else turns into persecution.
 
"I said that there are other white students that get accepted with lower scores, but you only have a problem with the token non-white ones."

Read a little closer next time, doh. I said that there should be no racial aspect involved AT ALL. Test scores are not the only criteria, but, whatever the bar is, and a numerical score of some sort would be the most objective, there needs to be no preference other than raw achievement. Once again, this is for public entities or any tax funded college. True freedom and liberty allows for private institutions to be as racist towards whites, blacks, etc as they want to be.
 
Discrimination cured by discrimination. Great concept. Do you support the family of murder victims to kill the murderer? Or better yet, the murderer's grandchildren?
 
Just trying to penetrate the bs of affirmative action for you. Logic, reason, and justice don't seem to work, so shock and awe, baby! Just admit that the rules should be the same for everyone, a true colorless world. Discrimination of any kind is unjust. Right?
 
[quote name='dohdough']
I said that there are other white students that get accepted with lower scores, but you only have a problem with the token non-white ones.

There's also more to being competent than test scores. Why do you think high achieving Asians get rejected while having a better stacked application works against them? Seems to me that whites are getting far more affirmative action at a higher rate than everyone else. You dumb fucks don't know shit about higher ed. [/QUOTE]
Either way it's hurting whites, it's not a good thing to be held to lower standards and it not a good thing to miss opportunities because of being held to higher standards.

As for Asian being discriminated against that sounds like a double blow for affirmative action.
1. You are hurting a group that has been discriminated against in the past instead of helping them.
2. You have a group of people that despite being discriminated against have become successful and that success did not rely on affirmative action.
 
When people that do not consider themselves racists, regular people such as ourselves (generously), were to review rental applications, mortgage apps, job apps, school entrance apps, etc, etc, you will find that these normally upstanding individuals will discriminate, completely unknowingly, against (for example) black people. People with equal credentials that they have never met or seen with just black SOUNDING names will be overlooked. Not by racists, but by just about everyone, myself included.

The questions are 1) Do you recognize that this is actually happening in reality, and 2) is it something that should be remedied. Of course applications are only a part of the institutional racism thats built into the system.

I'm Asian also, but I recognize 1) the myth of meritocracy, that somehow your own personal work and talent is the main contributor to one's success when it is a negligible portion, statistically, and
2) that despite not being white or black, I maintain a pseudo-white privilege, just by virtue of not being black.
 
Wow...just wow...myth of meritocracy.... that is just mind blowingly absurd. I can't fathom of anyone actually having this as a major component of their worldview. Good luck with that, bro.
 
[quote name='egofed']Just trying to penetrate the bs of affirmative action for you. Logic, reason, and justice don't seem to work, so shock and awe, baby! Just admit that the rules should be the same for everyone, a true colorless world. Discrimination of any kind is unjust. Right?[/QUOTE]

We don't live in a colorless world. You can opine all you want to about how things should be but reality dictates that a system needs to be in place to help out those who need it. Hundreds of years of institutional racism has brought us to a place where very large groups of our population are in danger of becoming a permanent underclass. If you want to turn your head and say, "Well, in a perfect world we don't need these types assistance or safety nets" fine but here in the real world where shitty things have happened and continue to happen to people it is the responsibility of the larger society to do what we can to bring everyone up to the same level. I'm sorry but anything less is completely selfish and exclusionary.
 
So do shitty things to other races as a logical solution to the problem? Forced diversity is not the answer. Fundamental, personal belief system changes that occur naturally over time seems to be a better route. Breeding racial hatred through more discrimination only exacerbates the issue.
 
Why do whites absolutely refuse to believe they are given preferential treatment in a variety of ways throughout life? Is it guilt? Ignorance? Unwillingness? Convenience? I've never understood this. I'd love a colorless "we are simply Americans humans" world, but it's never going to happen, so why only focus on one half of the double standard?

As others have said, it's not suddenly "reverse racism" just by equalizing the field, just like there's no war on Christianity when you have businesses actively and publicly declaring their religious intentions/actions, but would throw a fit if an atheistic organization did the same.
 
Those in power feel threatened if they think their power may be slipping. Christians want to retain their power, white people want to retain theirs, on and on....

The biggest nightmare for a lot of folks in this country is a non-white, non-christian America.
 
The biggest nightmare for a lot of folks in this country is a non-white, non-christian America.
Click to expand...

See, this is how I know I'm fucked up, because this makes me want to be NICE to my coming non-white overlords. It doesn't make me want to be a dick to them when I full well know that increased mixing between races and cultures is going to generate a white minority in the future.

I mean, if you WANT to base your whole life on building a sandcastle before the incoming tide, then I'm sure I can't stop you. But don't bitch when a wave knocks your ass over.
 
On the last episode of Real Time, Bill Maher basically begged Samuel Jackson to spare him in the coming years. ;)
 
[quote name='Strell']See, this is how I know I'm fucked up, because this makes me want to be NICE to my coming non-white overlords. It doesn't make me want to be a dick to them when I full well know that increased mixing between races and cultures is going to generate a white minority in the future.

I mean, if you WANT to base your whole life on building a sandcastle before the incoming tide, then I'm sure I can't stop you. But don't bitch when a wave knocks your ass over.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry Strell, I'll be sure to put you in the "one of the good ones" Compliance Sphere ;)
 
I want to work in one of the GOOD salt mines, dammit. Like it needs to have a fancy name. "La Sal de Pantalones" or something.
 
Since some of you were talking about clinging to power, I suppose this is somewhat fitting.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/all-about-the-patriarchy/

There’s a strand of thought — I identify it especially with Corey Robin, although he’s not alone — that says that conservatism isn’t really about the things it claims to be about. It isn’t really about free markets and moral values; it’s about authority — the authority of bosses over workers, of men over women, of whites over Those People.
Score one on the morality front: Pat Robertson, stern moral lecturer, says that it wasn’t Petraeus’s fault because “he’s a man”.
Click to expand...
 
Conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, assuming they agree with what that is. Progressivism is about the opposite, about progressing towards something. I know the usual suspects will disagree with that, and that's fine, I'd expect no less. It's true though, whether they like it or not.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']Either way it's hurting whites, it's not a good thing to be held to lower standards and it not a good thing to miss opportunities because of being held to higher standards.[/QUOTE]
Racism hurts everyone and that's one of my points as well, but because class has been so intertwined with race, there's no simple way to untangle this nasty web. All this hyper-individualism merely serves the needs of the power elite to keep the masses fighting each other. Divide

As for Asian being discriminated against that sounds like a double blow for affirmative action.
1. You are hurting a group that has been discriminated against in the past instead of helping them.
2. You have a group of people that despite being discriminated against have become successful and that success did not rely on affirmative action.
Click to expand...
Asians are a special and I hate to group all the ethnicities together like that, but the ones that get higher scores tend come from the higher socio-economic strata and tend to not be refugees. It still doesn't negate the fact that Asians are still a very small percentage of students in college that are far from being overrepresented except in a handful of regional schools, which isn't a strike against affirmative action, but reiterates a need for it when South East Asians, in particular, tend to trend the same as Latinos and black people in regards to socio-economic status and scholastic achievement. They also sometimes require additional support from these institutions in order to navigate these spaces.

Not to mention that outside of college, Asians of all stripes tend to hit the glass ceiling as well as being paid less than their white counterparts even when accounting for experience and education.
 
This reminds me of an exchange in King of the Hill between Bobby and Hank, something like:

Bobby: Yeah, but then they take away OUR privileges, which is bad because we're used to getting them!

Marginally related from the second episode:

BOBBY: I just wanted to say you don't have to worry about me, 'cause I'm never gonna have sex.
HANK: Whoa, Bobby, now don't say that!
BOBBY: I thought that's what you wanted.
HANK: Well, yes, if you were my daughter, but you're my son.
BOBBY: Why is it not okay for girls, but it's okay for boys?
HANK: It's called the double standard, Bobby. Don't knock it, we got the long end of the stick on that one.
 
That show was so full of hidden jokes, I have to wonder how many people even got them. I know plenty of conservative folks who loved it, and I sometimes wonder if they were watching with the sound turned off.
 
I'm surprised that some folks are just all in favor of putting official policies, rules, regulations and laws into place that openly favor individuals based on their race alone.

I mean, once we open that door, why shouldn't the rich old white men that run the country just start openly creating laws that benefit them?

We're all supposed to worry about hidden agendas and subconcious racism and the only way to change that is by having transparent agendas and open racism.

Sounds like a plan.
 
I'm going to regret this...but I'm in Vegas and about to get some cheap drinks while "playing" on video poker.

[quote name='UncleBob']I'm surprised that some folks are just all in favor of putting official policies, rules, regulations and laws into place that openly favor individuals based on their race alone.[/QUOTE]
This type of legislation has already been codified in the laws of most of the country's history and it favored whites. Once overtly racist language was removed, you still have the same types of legislation that still disproportionally targets non-whites for discrimination while still benefiting whites.

I mean, once we open that door, why shouldn't the rich old white men that run the country just start openly creating laws that benefit them?
Click to expand...
This HAS to be a fucking joke.

We're all supposed to worry about hidden agendas and subconcious racism and the only way to change that is by having transparent agendas and open racism.
Click to expand...
When did whites start facing the discrimination on the same scale as black people? Someone forgot to send me the fucking memo.

Sounds like a plan.
Click to expand...
We're a long way from white being the new black, but it's still better than your non-plan of inaction. Either way, you're still taking attention away from the more well connected whites having their own form of affirmative action that get by in greater numbers, but no, let's focus on that one black kid instead of the 10 other white kids that jumped ahead of both of them.

Regardless, the core of arguments like yours is that those spots should've belonged to another white person because they're "objectively more qualified" instead of some nebulous idea of a black person that was obviously "less" qualified.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I also love how understanding past history, and the present for that matter, somehow equals guilt. I don't feel personally guilty because i didn't have any hand in putting together the calculated discrimination which has existed since the founding of the country. However, that doesn't mean I can't have a little fucking empathy for my fellow man, and try to understand how it feels to walk in their shoes. I sometimes feel like I'm living in a country half populated by a bunch of sociopaths.
 
[quote name='dohdough']

This type of legislation has already been codified in the laws of most of the country's history and it favored whites. Once overtly racist language was removed, you still have the same types of legislation that still disproportionally targets non-whites for discrimination while still benefiting whites.
[/QUOTE]

Give us an example.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Give us an example.[/QUOTE]

Classic example is the penalties for crack vs penalties for cocaine. Penalties for crack are much harsher. There's plenty of other examples too but I doubt you really care - I just replied to shut you up.
 
[quote name='camoor']Classic example is the penalties for crack vs penalties for cocaine. Penalties for crack are much harsher. There's plenty of other examples too but I doubt you really care - I just replied to shut you up.[/QUOTE]

Once overtly racist language was removed
Click to expand...
Drug laws had overtly racist language that was removed? :lol: fucking moron.

I'll give you that blacks suffer from the drug war more than whites do, but I'm asking about laws that once had overtly racist language that was removed and is still in place.

Lets hear some of your other examples.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This type of legislation has already been codified in the laws of most of the country's history and it favored whites. Once overtly racist language was removed, you still have the same types of legislation that still disproportionally targets non-whites for discrimination while still benefiting whites.[/QUOTE]

The issue is that your solution isn't to remove the laws and policies that are in place that still disproportionally target minorities. You want to keep these same things in place, but just replace "white" with "non-white" - and make it all nice and official.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Drug laws had overtly racist language that was removed? :lol: fucking moron.

I'll give you that blacks suffer from the drug war more than whites do, but I'm asking about laws that once had overtly racist language that was removed and is still in place.

Lets hear some of your other examples.[/QUOTE]
Look up the Lee Atwater quote about coded language. You don't have to say "n****r" to make language overtly racist. Codifying laws targeted to specifically disenfranchise a group based on race is overtly racist in itself. But like I said, keep focusing on those handful of black people when gaggles of your fellow whites are getting door service.

[quote name='UncleBob']The issue is that your solution isn't to remove the laws and policies that are in place that still disproportionally target minorities. You want to keep these same things in place, but just replace "white" with "non-white" - and make it all nice and official.[/QUOTE]
So not being dogmatic is a bad thing? Incrementalism is the only way to turn back these types of policies. If the US was truly interested in equality, we wouldn't need band-aid measures like affirmative action. But you're not really interested in equality either so I don't know what the fuck you're going on about by trying to paint me as someone that's trying to keep this system in place when I've repeatedly said that I want to burn this motherfucker down.
 
The way that I took what Doh said was that overtly racist language has basically been removed from the discussion these days, but discriminatory laws still exist. Blacks are no longer less than a full person, but there are still laws that largely effect them more than other races due to how they were written. The crack vs normal cocaine thing mentioned for example.
 
Ah, I thought he meant the laws themselves had overtly racist language which was removed. My mistake.

You guys should check out a book called Losing the Race by John McWhorter. Great book on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top