I'm A Minority!!

I'll bet Alonzomourning and Mykevermin would think differently if affirmative action were based on sex, not race, and they lost their job opportunities becuase they weren't women.

I wonder how long it would take them to decide that merit is the best way to qualify and be hired for a job and not past percieved inequalities.
 
[quote name='Moxio']Yikes. These posts are too long to read! Can someone tell me what's the dealio here?[/QUOTE]

In short, do you support equal rights or extra rights.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I'll bet Alonzomourning and Mykevermin would think differently if affirmative action were based on sex, not race, and they lost their job opportunities becuase they weren't women.

I wonder how long it would take them to decide that merit is the best way to qualify and be hired for a job and not past percieved inequalities.[/QUOTE]

*sigh* You'd lose that bet.

You don't seem to understand that the status quo discriminates against racial minorities (to the point that being black hurts more when seeking a job than BEING A fuckING CONVICTED FELON), and you don't seem to be interested in working towards a pure meritocracy, part of that path, lamentably, includes affirmative action.

I'm not trying to say AA would be a genius idea, and should last forever. It would work, however, towards showing poor minority communities that legitimate acheivement *is* possible, and familiarize the rest of the working populace with the notion that minorities in positions of power are no longer reserved for tokens. At the point that you society no longer finds the need to laud a black person for doing the same white-collar bullshit (e.g., CEO) many whites have done and continue to do, that's when AA will no longer be necessary (and that will be a day, shall I live to see it, when I'll gladly buy you a drink). It is an imperfect solution; I sound like a broken record saying it, but since you can do *nothing* and suggest *nothing* to eliminate the very clear and as-real-as-the-nose-on-your-face discrimination that not ONLY hurts minorities chances at getting jobs, but ALSO favors whites - including you - in getting jobs. It's a zero sum game, and, logically, you - and I - are unfairly benefitting from being white! Can you fucking grasp that that is a necessary logical corollary of discrimination against minorities?

Look, until you prove to grasp the argument that I'm making, it's futile to argue with you. In the meantime, I hope that you feel like you're acheiving some good by being nothing more than a counterproductive bitch. As long as you have your job chances, right?
 
[quote name='howlinmad']In short, do you support equal rights or extra rights.[/QUOTE]

yyyyyy..........no. There is no "in short," unless you want to simplify things to fit into your narrow-minded worldview. Issues are complex; if you want to try to boil down a complex situation into "equal rights or extra rights," then I'll recommend you gather up your duplo blocks and go back to the card table with your cousins, because the adults are talking.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']yyyyyy..........no. There is no "in short," unless you want to simplify things to fit into your narrow-minded worldview. Issues are complex; if you want to try to boil down a complex situation into "equal rights or extra rights," then I'll recommend you gather up your duplo blocks and go back to the card table with your cousins, because the adults are talking.[/QUOTE]

Would you mind telling me what is narrow-minded about feeling if you have the skills for a job, you are qualified, if do not possess them, you are not? That's not overly simple, it's common damn sense.

Or if you are implying this because you feel I am not fully aware a problem does exist, you are wrong. I see it happen, and I actually feel humiliated FOR the person who got the job because they needed a woman, or they needed a certain foreign quota, or a particular race in the inital issue. To hell with your education that you worked so hard to get, do you have a snatch between your legs, or what color is your skin?

Sure, there is a problem, but the only way these issues, especially race, is ever going to stop being an issue, is when we STOP making it an issue....everybody....if the individual is human, that's who I'm refering to.

That's not me trying to over simplify anything, that is the rational truth. That goes for the employer and potential employee.

Hell, I even have a bit of hope that someday people will finally get over this crap. Problem is, it requires people to stop thinking they are better than somebody else.
That's another challenge all together.
 
I'm against AA because I believe that most, not all, families have had to overcome difficulties some time in the present and/or past. They may have been Chinese laborers, poor whites who came to the New World in search of a better life, criminals who were shunned in Europe, slaves, refugees, etc. People who aren't born into poverty today probably had ancestors who were born poor and had to work extra hard to raise the family's financial status. Although the majority facing economic difficulties today are minorities, I don't see why they should receive any special treatment; if they take the extra steps, their children and their children's children will enjoy the benefits "rich people" enjoy today.

My parents didn't have a penny when they came to the US. They worked full time while going to school and spent the next 20 years or so working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. My dad works assembly and my mom is a clerk at the post office. However, we currently live in a very rich area that are filled with doctors, dentists, etc. When I was in high school, my mom was sick and unable to work so I worked full time while going to school. Sure it was hard to keep up in school and my extracurricular activities but I made it and was accepted into every college I applied to. Hopefully, my children will benefit from this and they won't have to work as hard.

I'm sure that the ancestors of many established families today were very poor and worked their asses off to gain ground in this country. Why can't people do that today?
 
[quote name='howlinmad']Would you mind telling me what is narrow-minded about feeling if you have the skills for a job, you are qualified, if do not possess them, you are not? That's not overly simple, it's common damn sense.

Or if you are implying this because you feel I am not fully aware a problem does exist, you are wrong. I see it happen, and I actually feel humiliated FOR the person who got the job because they needed a woman, or they needed a certain foreign quota, or a particular race in the inital issue. To hell with your education that you worked so hard to get, do you have a snatch between your legs, or what color is your skin?

Sure, there is a problem, but the only way these issues, especially race, is ever going to stop being an issue, is when we STOP making it an issue....everybody....if the individual is human, that's who I'm refering to.

That's not me trying to over simplify anything, that is the rational truth. That goes for the employer and potential employee.

Hell, I even have a bit of hope that someday people will finally get over this crap. Problem is, it requires people to stop thinking they are better than somebody else.
That's another challenge all together.[/QUOTE]

I often hear of this notion of people being treated as "Americans," and hired based on their acheivements, irrespective of race. I don't see any problem with this (with the exception of its incredible improbable idealism), and I think that the best we can hope for is to get as close to this ideal is possible.

With that in mind, we agree on the ends, and we (perhaps) agree on the existence of severe discrimination in hiring currently in the United States (though we may not agree to the extent of it); to get from the current climate today to the ideal meritocracy, I believe we need affirmative action policies. I don't see what you suggest, other than a disagreement with that. If that's all you can offer, then we aren't going to get there very quickly, if at all.
 
He seems to suggest that its an unfortunate problem, but the government should stay out of it and just let it continue as is, as to do otherwise robs people of the freedom to hire who they choose. Businesses will choose to hire the most qualified because they can make the most money. That last part is an argument he's made before.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Businesses will choose to hire the most qualified because they can make the most money.[/QUOTE]
I hope he's not said that; that's the most easily refuted argument in this whole fucking thread.
 
affirmative action=discrimination. hiring quotas on gender and race=discrimination. all this time i thought racial and gender discrimintation were illegal, only to see that its ok'd by the law.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I hope he's not said that; that's the most easily refuted argument in this whole fucking thread.[/QUOTE]

No, it actually has something to do with what thagoat said right above me here..

affirmative action=discrimination. hiring quotas on gender and race=discrimination. all this time i thought racial and gender discrimintation were illegal, only to see that its ok'd by the law.
Click to expand...

I fully realize asking people to turn a blind eye on race is asking many people to stop being people. But a solution that discriminates in it's answer against discrimination, doesn't seem like the best solution IMHO.

I recently saw AA's success at my wife's work. She works in HR, so she hears the hiring process discussions, and they needed a black male for a position, could not be female, they had enough females. Well, they hired what met their "quota", even though there were others more qualified, he got the position. From several folks there, black men/women included, he doesn't do his job, yet got a raise "to make him look good".

Hell, my wife got her job many years ago because a black female got promoted, and they needed a white female to fill the spot so it was "equal". How the hell is that not discrimination? She does her job well, and has sense moved up, but what if a purple unisex was more qualifed?

All I'm saying is it doesn't work, it only furthers the means to discriminate at will, and reinforces the belief that it's still ok to still seperate and look upon people different based on race. You asked what I suggest for the "complex issue".
Well, I think I already stated that. It is a complex issue, but you eat an elephant one bite at a time. And it has to start with everybody wanting the same thing, to be treated and treat others equal, not better. That goes for anybody. It's going to have to start there. Again, that's huge, asking people to stop being people basically.
Impossible? Close to it, but it's all depending on how badly people want it, and for some to lose their crutch.

You also seem to think that I disagree with the extent of the problem. I don't, it's too much if there is any. If you are a legal citizen of the United States, and you don't get an available posted job based on your race, you are being treated unfairly. If you get a job based on your gender/race, you are being treated unfarily, and your education, hardwork, and skillset have been spit on. Period.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']He seems to suggest that its an unfortunate problem, but the government should stay out of it and just let it continue as is, as to do otherwise robs people of the freedom to hire who they choose. Businesses will choose to hire the most qualified because they can make the most money. That last part is an argument he's made before.[/QUOTE]

Yes prejudices are an unfortunate problem, but government social engineering isn't going to solve it no matter how hard you try. You cannot regulate people's feelings and doing so will only create more animosity. People have to come to conclusions on their own that racist tendencies are counter productive. And no matter how Mykevermin tries, he'll never be able to legislate a utopia, or 'meritocracy'.

It's interesting to note that the most of the people so vehemently against the patriot act and government intervention into private lives and decisions are usually faithful proponents of social engineering programs like affirmative action, welfare, and other social-isms that control populations by force and coercion instead of individual freedom of choice.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes prejudices are an unfortunate problem, but government social engineering isn't going to solve it no matter how hard you try. You cannot regulate people's feelings and doing so will only create more animosity. People have to come to conclusions on their own that racist tendencies are counter productive.

It's interesting to note that the most of the people so vehemently against the patriot act and government intervention into private lives and decisions are usually faithful proponents of social engineering programs like affirmative action, welfare, and other social-isms that control populations by force and coercion instead of individual freedom of choice.[/QUOTE]

I am extremely against the patriot act and I am also against Affirmative Action, Welfare. So yeah...I think people need to "come around" on there own and realize racist tendicies are just not plausible.
 
[quote name='howlinmad']No, it actually has something to do with what thagoat said right above me here..



I fully realize asking people to turn a blind eye on race is asking many people to stop being people. But a solution that discriminates in it's answer against discrimination, doesn't seem like the best solution IMHO.

I recently saw AA's success at my wife's work. She works in HR, so she hears the hiring process discussions, and they needed a black male for a position, could not be female, they had enough females. Well, they hired what met their "quota", even though there were others more qualified, he got the position. From several folks there, black men/women included, he doesn't do his job, yet got a raise "to make him look good".

Hell, my wife got her job many years ago because a black female got promoted, and they needed a white female to fill the spot so it was "equal". How the hell is that not discrimination? She does her job well, and has sense moved up, but what if a purple unisex was more qualifed?

All I'm saying is it doesn't work, it only furthers the means to discriminate at will, and reinforces the belief that it's still ok to still seperate and look upon people different based on race. You asked what I suggest for the "complex issue".
Well, I think I already stated that. It is a complex issue, but you eat an elephant one bite at a time. And it has to start with everybody wanting the same thing, to be treated and treat others equal, not better. That goes for anybody. It's going to have to start there. Again, that's huge, asking people to stop being people basically.
Impossible? Close to it, but it's all depending on how badly people want it, and for some to lose their crutch.

You also seem to think that I disagree with the extent of the problem. I don't, it's too much if there is any. If you are a legal citizen of the United States, and you don't get an available posted job based on your race, you are being treated unfairly. If you get a job based on your gender/race, you are being treated unfarily, and your education, hardwork, and skillset have been spit on. Period.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but you're saying nothing here. You're proposing nothing that would help reduce workplace discrimination. Perhaps there is an implicit "let the market handle it itself" attitude in there (and perhaps not); that's the bmulligan approach. To that I argue: it's been 40 years since the civil rights act, and racism is still frighteningly prevalent in our society. At what point do we declare that the market has failed at helping society become more equal? Shall we all pray to the laissez faire altar that bmulligan goes to, thinking that, if we continue to wait, it will work itself out? I, for one, refuse to believe that the market will take care of itself when it has never shown any tendency to do so.

[quote name='bmulligan']Yes prejudices are an unfortunate problem, but government social engineering isn't going to solve it no matter how hard you try. You cannot regulate people's feelings and doing so will only create more animosity. People have to come to conclusions on their own that racist tendencies are counter productive. And no matter how Mykevermin tries, he'll never be able to legislate a utopia, or 'meritocracy'.[/quote]
I'm endorsing a policy that, while imperfect, will work towards creating workforce parity. What do you recommend other than grousing about it? You want to embrace the marketplace, yet it's done nothing in the past 40 years to lead you to think that it will ever change. When will you abandon the god who never answers your prayers?

It's interesting to note that the most of the people so vehemently against the patriot act and government intervention into private lives and decisions are usually faithful proponents of social engineering programs like affirmative action, welfare, and other social-isms that control populations by force and coercion instead of individual freedom of choice.
Click to expand...
It's not interesting; it's perfectly rational. I want all Americans to have equal access to their civil liberties. Is there something you can't grasp about that?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sorry, but you're saying nothing here. You're proposing nothing that would help reduce workplace discrimination. Perhaps there is an implicit "let the market handle it itself" attitude in there (and perhaps not); that's the bmulligan approach. To that I argue: it's been 40 years since the civil rights act, and racism is still frighteningly prevalent in our society. At what point do we declare that the market has failed at helping society become more equal? Shall we all pray to the laissez faire altar that bmulligan goes to, thinking that, if we continue to wait, it will work itself out? I, for one, refuse to believe that the market will take care of itself when it has never shown any tendency to do so.[/quote]

You're right, blacks are practically slaves still. We whites still use water cannons at their luncheon gatherings, and we still make them sit at the back of the bus. Not a thing has changed in 40 years. There are regular cross burnings in my neighborhood when those darkies try to move in. I forgot we still wear animal fur and eat raw meat, too.


I'm endorsing a policy that, while imperfect, will work towards creating workforce parity. What do you recommend other than grousing about it? You want to embrace the marketplace, yet it's done nothing in the past 40 years to lead you to think that it will ever change. When will you abandon the god who never answers your prayers?... I want all Americans to have equal access to their civil liberties. Is there something you can't grasp about that?
Click to expand...
.[/quote]

Again with the 'nothing ever changes' mantra. Do you live in a cave or
did you never meet a black person until you went to college or something? I'd expect such a statement from Alonzo who probably isn't even of legal drinking age, but I though you were much older and more experienced in life to know how much things have changed even in the last 40 years.

You are endorsing more than an imperfect policy, you are endorsing a racist policy that strips people of their civil rights and freedom of choice so that government can catagorize and dictate proper levels of minority dispersion. How exactly can you protect civil rights when you will deny them to others? it's hypocritical. What you fail to grasp is that you are not god yourself, yet you keep trying to play him, and badly.

I love that phrase - "workforce parity". You would do well in the Chineese proleteriat becuase you're really are a communist at heart trying to create a perfect social order through your imperfect social doctrines.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You're right, blacks are practically slaves still. We whites still use water cannons at their luncheon gatherings, and we still make them sit at the back of the bus. Not a thing has changed in 40 years. There are regular cross burnings in my neighborhood when those darkies try to move in. I forgot we still wear animal fur and eat raw meat, too.

Again with the 'nothing ever changes' mantra. Do you live in a cave or
did you never meet a black person until you went to college or something? I'd expect such a statement from Alonzo who probably isn't even of legal drinking age, but I though you were much older and more experienced in life to know how much things have changed even in the last 40 years.

You are endorsing more than an imperfect policy, you are endorsing a racist policy that strips people of their civil rights and freedom of choice so that government can catagorize and dictate proper levels of minority dispersion. How exactly can you protect civil rights when you will deny them to others? it's hypocritical. What you fail to grasp is that you are not god yourself, yet you keep trying to play him, and badly.

I love that phrase - "workforce parity". You would do well in the Chineese proleteriat becuase you're really are a communist at heart trying to create a perfect social order through your imperfect social doctrines.[/QUOTE]
I'll ignore the numerous ad hominems, as they do so much to structure your overall argument. I'm not truly certain if I'm being serious or sarcastic.

Now, as far as "appropriate levels of workforce dispersion," or whatever you call it, I think you misunderstand the version of AA that I prefer. Personally, I like the litigious approach, in which individual acts of discrimination are brought to court (in cases where minorities are turned down for jobs in favor of whites). The biggest problem with that approach is, of course, its subjectivity. You saw the same problem when people weren't sued for violating the fair housing act in the late 60's on. It is subjective, it puts too much agency (and burden of proof) on the victim, and in an era of what we call "benign racism," then it's probably virtually impossible to prove.

I'm not a quota guy. That's one aspect of AA, and one I neither agree nor disagree with. The studies I read talk about (and examine) the difficulty in getting access to jobs, and how many more businesses qualified minorities (again, mostly blacks) have to contact than their equally qualified white counterparts. Again and again I've pointed out that being black hurts more in job seeking than a felony conviction. You've not responded to it at all, and that's well and good; just think about that when you endorse your loving market (the paper is Devah Pager: The Mark of a Criminal Record if you want to check my source; maybe I'll find you a link).

What I prefer, rather than the quota system (as the quota system does falsify community makeup; where is Kansas going to find a black man to hire? IKIK), is precisely what the University of Michigan was chided for early last year: a slight "point advantage." This is giving advantages to discriminated minorities such that (1) they will be hired at jobs they are seeking, rather than sought by employers that they generally don't approach, and (2) ceteris paribus, my friend; all things being equal, discriminated minotiry status comes into play. You have a MS from Yale, and the minority has one from the Unviersity of Something that isn't Yale, you get hired. You're more qualified (we assume that you did reasonably well at Yale, of course), and they are less qualified. Otherwise, all things truly being equal, sorry, kid, but they get the nod in those cases. I am willing to give up a touch of my white privelege for that; can you?
 
I'd expect such a statement from Alonzo who probably isn't even of legal drinking age,
Click to expand...

I think you're obsessed with me. Why don't you just start calling me mr. liberal, socialist bob, commie zo, or sissy boy? That way you can hide your obsession when you reference me, since most won't know who you're referring to.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll ignore the numerous ad hominems, as they do so much to structure your overall argument. I'm not truly certain if I'm being serious or sarcastic.[/quote]

Spoken like the queen of ad hominem attacks. You really can dish it out but can't take it can you?

Now, as far as "appropriate levels of workforce dispersion," or whatever you call it, I think you misunderstand the version of AA that I prefer. Personally, I like the litigious approach, in which individual acts of discrimination are brought to court (in cases where minorities are turned down for jobs in favor of whites). The biggest problem with that approach is, of course, its subjectivity. You saw the same problem when people weren't sued for violating the fair housing act in the late 60's on. It is subjective, it puts too much agency (and burden of proof) on the victim, and in an era of what we call "benign racism," then it's probably virtually impossible to prove.
Click to expand...

I'm not misunderstanding your approach no matter how many times you try to evade it's premise or it's practice. You prefer stripping people of their freedom of choice and association, unless they are your chosen minority of the day.

I'm not a quota guy. That's one aspect of AA, and one I neither agree nor disagree with. The studies I read talk about (and examine) the difficulty in getting access to jobs, and how many more businesses qualified minorities (again, mostly blacks) have to contact than their equally qualified white counterparts. Again and again I've pointed out that being black hurts more in job seeking than a felony conviction. You've not responded to it at all, and that's well and good; just think about that when you endorse your loving market (the paper is Devah Pager: The Mark of a Criminal Record if you want to check my source; maybe I'll find you a link).
Click to expand...

You continue to imply that I deny the existence of racism; I do not. And you continue to use it's existence as the argument for AA.

What I prefer, rather than the quota system (as the quota system does falsify community makeup; where is Kansas going to find a black man to hire? IKIK), is precisely what the University of Michigan was chided for early last year: a slight "point advantage." This is giving advantages to discriminated minorities such that (1) they will be hired at jobs they are seeking, rather than sought by employers that they generally don't approach, and (2) ceteris paribus, my friend; all things being equal, discriminated minotiry status comes into play. You have a MS from Yale, and the minority has one from the Unviersity of Something that isn't Yale, you get hired. You're more qualified (we assume that you did reasonably well at Yale, of course), and they are less qualified. Otherwise, all things truly being equal, sorry, kid, but they get the nod in those cases. I am willing to give up a touch of my white privelege for that; can you?
Click to expand...

You don't prefer a quota system so prefer an open ended advantage for those you consider 'underprivlidged'? When does it end? Where is the legal condition for the official repeal or ending of an 'equaliazing' policy? Do we do your favorite study every 6 months to determine equality? Every census? You keep refering to your studies and examiniations of the unfairness that exists like the consumate pragmatist, yet you never seek to examine your principles. Perhaps becuase you don't have any, or they are too difficult to reconcile because of their contradictory concepts of fairness, justice, freedom, and equality.

You want to create equality by fiat instead of allowing an equilibrium to occurr naturally. Repeating that "nothing has ever changed" in racial attitudes in this country as your justification for social engineering is laughable and where your argument fails. Then clinging to the belief that denial of liberty for some in order to provide it for others is where your beliefs become sinister.

I'll wait for the racist lables to come forthwith again, oh, but I forgot, I'M the only one who puts forth as hominim attacks.... :roll:
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Spoken like the queen of ad hominem attacks. You really can dish it out but can't take it can you?[/quote]
I believe that, if I couldn't take it, I'd have left by now.

I'm not misunderstanding your approach no matter how many times you try to evade it's premise or it's practice. You prefer stripping people of their freedom of choice and association, unless they are your chosen minority of the day.
Click to expand...
And you prefer allowing the meritocracy that you laud to be undermined by the fact that the freedoms you espouse create a social structure that unfairly discriminate against somebody, not because of acheivements they may or may not have, but because of something ultimately irrelevant that they were born with. You embrace the freedom of white privelege to recreate itself; you don't embrace the freedoms of minorities to succeed based upon the merit of their actions, but suffer because of the color of their skin.

You continue to imply that I deny the existence of racism; I do not. And you continue to use it's existence as the argument for AA.
Click to expand...
I think that I implied that you don't seem to consider structural racism to be an issue worth tackling, and one that will resolve itself over time. If I implied that you don't think it exists, I apologize for incorrectly doing so. Rather, I believe that you want to deny the historical reality that racism is as socially prevalent and as real as the mental preconditions that give rise to it (that is to say 'race' is a social construct; one look at the US census, which treats "hispanic" status as a separate question from race, as a result of both 'black' and 'white' hispanics), and that racial classifications (and, logically, any classifications imply a natural heriarchy along with it) will eventually do themselves in. In short, you seem to think that society will naturally resolve itself of racial classifications and a privelege system that coincides with it, because of all the numerous examples of a society free from bigotry. :roll:

You don't prefer a quota system so prefer an open ended advantage for those you consider 'underprivlidged'? When does it end? Where is the legal condition for the official repeal or ending of an 'equaliazing' policy? Do we do your favorite study every 6 months to determine equality? Every census? You keep refering to your studies and examiniations of the unfairness that exists like the consumate pragmatist, yet you never seek to examine your principles. Perhaps becuase you don't have any, or they are too difficult to reconcile because of their contradictory concepts of fairness, justice, freedom, and equality.
Click to expand...

There's little to say to this. Your idea of "freedom" does not extend to your minority brethren in this country. Can you admit the existence of white privelege as a logical corollary of discrimination against nonwhites? Until you can admit that, I can't take you any further. It goes like this:

1) Minorities are discriminated against because of racism, not meritocracy
2) A disadvantage for some creates opportunities for others; namely, those who aren't minorities. Namely, you and me, and other whites.
3) The freedom of acheivement-orientation in society (the meritocracy we hold dear) is broken down, because it does not exist for the minorities. Acheivement means less than race does.

So, whose freedoms are you trying to protect? The freedom of whites to get a job that minorities were unfairly turned down from, or the freedom of minorities to not get job offers because of their appearance? Where are your freedoms to be hired and fired based on what you have done, rather than what you look like? I can concede that AA policies don't rectify it, but it will do far more to repair the broken-down system that rewards people for being white rather than for having worked hard.

You want to create equality by fiat instead of allowing an equilibrium to occurr naturally. Repeating that "nothing has ever changed" in racial attitudes in this country as your justification for social engineering is laughable and where your argument fails. Then clinging to the belief that denial of liberty for some in order to provide it for others is where your beliefs become sinister.
Click to expand...
You'll have to clarify that last sentence, because while I don't agree with it, I also don't see enough there to attack it on. If anything, it just resembles an unsupported claim. So there you have it: support it.

I'll wait for the racist lables to come forthwith again, oh, but I forgot, I'M the only one who puts forth as hominim attacks.... :roll:
Click to expand...
You're putting words in my mouth there, slappy. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
you prefer allowing the meritocracy that you laud to be undermined by the fact that the freedoms you espouse create a social structure that unfairly discriminate against somebody, not because of acheivements they may or may not have, but because of something ultimately irrelevant that they were born with. You embrace the freedom of white privelege to recreate itself; you don't embrace the freedoms of minorities to succeed based upon the merit of their actions, but suffer because of the color of their skin.[/quote]

Yes, myke, it's called freedom. And you talk about me putting words in YOUR mouth? I'd rather live in a world of people that make bad and racist decisions than in a world run by people like you who make all of our moral decisions for us. I don't laud meritocracy, or any -ocracy for that matter, as it implies a rule to be followed instead of a moral choice made by an individual.


I think that I implied that you don't seem to consider structural racism to be an issue worth tackling, and one that will resolve itself over time. If I implied that you don't think it exists, I apologize for incorrectly doing so. Rather, I believe that you want to deny the historical reality that racism is as socially prevalent and as real as the mental preconditions that give rise to it (that is to say 'race' is a social construct; one look at the US census, which treats "hispanic" status as a separate question from race, as a result of both 'black' and 'white' hispanics), and that racial classifications (and, logically, any classifications imply a natural heriarchy along with it) will eventually do themselves in. In short, you seem to think that society will naturally resolve itself of racial classifications and a privelege system that coincides with it, because of all the numerous examples of a society free from bigotry. :roll:
Click to expand...

Society will never be free from bigotry, no matter how many laws and programs you create; now you're just being naive. And your reproach of 'classification' is contradictory as AA requires classification to be conceptualized, analyzed, and implemented. AA depends on classification and hierarchy.

So, whose freedoms are you trying to protect?
Click to expand...

Everyones.

The freedom of whites to get a job that minorities were unfairly turned down from, or the freedom of minorities to not get job offers because of their appearance?
Click to expand...
Where are your freedoms to be hired and fired based on what you have done, rather than what you look like? I can concede that AA policies don't rectify it, but it will do far more to repair the broken-down system that rewards people for being white rather than for having worked hard.
Click to expand...

If AA policies don't rectify the situation, then you have lost your argument for it's existence, I thank you for finally admitting it. Justifying it's existence by claiming it's better than anything else a slap in the face to all black people who have achieved anything in their lives by their own merit.

The "system" you keep mentioning is made up of individuals, it is not a "system". There is not a bureau of white supremacy or even a cabinet post to make sure white people only hire whites. It is therefore not broken down, only some individuals are responsible for it's "brokenness". What you suggest, though, is a branch of government that ensures social equality, which you equate with the concept of freedom. A branch that would further the erasure of individual rights and the concept of freedom.

It seems unfathomable to you that someone can make a moral choice without being told by the governmnet what is right and what is wrong by your bureau of fairness. People ultimately act as individuals and make decisions as individuals. And, contrary to popular belief, not all white people are biggots, and not all black people are unable to achieve in the face of hatred. Racism IS a problem worth tackling and as an individual you have an immeasurable reservoir of power to wield. You need to have more faith in your fellow man, the black man, and yourself.


Finally, you did not agree with my statement and wanted me to support it: ...clinging to the belief that denial of liberty for some in order to provide it for others is where your beliefs become sinister.

It needs no clarification or support. It is a definition of your principles and my rejection of them as evil. You are the enemy of man, his mind, and his capacity for rational thought and behavior. Perhaps that will give you enough to chew on.
 
In the end this is like medicare. Everyone agrees changes are needed, but since no one can agree on what those changes should be, they do nothing. Thats one of the many reasons I hate politicians. All of them.
 
[quote name='j.elles']In the end this is like medicare. Everyone agrees changes are needed, but since no one can agree on what those changes should be, they do nothing. Thats one of the many reasons I hate politicians. All of them.[/QUOTE]

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for yourself.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, myke, it's called freedom. And you talk about me putting words in YOUR mouth? I'd rather live in a world of people that make bad and racist decisions than in a world run by people like you who make all of our moral decisions for us. I don't laud meritocracy, or any -ocracy for that matter, as it implies a rule to be followed instead of a moral choice made by an individual.

Society will never be free from bigotry, no matter how many laws and programs you create; now you're just being naive. And your reproach of 'classification' is contradictory as AA requires classification to be conceptualized, analyzed, and implemented. AA depends on classification and hierarchy.[/quote]
So, again you're endorsing providing immense freedoms to businesses to hire and fire whom they please, which means allowing for overt discriminatory behavior against minorities. You are endorsing racism. You want to cede so much power to business that you are taking away power from the individual; power to feel that, as we live in a capitalist society, they will be justly rewarded for working hard and acheiving a great deal; instead, they will find a dead end because existing individuals (whom you seem to champion) have their rights destroyed by abstract entities given great power, known as business. You want to give more power to an IDEA (business) than a PERSON!?!?!

Everyones.
Click to expand...
Really? How does your "tough shit, you just experienced racism and can't get a fucking job!" approach fit into your concept of freedom?



If AA policies don't rectify the situation, then you have lost your argument for it's existence, I thank you for finally admitting it. Justifying it's existence by claiming it's better than anything else a slap in the face to all black people who have achieved anything in their lives by their own merit.
Click to expand...
Blow your tunnel vision out your ass; I have said, time and again, it is an imperfect policy. If you want to claim that I have (contextually inappropriately) phrased something that appears to be a concession of AA's practicality, you're lying to yourself. What I'm saying is this: discrimination in the workplace occurs in hiring; the best solution to that problem - discrimination - is to focus on eliminating it where it exists. It is not a flawless plan, but it is far superior to letting the status quo work towards equality at a sub-snail's pace.

The "system" you keep mentioning is made up of individuals, it is not a "system". There is not a bureau of white supremacy or even a cabinet post to make sure white people only hire whites. It is therefore not broken down, only some individuals are responsible for it's "brokenness". What you suggest, though, is a branch of government that ensures social equality, which you equate with the concept of freedom. A branch that would further the erasure of individual rights and the concept of freedom.

It seems unfathomable to you that someone can make a moral choice without being told by the governmnet what is right and what is wrong by your bureau of fairness. People ultimately act as individuals and make decisions as individuals. And, contrary to popular belief, not all white people are biggots, and not all black people are unable to achieve in the face of hatred. Racism IS a problem worth tackling and as an individual you have an immeasurable reservoir of power to wield. You need to have more faith in your fellow man, the black man, and yourself.


Finally, you did not agree with my statement and wanted me to support it: ...clinging to the belief that denial of liberty for some in order to provide it for others is where your beliefs become sinister.
d
It needs no clarification or support. It is a definition of your principles and my rejection of them as evil. You are the enemy of man, his mind, and his capacity for rational thought and behavior. Perhaps that will give you enough to chew on.
Click to expand...
There is little to chew on. You're still dodging my questions asking you about the existence of white privelege, as a necessary logical corollary of discrimination against minorities. You want to embrace this concept of "freedom," as if it is self-evident in your view, and completely lacking from mine; you simply fail to admit that you are willing to deal with the structural aggregate of individual-level racism (by claiming it is an "individual-level" problem; ignoring that an aggregate of individuals engaging in behavior - say driving - can create a problem - traffic - that we all experience; have you no concept of problems beyond the individual level?).

Look, I grow tired of your consistent long-winded blather (and my own as well). You want to claim "freedom" for your own, when you only want freedom for those select few who succeed financially and own businesses. You don't care about the freedom of people who work hard to do well; it's alright if they only do well because they are white.

You don't care if people have the freedom to exist in a world where they have the same rights and freedoms given to the rest of individuals in society; you only care that businesses have the freedom to turn people down because they don't look like you or me. This is where I break out the label again: if you want to talk about freedom, you can't even grasp the simple logical concept that freedom is a zero-sum game; I am only free to the extent that other people and bodies share the same freedoms. You want people to have the freedom to be discriminated against, but not to have the freedom to be hired based on their acheivements. That makes you a apologist for racist behavior, which might as well make you a racist.
 
Do you know how many white people claim benifits because they find some inane way to trace there heritage. And anyway
NO ONE, I repeat no one in goverment if you talk to them at length thinks affirmitive action is good as is. They ALL beleive it need changes. Yet like Medicare NOTHING is done. Perpetually ineffective is what the democrats and republican parties make the government. Not to mention the corporate and other organizations that work to influence and delay the legal process oh so often.
 
I like that this conversation has swung a little bit from racism and affirmative action to the overbearing inertia in the federal government. Until we get some term limits, NOTHING will ever be accomplished by Congress. You'll just get more programs like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere". All of the federal programs are busted but pork remains the order of the day. Maybe we could get affirmative action fixed if we claim it's a faith based program. Ehhh, screw it. Revolution anyone?
 
Same here but if someone wants to put a new Constitution together, I'll be glad to stand around later and look like I did all the work.
 
[quote name='Ma12kez']What does this have to do with videogames?




[/QUOTE]

It doesnt, hence why its in the Off Topic section, which contains NON GAMING RELATED threads and topics.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, again you're endorsing providing immense freedoms to businesses to hire and fire whom they please[/quote]

Freedom of a business owner to hire and fire whomever he pleases. Business don't hire. People hire other people. Business are run by individuals, some of which are in positions to make decisions. Business do not act on their own. You don't understand this, however, as you will make an analogical error exemplifying this in your next few blatherings.

which means allowing for overt discriminatory behavior against minorities. You are endorsing racism. You want to cede so much power to business that you are taking away power from the individual; power to feel that, as we live in a capitalist society, they will be justly rewarded for working hard and acheiving a great deal; instead, they will find a dead end because existing individuals (whom you seem to champion) have their rights destroyed by abstract entities given great power, known as business. You want to give more power to an IDEA (business) than a PERSON!?!?!
Click to expand...

No one has a right to a job. A job is a privlidge whether you are black or white. Allowing people to make their own choices is not "endorsing" racism, nice try though to play that race card you keep stashed over your bleeding heart.


Really? How does your "tough shit, you just experienced racism and can't get a fucking job!" approach fit into your concept of freedom?
Click to expand...

Freedom, unfortunately, means freedom to be rejected and mistreated by others. Life's not fair, yet you keep thinking that more government programs can make it so. Why don't you just ask for a law making racism illegal? Or maybe, just racism against white people legal ?

Blow your tunnel vision out your ass; I have said, time and again, it is an imperfect policy. If you want to claim that I have (contextually inappropriately) phrased something that appears to be a concession of AA's practicality, you're lying to yourself. What I'm saying is this: discrimination in the workplace occurs in hiring; the best solution to that problem - discrimination - is to focus on eliminating it where it exists. It is not a flawless plan, but it is far superior to letting the status quo work towards equality at a sub-snail's pace.
Click to expand...

Your own words were "I can concede that AA policies don't rectify it..." So, you know that AA doesn't work, yet you can't let go of your altruistic principles and white guilt for fear of being labled a racist by your peers. You have no principles.


You're still dodging my questions asking you about the existence of white privelege, as a necessary logical corollary of discrimination against minorities. You want to embrace this concept of "freedom," as if it is self-evident in your view, and completely lacking from mine; you simply fail to admit that you are willing to deal with the structural aggregate of individual-level racism (by claiming it is an "individual-level" problem; ignoring that an aggregate of individuals engaging in behavior - say driving - can create a problem - traffic - that we all experience; have you no concept of problems beyond the individual level?).
Click to expand...

Bad analogy. "Traffic" doesn't decide to jam itself up at 5:00 everyday. Everyone deciding as individuals to drive at the highway at the same time does. There is a BIG diference there, one you can't conceptualize. You also think "freedom" is some communistic "zero-sum-game" (actually, zero sum gain) but is not a fixed quantity to be redistributed by the government. Fredom is ever present and unlimited. I'm not dodging any of your questions, I've explained them fully. You just don't like my answers and need an opportunity to call me a racist again.


Look, I grow tired of your consistent long-winded blather (and my own as well). You want to claim "freedom" for your own, when you only want freedom for those select few who succeed financially and own businesses. You don't care about the freedom of people who work hard to do well; it's alright if they only do well because they are white.
Click to expand...

Again with putting words in other people's mouths - you just can't help it, can you? I do care about people who are denied jobs becuase there are racist idiots out there who won't hire blacks. I also think there are many other ways to coerce such a business than making a law curtailing freedom of business owners' to hire whomever they choose. New laws and programs seem to be your first, last, and only option because you feel powerless. I choose freedom for everyone, not just business owners, not just minorities. Minorities have the freedom to start their own business and drive racist ones out of business. It's called capitalism, which you don't really believe in either, although you think you do.

You don't care if people have the freedom to exist in a world where they have the same rights and freedoms given to the rest of individuals in society; you only care that businesses have the freedom to turn people down because they don't look like you or me. This is where I break out the label again: if you want to talk about freedom, you can't even grasp the simple logical concept that freedom is a zero-sum game; I am only free to the extent that other people and bodies share the same freedoms. You want people to have the freedom to be discriminated against, but not to have the freedom to be hired based on their acheivements. That makes you a apologist for racist behavior, which might as well make you a racist.
Click to expand...

You have no concept of what freedom truly is. You have a highschool utopian concept of freedom probably programmed into you in your pre-pubescent, politically nascent years and now you can only fart out a preprogrammed response on command.

You think freedom is being able to eat when ever you feel like it? You think freedom is being able to demand and get transportation to work every day? You think freedom is a guaranteed job, retirement, healthcare? Yes, I'm sure you do becuase your concept of freedom is to make slaves out of everyone by insituting your communist utopia where freedom is rationed and the squeakiest wheels get to line jump. Slaves to be forced to comply with your fantasy where we can never fail at anything, never get our feelings hurt, never be wronged or insulted by anyone, and never go hungry. Only when we are free from the burdens of life can we be truly free.

Sorry, but I won't eat Soylent Green.
 
Again with ignoring my question about white privelege. I'm done with you. You can't even bring yourself to admit the simple fact that there is an economic advantage to being white.

Your response is full of stream-of-consciousness tangets and ad hominems that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. You opine fantastically about your beliefs about what you *think* I view freedom as, you make false semantic arguments (sociologists use the phrase "zero sum game," and this sociologist also uses the phrase "go fuck yourself").

I'll spell it out for you, and then I refuse to respond to your long-winded, yet ultimately superficial polysyllabic polemics.

THE ONLY THING I'VE SAID ABOUT FREEDOM IS THAT, AS INDIVIDUALS, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT BASED UPON MERIT, AND NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT WHITE. That's my limited, context-specific argument about what I consider freedom to be. I believe that, in the 21st century United States, a person should feel confident when applying for a job, and not have to worry about upsetting potential employers because of their race. I'm sorry that you disagree.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Again with ignoring my question about white privelege. I'm done with you. You can't even bring yourself to admit the simple fact that there is an economic advantage to being white.[/quote]

There is a statistical economic advantage to being white in this country. Happy? AA will not change this, you have already admitted it yourself, yet you want so badly to believe a guilt-ridden liberal policy of social engineering will work becuase the end always justifies the means. Even when you realize the means is impotent, but it's the intention that counts.

Your response is full of stream-of-consciousness tangets and ad hominems that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. You opine fantastically about your beliefs about what you *think* I view freedom as, you make false semantic arguments (sociologists use the phrase "zero sum game," and this sociologist also uses the phrase "go fuck yourself").
Click to expand...

Then it's not the first time sociologists got something wrong. It should be: zero sum gain, analagous to the law of conservation of matter and energy. They've used an incorrect phrase as many times necessary to have it become part of the vulgar lexicon and assumed they were saying it correctly. And it IS important to say and define our 'semantics' correctly no matter what you sociologists think about how to create new, fresh sounding realities while not really caring about 'semantics'.

You have already spelled out what you think freedom is, I don't have to guess or create false arguments. You think freedom means getting a free lift up to the tree to pick any fruit, any time you wish, on the backs of the ladder makers. I think freedom means having to climb a tree and find another fruit if the first one's rotten. You think freedom means government guaranteed sustinence, I think freedom means self determination and responsibility.

I'll spell it out for you, and then I refuse to respond to your long-winded, yet ultimately superficial polysyllabic polemics.

THE ONLY THING I'VE SAID ABOUT FREEDOM IS THAT, AS INDIVIDUALS, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT BASED UPON MERIT, AND NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT WHITE. That's my limited, context-specific argument about what I consider freedom to be. I believe that, in the 21st century United States, a person should feel confident when applying for a job, and not have to worry about upsetting potential employers because of their race. I'm sorry that you disagree.
Click to expand...

You see? Freedom, to you, means freedom from fear. Freedom, to me, means the chance to face your fear and surpass it. I'll spell this one out for you. You are a socialist, not a capitalist, stop kidding yourself.

"equal access to gainful employment"...talk about doublespeak. Do you even realize what you're saying? Yes, you probably do. When they start hiring homeless people to do your job, I know we'll have finally reached true equality in America.
 
"You can't even bring yourself to admit the simple fact that there is an economic advantage to being white."

I can tell you that this statement is too general. Not all whites are at an economic advantage, and not all minorities are at a disadvantage.

It should say that there can be an economic advantage to being white.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You had a korean chick, a puerto rican chick and you want money? Greedy bastard.[/QUOTE]

He didn't say the Puerto Rican was a chick, actually. And since he specified that the Korean was a chick, I'm thinking the Puerto Rican was a dude.
 
Do asians count as minorities on scholarship applications?

Because I am proud of my heritage, and my people evolved and developed a lot over the last 60,000 years, and have been relocated thousands of times.

GIVE ME TEH MUNNEH!
 
Can't really generalize one race being poorer than another, varying circumstances and whatnot, should be more focused on the individual's family, not "oh he's black/asian/hispanic/etc."
 
[quote name='thagoat']is "white trash" considered a minority? if so, can i sign up for it?[/QUOTE]

No, thats a stereotype. I dont think anyone gets any money for those, cept Carlos Mencia :D
 
[quote name='crazytalkx']Can't really generalize one race being poorer than another, varying circumstances and whatnot, should be more focused on the individual's family, not "oh he's black/asian/hispanic/etc."[/QUOTE]

Well minorities are, on average, poorer. There's also the issue with discrimination against minorities, which effect rich and poor minorities.
 
Shit, how the fcuk did this NOT get moved to Vs. already?

EDIT:

Forgive my word nazism but it should be 'affect'. People get confused over this a lot but here's a lil word trick to remember:

'effect' is used as a noun and 'affect' is used as a verb so when something is actively influencing an object, it is 'affecting' the object. When something is actively being influenced by an object, it is feeling that object's effect.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well minorities are, on average, poorer. There's also the issue with discrimination against minorities, which effect rich and poor minorities.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='thagoat']is "white trash" considered a minority? if so, can i sign up for it?[/QUOTE]

But aren't white trash people who have no goals, no ambition etc. anyway? Even if they were allowed to sign up, do you think they could pry themselves away from springer long enough to actually do anything?
 
Yes every race that has come into this country has faced hardships. Every new group has had to prove itself to white america first. The problem with this is that all of these people came here VOLUNTARILY with ONE exception. Black people were thrown onto ships and then forced to work their asses off for a lifetime. The only comparison is the atrocities forced on the chinese that come over here and are forced into slavery. Even then, these people are given their freedom after a certain time or a certain amount of production. These people are also freely choosing to come here before they get screwed when the land on our shores. If you look at any ethnic neighborhoods now, for the most part, they are vibrant cultural communities. The exception is black neighborhoods that are, for the most part, shitty ass ghettos that nobody wants to go to. Again there are other ghettos in other communites but none stand out like black ghettos.

I was reading in the NY Daily News yesterday and saw an article that killed me. It basically stated what we already know. Rich whites are flying to Cambodia, Korea, and China and paying upwards of $50,000 to adopt children. They are completely neglecting the black children that are filling orphanages and foster homes across this country. Make your own arguments on this but to me it demonstrates the overwhelming racist undertones that still persist in America today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top