Supreme Court rules against racial discrimination in suprisingly close vote

[quote name='mykevermin']That it doesn't go far enough, or that it's unrelated policy.

Let me break it down into bite-sized chunks for you to chew on. Don't want you to choke like you typically do.

1) Discrimination happens in hiring and promotion in the American workforce. Time and time again, historical patterns across industries have shown that whites benefit and males benefits; blacks are discriminated against such that the average black male with no criminal history and a white male with a felony on his record have the same odds of being considered for a job.

Affirmative Action policies are put into place, and here's the result:

2) Discrimination happens in hiring and promotion in the American workforce. Time and time again, historical patterns across industries have shown that whites benefit and males benefits; blacks are discriminated against such that the average black male with no criminal history and a white male with a felony on his record have the same odds of being considered for a job.

Now the problem of your vision is twofold: one, that you're blaming a policy that (1) didn't change much of anything other than give white people a bogeyman to be afraid of, and (2) you're giving it credit for something that existed before and after its implementation.

Lastly, given your foolish Libertarian (hereafter simply "Libertarian") stance, you shouldn't want to interfere with business. Whether they discriminate or not. That's not the free market. The free market doesn't like black people, qualified or not, better qualified or not. Why should you, a laissez-faire capitalist, give one good goddamn about discrimination in hiring and promotion? It's contrary to your ideal system.[/QUOTE]
You're ridiculous. The free market doesn't like black people? Seriously? My main problem with AA is that it creates more divisions between people and doesn't actually help obtain equality. It treats people differently based on race, which is not going to help equality. Then you say that being a libertarian is foolish. Is wanting personal freedom really foolish?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']You're ridiculous.[/quote]

Glass houses and all that.

The free market doesn't like black people?
Click to expand...

The "free market" did nothing to ensure they weren't discriminated against for about several hundred years.

Seriously?
Click to expand...

Yes.

My main problem with AA is that it creates more divisions between people and doesn't actually help obtain equality.
Click to expand...

Your problem with AA is that you don't understand it.

It treats people differently based on race, which is not going to help equality.
Click to expand...

You brought up MLK before, were you aware that he was for AA?

He believed it was necessary to achieve actual freedom instead of theoretical freedom.

Then you say that being a libertarian is foolish. Is wanting personal freedom really foolish?
Click to expand...

Libertarianism is certainly foolish, it is like a cult with mediocre sci-fi writers as prophets.

But that is a different conversation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']You're ridiculous. The free market doesn't like black people? Seriously? [/QUOTE]

Of course I'm serious.

I'm not going in circles with you on this. It's very simple: if you believe that, at any point in United States history, you won't find consistent, strong, patterned discrimination against blacks in hiring, promotion, or wages in the workforce, then one thing is true.

You're fucking wrong. Dead wrong. 100% wrong. Couldn't be more wrong.

You seem to have a fundamentally flawed idea of how the world you live in operates. The free market you long for is at the bottom of a wishing well. If you think that people are hired, paid and promoted on absolutely nothing more than "achievement," I have no idea how to combat such dogmatic idiocy. It's demonstrably true, and you are being anchored down by your false idol of Libertarianism such that it prevents you from seeing that corporations are not the wholly rational beings that you think they are.

Moreover, here's the common folly that you engage in. It's cool, though. Most people fall for this same phony logic.

IN THE ABSENCE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, RACIAL PREFERENCES STILL fuckING EXISTED.
IN THE PRESENCE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, RACIAL PREFERENCES STILL fuckING EXIST.
IN BOTH CASES, WHITE PEOPLE BENEFIT.

Therefore, how is AA a problem? What do you propose as a solution to prevent racial discrimination?
(here's a hint: as a proud foolish libertarian, your response should be that racial discrimination is fine, as it is evidence that the owners of businesses and enterprises are truly free in their decision making, and not bound to some evil "Socialist" scheme like the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.)
 
[quote name='mykevermin'](here's a hint: as a proud foolish libertarian, your response should be that racial discrimination is fine, as it is evidence that the owners of businesses and enterprises are truly free in their decision making, and not bound to some evil "Socialist" scheme like the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.)[/QUOTE]

Hey, Myke almost got something right.

Imagine a world where private business owners are allowed to run their private business. Crazy thought.

Here's where you went wrong (aside from the "foolish" part). Racial discrimination is not fine. If a private employer wants to discriminate, they should be allowed to - but it's not "fine" by any means and, if I know of a business that does such, I personally, would not do business with them and would openly discourage others from doing the same.

Perhaps, if we lived in a world where individuals didn't expect Uncle Sam to make everything okay, people would be more alert and responsive to cries of racism in the workplace. Instead of just assuming "No, they wouldn't do that, they'd get fined/shut down!", everyone would have to think for themselves.
 
The problem is that overt racist action and discrimination no longer has to be "in your face" to occur.

The Crowley/Gates incident proves that we all have plenty of skill in discussing away racial discrimination should it occur - and we already have embedded excuses for racial discrimination in a patterned environment.

You give yourself, and a lot of other people, far too much credit for (1) recognizing, (2) admitting to, and (3) following up on racism in action by businesses - when the majority of Americans aren't interested in taking care of what happens right in their face.

Listening to people accuse David Scott of planting a spraypainted swastika on his office sign tells me all I need to know about how hopelessly idealistic this Libertarian ideal is.

We can't be a postracial society as long as it's cool to still be racist.
 
I actually agree with both sides here, in a way.

I am not happy with a system where employers are terrified of being sued if they don't cross every T and dot every i when dealing with minorities. I have talked with several managers of large company's that simply are too afraid of ever firing a minority unless they literally have stacks of evidence. They are afraid of being sued. While firing a white male, they admit, can do on a whim without fear. Because of this, many in middle management will avoid hiring minorities because of the Pandora's box it can, and does, open eventually - so they tread the laws lightly so as to hire just enough minorities so they don't appear discriminitory.

In many ways, the entire situation is made worse. That's not right.

But I am not totally against some policies that encourage the hiring of minorities. Like most things, if government must be involved, I prefer it not to be in punishing methods and instilling fear, I prefer to it to be in the realm of incentives.

Don't make company's afraid of fines, litigation, losing licenses, etc. Give them extra reasons to WANT to hire minorities, not afraid of what will happen if they don't.

I am not sure at what point we decided government's role should be to punish it's citizens and instill fear to get things done and make the world a better place, but it's terrible. Laws and policies like that are no better than any war we wage.
 
Tax credits won't solve the "lesser-qualified" mythology that people use to disparage AA, however.

I'd rather see a program that audits hiring processes. Put plants in place, and having discovered patterns of discrimination in hiring, levee and enormous financial penalty against the company.

This would, rather than promoting the hiring of minorities, actually promote hiring based on achievement and skill.
 
fail-owned-racism-fail.jpg


I love the precedents AA has set.....
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Duh - Keyboards really take DNA samples and use that against you if you're not white or Chinese.
cagus.smile.jpg
[/QUOTE]
An answer so obvious I am surprised it has eluded me this long. Thanks guy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'd rather see a program that audits hiring processes. Put plants in place, and having discovered patterns of discrimination in hiring, levee and enormous financial penalty against the company.

This would, rather than promoting the hiring of minorities, actually promote hiring based on achievement and skill.[/QUOTE]

Excellent suggestion (although, forgive me for nitpicking: levy, not levee). Why, pray tell, isn't the Civil Rights Division over at the Department of Justice pursuing something like this, if they aren't? Why not have an aggressive enforcement mechanism like this? It's totally reasonable to do something like this in lieu of a program that seems to favor people based on the amount of melanin in their skin, thereby foolishly dividing people into predetermined social or even political groups based on their ancestry, an alarming pattern in any society.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'](although, forgive me for nitpicking: levy, not levee)[/QUOTE]

Of course. Good catch. ;)

Tough to say why it isn't done - my immediate reaction would be the # of employers in the US and the "data" needed to identify genuine discrimination. If you send one set of plants in and the minority/minorities aren't selected over the white applicant, has discrimination happened yet? Even my ultra-PC self would be hard-pressed to say yes. The second time? What if the second time is 24-36 months later, and you have a largely different workforce?

Social scientists can identify these patterns over an aggregate level, but that's when they accumulate data from (potentially) thousands of sources. You lose that patterned picture of strong and consistent discrimination when you narrow your focus down from "employers in this one geographic region" to "this particular employer."

If that makes sense.

(Just like demonstrable historical patterns of antiblack discriminatory treatment by police don't really help convince folks of an antiblack bias in the Gates arrest.)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Of course. Good catch. ;)

Tough to say why it isn't done - my immediate reaction would be the # of employers in the US and the "data" needed to identify genuine discrimination. If you send one set of plants in and the minority/minorities aren't selected over the white applicant, has discrimination happened yet? Even my ultra-PC self would be hard-pressed to say yes. The second time? What if the second time is 24-36 months later, and you have a largely different workforce?

Social scientists can identify these patterns over an aggregate level, but that's when they accumulate data from (potentially) thousands of sources. You lose that patterned picture of strong and consistent discrimination when you narrow your focus down from "employers in this one geographic region" to "this particular employer."

If that makes sense.

(Just like demonstrable historical patterns of antiblack discriminatory treatment by police don't really help convince folks of an antiblack bias in the Gates arrest.)[/QUOTE]

No, that does make perfect sense. It's easier to identify patterns from a larger dataset than a smaller one, obviously. Given innocent until proven guilty, this means we need some awfully talented prosecutors to be put on such cases, with plenty of tricks up their sleeves to ferret this stuff out. But of course, it would have to be a pattern and not just once or twice.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
(Just like demonstrable historical patterns of antiblack discriminatory treatment by police don't really help convince folks of an antiblack bias in the Gates arrest.)[/QUOTE]
Ya because an individuals character should be judged on the group they are part of and not the history of there actions. Real oped minded and forward thinking there.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No, that does make perfect sense. It's easier to identify patterns from a larger dataset than a smaller one, obviously. Given innocent until proven guilty, this means we need some awfully talented prosecutors to be put on such cases, with plenty of tricks up their sleeves to ferret this stuff out. But of course, it would have to be a pattern and not just once or twice.[/QUOTE]

There are programs that do this in place, but they catch so very little discrimination that it doesn't really deter folks from continuing to do it. "Housing Opportunities Made Equal" is a program in a number of cities that fine discriminatory landlords, realtors and others in the housing market.

My old landlord was bitten by HOME violations - but there's the problem with the program. He was pissed at them, and vehemently denies that he did anything discriminatory at all. I don't believe he was putting up a front to me, and he genuinely believes he's not a discriminatory dude. So even these policies can foster racial tension indirectly. The problem with this program is that it will anger people who *do* discriminate, but do so unconsciously. They'll call the system unfair and blame minorities, but not accept their own responsibility for differential racial treatment.

But it's not like we need these kinds of programs or AA programs to foster or maintain racial tensions anyway. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But it's not like we need these kinds of programs or AA programs to foster or maintain racial tensions anyway. ;)[/QUOTE]

Sadly, I think you are right, even if the government weren't involved. Our culture has been twisted in many ways by those who wish, usually for political or financial reasons, to attempt to impose groupthink on individuals based on skin color, ethnicity, religion and other characteristics. There are enough dupes out there that have come to value this manufactured "identity" that such tensions are inevitable, at least until our national mindset evolves.
 
I actually think there wasn't any agreeing on those last two pages. I wish there was more agreeing. I think your conservative view on the last two pages is disgusting.
 
That's not what he said.

"Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some people get nervous."

Again, patterns as opposed to individuals.
 
That's just a random article I found. He had an interview last week where he claims the racist media is systematically going to remove him from office, and obama is next *eye roll*.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I actually think there wasn't any agreeing on those last two pages. I wish there was more agreeing. I think your conservative view on the last two pages is disgusting.[/QUOTE]

Reading my posts on the last page, all can only surmise from you saying that is that you think employers should be made (through gov policy) to fear firing minorities a lot more than white males. That's a good idea to you - Fantastic.

It's weird that you call a posts that express a desire for total fairness and equal treatment a conservative view, and call it disgusting. But whatever.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']That's just a random article I found. He had an interview last week where he claims the racist media is systematically going to remove him from office, and obama is next *eye roll*.[/QUOTE]

Then link to that interview, and not a random article.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Reading my posts on the last page, all can only surmise from you saying that is that you think employers should be made (through gov policy) to fear firing minorities a lot more than white males. That's a good idea to you - Fantastic.

It's weird that you call a posts that express a desire for total fairness and equal treatment a conservative view, and call it disgusting. But whatever.[/QUOTE]

i forgot to put /sarcasm

(lol, my bad)
 
Question: Guy works on the line at a factory job. Factory transfers in new supervisor. New supervisor is black. Guy quits because he refuses to work for a black guy. Should the guy be prosecuted?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Question: Guy works on the line at a factory job. Factory transfers in new supervisor. New supervisor is black. Guy quits because he refuses to work for a black guy. Should the guy be prosecuted?[/QUOTE]

Who suffered from discrimination in this case?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who suffered from discrimination in this case?[/QUOTE]

Sounds to me like the dipshit fucked himself over. Case closed!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who suffered from discrimination in this case?[/QUOTE]

The place of employment is out the cost of hiring/training a new employee because the old one quit.

If it's okay for the government to make employers work with any particular racial group, shouldn't it be okay for the government to make employees work with any particular racial group?
 
cost ≠ discrimination.

I don't agree with or follow your analogy. That isn't comparable to discrimination.

In your analogy, a person is making a decision that effects themselves, and doesn't put up barriers or prevent opportunities to a person because they are a minority.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']cost ≠ discrimination.

I don't agree with or follow your analogy. That isn't comparable to discrimination.

In your analogy, a person is making a decision that effects themselves, and doesn't put up barriers or prevent opportunities to a person because they are a minority.[/QUOTE]

So if a business is bought by a black person, and in response most of its employees quit and go to work for their competitor, causing the competitor to take all the business, you don't have a problem with that?
 
So - one man saying "I ain't hirin' no black people" is discrimination.
One man saying "I ain't workin' for no black people" isn't discrimination?

Either way, you have individuals refusing to enter into a business agreement with other individuals based solely on the color of one's skin...
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']So if a business is bought by a black person, and in response most of its employees quit and go to work for their competitor, causing the competitor to take all the business, you don't have a problem with that?[/QUOTE]

This is a pretty ridiculous hypothetical.
 
[quote name='camoor']This is a pretty ridiculous hypothetical.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you could find some backwater town where this would happen, And I'm sure something like this was very possible say 50 years ago.

Also you completely missed the point, being that someone leaving a company because of race hurts the company even if the effects aren't noticeable on a small scale.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So - one man saying "I ain't hirin' no black people" is discrimination.
One man saying "I ain't workin' for no black people" isn't discrimination?

Either way, you have individuals refusing to enter into a business agreement with other individuals based solely on the color of one's skin...[/QUOTE]

busy today, but in a word, power.

in another word, yes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']busy today, but in a word, power.

in another word, yes.[/QUOTE]
Actually discrimination means making choices based on someones race, group class ect... rather than merit, there is no need for power. (although you could say the employee has the power to choose who he works for)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top