What do you guys think about Affirmative Action?

[elprincipe]

[quote name='mykevermin']Your solutions are useful, and I think would be excellent in the form of actions supplementary to AA. It's the cynic coming out in me (as if it needed to come out) that claims that "going after racism" is easier said than done. Do you prosecute people who "accidentally" discriminate (Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's excellent text, "Racism Without Racists" would provide a contextual argument for that), as well as those found to do so overtly?[/QUOTE]

No doubt it is true that being aggressive in this regard is easier said than done. But I do believe it could be done. And while I understand your point about "racism without racists," I believe that continuing to make racism even more outside the bounds of anything remotely close to acceptability is possible.

I also think there are two other things that can be done, one of which will be done in any case, to help with this problem. And by the way, I strongly disagree with your assertion that little progress has been made in 40 years.

Firstly, to take a line from the best Warren Beatty movie ever, "we've just got to keep ing each other until we all look the same." I think that's true. Look at a country like Brazil. Most people are mixed. I think over time the U.S. will become more and more mixed-race with more and more intermarriage, as racial intermarriage is already accepted socially among most people, and the ones who don't accept it won't be around for much longer. I think the more people who are mixed and the these people are around, the more people will ignore race as a discriminating factor, even subconsciously.

Secondly, I think that we need to put less emphasis on dividing people into racial groups and classifying people by race. I cringe when I hear "the black community" or "the asian community" or other classifications of people by the color of their skin, as if all people who are black can be classified into one "community" that is a monolith. Instead of kowtowing to these kinds of divisions, we should be placing the emphasis on the individual. As long as people think of themselves as "African-Americans" or "Hispanic Americans" or whatever, they won't think of themselves simply as Americans, which I think would be best for everyone. Unfortunately, politicians from both major parties just feed this mindset of racial dividing lines which I personally abhor.

 

[soulvengeance]

Firstly, to take a line from the best Warren Beatty movie ever, "we've just got to keep ing each other until we all look the same." .[/QUOTE]
Even if we did look the same, we would find some kind personal difference to differentiate from each other. As an example, we would be broken into people who eat meat, and people who don't eat meat, and we would hate each other for that.

 

[soulvengeance]

[quote name='bmulligan']Minorities are not treated equally by whom? Whites are more respected by whom ? It's pretty obvious that alonzo has never ventured into a puerto rican neighborhood after dark to see discrimination against soft white suburbanites. Alonzo's white ridden, deep seeded guilt only allows him to try to be the savior of those beneath himself, becuase none of those darkies could ever be as good as he is on their own.

Like the foolishness of a simple payback plan like affirmative action ?

Are you saying all puerto rican neighborhoods are like this? I've walked through a puerto rican/black/any other ethnicity after dark and nothing has happened to me. Granted I'm asian, but I'm not really sure that makes that much of a difference. I'm not sure that he's looking at himself as a savior, but merely trying to find a way to at least balance some of the wrongs that have happened. I do not disagree that AA is not perfect, but no one seems to come up with a viable solution. If we just get rid of it, then what? Are we to rely on the fact that racism is over and we can all go home?

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='docvinh'][quote name='elprincipe']Firstly, to take a line from the best Warren Beatty movie ever, "we've just got to keep ing each other until we all look the same." .[/QUOTE]
Even if we did look the same, we would find some kind personal difference to differentiate from each other. As an example, we would be broken into people who eat meat, and people who don't eat meat, and we would hate each other for that.[/QUOTE]

Haha, I sure hope not, but with our present society some people are just going to find someone to hate. Now that for the vast majority of people it's unacceptable to hate blacks or asians or jews or whatever, some turn that hatred on fat people or on people who disagree with them politically or on some other group. Just read the posts in this forum and you'll quickly learn what I'm talking about.

But I think what I described can only help to finish the advancement of society in regards to race and ethnicity.

EDIT: Oops, fixed quote.

 

[soulvengeance]

Haha, I sure hope not, but with our present society some people are just going to find someone to hate. Now that for the vast majority of people it's unacceptable to hate blacks or asians or jews or whatever, some turn that hatred on fat people or on people who disagree with them politically or on some other group. Just read the posts in this forum and you'll quickly learn what I'm talking about.

But I think what I described can only help to finish the advancement of society in regards to race and ethnicity.[/QUOTE]
I can't disagree with that. However, I believe discrimination will always exist in some form or another, which I guess is what I'm really getting at. Sad.

 

[kakomu]

what is up with people's inability to quote right?

With that out of the way, I think it's prudent to assume that disliking someone for their actions or thoughts is normal. Disliking someone for where they grew up, where they're from or how they look is irrational.

 

[jaykrue]

AA is an imperfect solution to a hot button issue. I think it's necessary until a better idea is conceived. Unfortunately, I'm at a loss as to what that idea would be.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='docvinh'][quote name='bmulligan']Minorities are not treated equally by whom? Whites are more respected by whom ? It's pretty obvious that alonzo has never ventured into a puerto rican neighborhood after dark to see discrimination against soft white suburbanites. Alonzo's white ridden, deep seeded guilt only allows him to try to be the savior of those beneath himself, becuase none of those darkies could ever be as good as he is on their own.

Like the foolishness of a simple payback plan like affirmative action ?[/quote]

Are you saying all puerto rican neighborhoods are like this? I've walked through a puerto rican/black/any other ethnicity after dark and nothing has happened to me. Granted I'm asian, but I'm not really sure that makes that much of a difference. I'm not sure that he's looking at himself as a savior, but merely trying to find a way to at least balance some of the wrongs that have happened. I do not disagree that AA is not perfect, but no one seems to come up with a viable
solution. If we just get rid of it, then what? Are we to rely on the fact that racism is over and we can all go home?[/QUOTE]

It was a flippant remark to echo the thoughtlessness of alonzo's comment on the bastardaization of blacks by whitey. As if all white people are to blame for maltreatment of black people. That, in and of itself, is a racist statement.

Since you don't understand my example for the sake of illustration, let me just say that NO, I don't think that all puertorican people discriminate against white people, nor do asian people always discriminate against black people. It does happen, perhaps frequently, but not 100% of the time as if all the races are pre-disposed to being racist against all others in every case. NO, puertorican neighborhoods are not all bad, but some are, aren't they ? It was a reciprocal to alonzo's blanket statement that blacks are discriminated against by whites. As if, in all cases, the white man is still the cause of disinfranchisement of blacks in all cases. Don't some blacks, in turn, on occasion, discriminate against whites? Especially when they are in the majority and whites in the minority? You've seen iot happen, havent you ? You can't say this is suprising can you? You can't say it doesn't happen, even a little, in almost any situation. Is it not in human nature to be apprehensive of people who are different? No amount of affirmativfe action programs are going to change this type of instinctive behavior.

Alonzo thinks that his magic idea of 'righting' a 'wrong' by giving special treatment to one race over another is justified, yet he , nor anyone else, could even possibly quantify the intention, procedure, pracice, or result to measure it's effectiveness. It simply makes him and his people "feel" better about themselves becuase they can say they are doing something about injustice and try to shame anyone who doesn't bvelieve in their program by labeling them as racists becuase they don't 'care' about those underprivlidged folk.

Of course racism is not 'over'. Nor will it ever be. No amount of programs and laws will ever erase the myriad of excuses we have for hating each other. So actively trying to do this by force is a foolish endeavor. The only solution is to let people achieve by their own merit, something that is shunned by alonzo and his people who feel that we need to have equal representation of all races in all aspects of life's assemblies regardless of their abilities.

Let me pose a question to all of you affirmative action supporters here: Why shouldn't their be an affirmative action program in the NFL, NBA or NHl? Aren't there a predominant number of blacks playing in the NBA and isn't that unfair to the the white people who want to play basketbaall? What about the lack of blacks represented in Hockey? There's already a backdoor affirmative action policy for hiring NFL coaches, why not player quotas ? Why are there always so many chineese people working in chineese restaurants ? something should be done about this.

As a matter of fact, here's another question: Why do we not consider chineese affirmative action as well ? They may never have been slaves in this country, but they were, in most cases, treated worse than almost any slave. A slave, at least, had some value, maybe not as a person but as a commodity. The chineese were considered a worthless commodity since they had no loyalty, and no resale value, and they were in abundant supply and easily replaced. Regularly lynched, attacked, and shunned from white american society, they were often mistreated and overworked and under compensated to the point of death which would seldom be done to a slave since they had value. Why are they not crying for reparations and more than equal treatment ?

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']So, if we had just freed blacks, and made equal rights the law and segregation illegal, while doing nothing else, african americans and other minorities would be better off today?[/quote]

Exactly, like the asians who seem to be doing pretty well for themselves.

You can teach a man to fish but you can't make him good at it.

That I know racists?

Or that you really need to work on your relationship problems rather than focus your energy on causes outside of your grasp.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='bmulligan']Let me pose a question to all of you affirmative action supporters here: Why shouldn't their be an affirmative action program in the NFL, NBA or NHl? Aren't there a predominant number of blacks playing in the NBA and isn't that unfair to the the white people who want to play basketbaall? What about the lack of blacks represented in Hockey? There's already a backdoor affirmative action policy for hiring NFL coaches, why not player quotas ? Why are there always so many chineese people working in chineese restaurants ? something should be done about this. [/QUOTE]

You're a smart person, bmulligan; with that in mind, I can't quite figure out why you've asked a question that uses uneven distribution of minorities is certain fields as a background, instead of evidence of discrimination. Before you grouse about the racial distribution of the NHL or NFL, perhaps you would rather show evidence of discrimination first? Before you point to chinese restaraunts as evidence of discrimination, maybe you could show me either non-chinese being prevented from working there, and chinese being discriminated from other jobs.

Apples and oranges; I don't care if 12% of the workforce is black; that's not my goal. My goal would be to find that audit studies (where two people or more, with identical skill sets, education, age, etc., and only race changing) show that race no longer affects whether or not you get a callback from an employer, realtor, or rental agency.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='zionoverfire']Exactly, like the asians who seem to be doing pretty well for themselves.

You can teach a man to fish but you can't make him good at it.[/quote]

That's little more than wishfull thinking. Different groups have different history and experiences. Preaching equality, opportunity etc. and doing nothing to promote or achieve those goals is the way the french have long adopted, it shouldn't be what we do in america.

Or that you really need to work on your relationship problems rather than focus your energy on causes outside of your grasp.

Again, it's my problem that some family members are racist?


And BMulligan, is there a point in your rants? You keep going out of your way to attack me, yet almost every debate I've had with you was pointless. You rarely comprehend anything I say, repeatedly asking questions I just answered or simply making giant leaps and claiming I've said ridiculous things or things I just denounced. I don't expect a decent reponse, but one without foaming at the mouth and chest thumping would be an improvement.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='mykevermin']You're a smart person, bmulligan; with that in mind, I can't quite figure out why you've asked a question that uses uneven distribution of minorities is certain fields as a background, instead of evidence of discrimination.[/quote]

Becuase uneven distibution is consistantly used as the litmus test for evidence of discrimination and existence of racism. ever heard the cries from college campi that representation whould reflect the populace? ever heard the argument about the unfairness of the racial makup of prisons, the poor, the millitary? The simple fact is that when a predominance of any race in a subpopulation is discovered, the minority police attempt to use it as evidence of racism whether it exists or not. I'm simply using the same logic to describe injustices in other areas.

Before you grouse about the racial distribution of the NHL or NFL, perhaps you would rather show evidence of discrimination first? Before you point to chinese restaraunts as evidence of discrimination, maybe you could show me either non-chinese being prevented from working there, and chinese being discriminated from other jobs.

I'll give you an example of discrimination: I was denied a starting spot on the atlanta falcons becuase I can't run fast and catch a football well enough. It may not have a racial basis, but it's discrimination, nonetheless.

No one will ever do a study of whether or not chineese get callbacks more often than whites to work in chineese restaurants. It doesn't sell papers. When the accepted norm presented as "fact" is always whites' discrimination, it's always seems necessary to measure that white discrimination against minorities and advertise it, not the other way around. In general, it's perfectly acceptable for minorties to discriminate against whites, so no such study would be necessary and it doesn't pay to show the racism in everyone, just whitey.

Apples and oranges; I don't care if 12% of the workforce is black; that's not my goal.

But it is the goal of most affirmative action supporters. especially those who quote proportions of minorities comapred to whites in various professions. It's certainly the goal of the faculty and student body of most colleges and major corporations who want to avoid any racial entanglements with any strongarm non-profit protest groups.

My goal would be to find that audit studies (where two people or more, with identical skill sets, education, age, etc., and only race changing) show that race no longer affects whether or not you get a callback from an employer, realtor, or rental agency.

Such studies are terriffic for gauging general racial tendencies and are terriffic for the social engineers and commentators. However, in the real world an affirmative action zealots' intentions when finding this evidence is to penalize people for their own personal preferences and freedom to make an individual choice. I am not fond of people who judge others on their appearance, but I believe in their right to their own opinion and to hire whomever they choose. Forcing someone to hire whites if they don't want to is a negation of the freedom we are supposed to revere as americans. This is the basis for my argument against affirmative action practices in the private sector of business, the freedom to discriminate. Discrimination can be a good thing, folks. You wouldn't want to watch me on Monday Night Football trying to run the 40 yard dash in 15 seconds.

Let's pose, perhaps, a better question: How do you affirmative action supporters feel about N.O. mayor Nagin's comments on the racial makeup of reconstruction workers in and around his city ? He's upset becuase they are mostly latino and wants these companies to start hiring more black people. Racist ? I say yes, but to further my point of it not being acceptable to contradict the accepted norms, those comments were discussed for 30 seconds in the media and promptly forgotten. If it were a white politician who made them about hiring more white people, we'd be hearing about it until 2008 - especially if he were a republican.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='bmulligan']Such studies are terriffic for gauging general racial tendencies and are terriffic for the social engineers and commentators. However, in the real world an affirmative action zealots' intentions when finding this evidence is to penalize people for their own personal preferences and freedom to make an individual choice. I am not fond of people who judge others on their appearance, but I believe in their right to their own opinion and to hire whomever they choose. Forcing someone to hire whites if they don't want to is a negation of the freedom we are supposed to revere as americans. This is the basis for my argument against affirmative action practices in the private sector of business, the freedom to discriminate. Discrimination can be a good thing, folks. You wouldn't want to watch me on Monday Night Football trying to run the 40 yard dash in 15 seconds.[/QUOTE]

So, your assertion that "discrimination is a good thing" is supported by the fact that you are "discriminated against" because, by virtue of your physical state, you aren't playing for the Falcons? So, you're saying that also, then, by virtue of simply being a black person, that makes someone also de facto unqualified for employment?

That *is* what your argument suggests. It's discrimination if I don't hire a toddler to work heavy machinery, because their feet can't reach the pedals; that kind of discrimination is good and pragmatic, however. For you to even dare suggest that this is no different than not hiring a black person for no reason other than they are black is absurd, and I'm ashamed that I'm even responding to it.

Yes, there are *SOME* people who focus on less than 12% workforce, and I think that's an incorrect and unnecessary goal. You completely undermine the arguments AA proponents have by isolating this as their cornerstone, because you completely ignore the aspect of racial discrimination. You also fail to see how allowing for such discrimination can lead to false stereotyping of blacks. They are often given agency in their own plight ("blacks don't want to work/don't try to work/don't care about school/don't care about ______"). If discrimination in the marketplace is fine and dandy because people are black, then you should full well realize the implications of that. Is it the fault of blacks that they are underemployed, or is it the employers whose reacism you're forgiving due to "market forces"?

EDIT: Taking this argument further, if it is permissible to discriminate against people, and we expect blacks to be most discriminated against, I hope that you are fully willing to support the most egregious of expenses in rebuilding New Orleans, and that you can recognize that obscene unemployment in blacks is not their own fault; after all, discrimination is proven to exist, and it's ok by you. You don't want to do anything to change that. In addition, I hope that you vote for politicians that encourage larger and larger poverty welfare programs, since you aren't the least bit concerned with people who want to participate in the workforce but are blocked because of their race. They need something to get by, so I hope you'd make Reagan blush with your support for welfare.

So you aren't giving the audit studies any credence at all; you're simply brushing them off, saying "market freedom" all the way. You don't seem to grasp that qualified people are being turned away from the marketplace because they're black. That doesn't seem to bother you This also implies, then, that there IS a benefit to being white, as having the same qualifications as a black person will net you a job FAR more often than it won't. That doesn't seem to bother you, either. Should I assume that you're an opponent of meritocratic standards, since you seem to not be bothered by ascribed characteristics being the difference between employment and unemployment?

Your indifference to discrimination is troubling; your comparison of racial status to physical inability to perform in the NFL is either incorrect and absurd, or simply racist. You can choose which.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='mykevermin']So, your assertion that "discrimination is a good thing" is supported by the fact that you are "discriminated against" because, by virtue of your physical state, you aren't playing for the Falcons? So, you're saying that also, then, by virtue of simply being a black person, that makes someone also de facto unqualified for employment?[/QUOTE]

How on earth would you interpret my comment as black people are "defacto unqulaified" for employment? Are you purposefully trying to race bait me?
I'm not saying black people are automatically unqualified. I'm saying that racists have the same rights to freedom of choice as rational people do.

That *is* what your argument suggests. It's discrimination if I don't hire a toddler to work heavy machinery, because their feet can't reach the pedals; that kind of discrimination is good and pragmatic, however. For you to even dare suggest that this is no different than not hiring a black person for no reason other than they are black is absurd, and I'm ashamed that I'm even responding to it.

For a business that caters to black racists, hiring a black person may be a pragmatic choice as well. You are not the arbiter of pragmatism versus fairness. No one is or shoud be except for the person doing the hiring. Do you want Hooters to have to start hiring flat-chested handicapped transexuals ?

Yes, there are *SOME* people who focus on less than 12% workforce, and I think that's an incorrect and unnecessary goal. You completely undermine the arguments AA proponents have by isolating this as their cornerstone, because you completely ignore the aspect of racial discrimination.

I'm not undermining anything. Proper proportions is the goal. Name any of the the other arguments and they pale in comparison to the benchmark of "proper representation". When that proper proportion is reached, the'll move on to other goals such as proper distribution of wealth by force.

So you aren't giving the audit studies any credence at all; you're simply brushing them off, saying "market freedom" all the way. You don't seem to grasp that qualified people are being turned away from the marketplace because they're black. That doesn't seem to bother you This also implies, then, that there IS a benefit to being white, as having the same qualifications as a black person will net you a job FAR more often than it won't. That doesn't seem to bother you, either.

Audits are great for proving that there are racists in the world, and not much else unless you intend to use them to punnish people for being racists. I grasp the fact very well that qualified people are turned away from jobs becuase of race. The neat thing about our marketplace is that that person can try to find someone else that will hire them, find a black owned business, or start their own. With 12% of the population, that makes a huge market of people to cater to.

Should I assume that you're an opponent of meritocratic standards, since you seem to not be bothered by ascribed characteristics being the difference between employment and unemployment?

You're already making a lot of false assumptions no matter what I say so why stop now ? I fully support hiring based on merit. But I also support hiring based on preference, no matter how misguided, idiotic, or offensive it may be. The issue is of freedom. Freedom to hire whomever you choose, for whatever reason.

Your indifference to discrimination is troubling; your comparison of racial status to physical inability to perform in the NFL is either incorrect and absurd, or simply racist. You can choose which.

That almost sounds like a threat, like you want to call me a racist, but you don't have the guts. I am not indifferent to racists, I don't like them. However I support their freedom to choose to be an idiot. Your indifference to freedom is more troubling than your ill-percieved notion that I hate black people. If that is all you can infer from my statements, than you're either incapable of understanding the concept of liberty, or just too emotional to think rationally. you can choose which.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='bmulligan']How on earth would you interpret my comment as black people are "defacto unqulaified" for employment? Are you purposefully trying to race bait me?
I'm not saying black people are automatically unqualified. I'm saying that racists have the same rights to freedom of choice as rational people do.[/quote]

Even when it affects a large proportion of a population because of race? So, you are merely a person who capitulates to the market, regardless of the inequality is foists on the populace. While not explicitly racist, it is certainly indirectly so. You can jump up and down and demand that you aren't a racist (or, rather, that your love for the "free market" supercedes any racial allegiance), but your willingness to support people's right to consistently keep black people out of jobs, and subsequently complain about how black people don't want to work, indicates otherwise. I notice that you have not addressed my comments about false agency being attributed to blacks regarding their unemployment status.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I am calling you a racist. I'm not beating around the bush, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. YOU ARE A RACIST. Your whole line of logic permits people in the marketplace to discriminate; you are saying that you don't mind racism. It's people's freedom to be as racist as they want to be. Before you turn that around into some horseshit "freedom" argument, keep in mind that there are limits on our freedom; we aren't free to drink and drive; we aren't free to indiscriminately shoot people; we aren't free to manufacture and sell meth; we aren't free to kick the living out of our spouses; and, according to the civil rights act, we aren't free to choose applicant a over applicant b because applicant a is white and applicant b is not (which is *PRECISELY* what audit studies identify).

So, while people *are* free to hate whomever they want to, for whatever reason they want to, they are *not* free to practice and employ that hatred to the detriment of others. In essence, your "people are free to discriminate" argument is hollow, and reeks of other people bullshit "freedom' arguments, because almost all of them provide and assume "freedom" for a specific group, without fail to the detriment of others. In this case, your freedom of employers to discriminate against whomever they so choose inhibits the freedom of other people to participate in the workforce free of discrimination.

So, with all that in mind, (1) your hollow "freedom" argument, (2) your permissiveness of racial discrimination in the marketplace, and (3) your loathing of anything that tries to run counter to (1) and (2), I conclude that yes, you, bmulligan, are racist.

For a business that caters to black racists, hiring a black person may be a pragmatic choice as well. You are not the arbiter of pragmatism versus fairness. No one is or shoud be except for the person doing the hiring. Do you want Hooters to have to start hiring flat-chested handicapped transexuals ?

Again, you're leaping from "denied employment because black" versus "not qualified for work." Perhaps you're implying some sort of slippery slope applies here, but you aren't stating it outright, and it makes you look foolish (and again makes your argument look like you're paralleling black de facto incapacity and physical incapacity for employment). I don't care who works at Hooters; if data show, however, that FULLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE AREN'T BEING HIRED BECAUSE THEY'RE BLACK, then I do care.

I'm not undermining anything. Proper proportions is the goal. Name any of the the other arguments and they pale in comparison to the benchmark of "proper representation". When that proper proportion is reached, the'll move on to other goals such as proper distribution of wealth by force.

Glad to see that you're so well read on the issue. For you to deny the existence of other arguments people use to recommend AA is completely incorrect, and premised on the notion that you're afraid to confront discrimination-based arguments.

Audits are great for proving that there are racists in the world, and not much else unless you intend to use them to punnish people for being racists. I grasp the fact very well that qualified people are turned away from jobs becuase of race. The neat thing about our marketplace is that that person can try to find someone else that will hire them, find a black owned business, or start their own. With 12% of the population, that makes a huge market of people to cater to.

I thought you were so well read on the issues (since you, of course, seem to KNOW that there is only ONE argument for AA; that of proportionality); you would know, then, that there is discrimination in other aspects of the market than simply employment. Moneylending (credit, mortgages, business loans) is another major aspect. Would you provide a startup loan to someone with no credible experience in his or her field, black or not? Would you expect a return if they wanted to "market to themselves," being a primarily poor people? The market finds incentives to discrimination (John Yinger being one of the best to articulate that argument). Evidently, you have no idea how the market works, and how people are persistently denied opportunities at every angle because they are black. Until you can come to grips with that, I don't see how you're going to understand anything. Another victim of default white privelege.

You're already making a lot of false assumptions no matter what I say so why stop now ? I fully support hiring based on merit. But I also support hiring based on preference, no matter how misguided, idiotic, or offensive it may be. The issue is of freedom. Freedom to hire whomever you choose, for whatever reason.

Can you recognize the difficulties and contradictions of what you support? Can you admit that, where hiring based on merit and hiring based on preference meet, there is inherent conflict? Your sentence "Freedom to hire whomever you choose, for whatever reason" is FULLY contrary to hiring based on merit. This is a severe problem in your logic, and I hope you can see that.

That almost sounds like a threat, like you want to call me a racist, but you don't have the guts. I am not indifferent to racists, I don't like them. However I support their freedom to choose to be an idiot. Your indifference to freedom is more troubling than your ill-percieved notion that I hate black people. If that is all you can infer from my statements, than you're either incapable of understanding the concept of liberty, or just too emotional to think rationally. you can choose which.

Rational thinking would have put more blacks in the industrial workforce 50 years ago, since Jim Crow laws would have made it perfectly viable for them to be hired at wages far lower than their white counterparts (and if there's anything you can identify with in my arguments, the profit motive, comprised of high returns and low overhead, is Mothering KING in the marketplace). Furthermore, in order to avoid being replaced by a black worker willing to work for less, whites would then have to accept lower wages (to use boring business parlance) "to remain competitive in the market."

So, *rationally,* things would have turned out FAR different from the world we currently live in. 40 years AFTER the civil rights act, we find disparate unemployment rates between blacks and whites, we find disparate wages between blacks and whites (and also men and women, whites and hispanics as well). Your precious rational market should have eliminated those disparities, right?

YOUR MARKET HAS FAILED YOU.

That, I believe, is the foundation for your logic; that you seem to think that the market will sort everything out, when it has done little damage to race-based discrepancies 40 years after the CRA passed.

Waiting for Godot...

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='mykevermin']...but your willingness to support people's right to consistently keep black people out of jobs, and subsequently complain about how black people don't want to work, indicates otherwise.[/quote]

Hold it right there. I have never, never, NEVER said that black people don't want to work. You can cram that back down your blowhole. You obviously have me confused with someone else or are gropuing me into that vague idea you have about racists and them being all the same. You back that shit up with evidence or apologize to me. I'm serious. your emotions have gotten the better of you and now you're just making shit up off the top of your head.

Again, you're leaping from "denied employment because black" versus "not qualified for work." Perhaps you're implying some sort of slippery slope applies here, but you aren't stating it outright, and it makes you look foolish

What's foolish is that I did state the slippery slope outright, you just can't see it, or choose not to becuase of your confusion of me with some statement of black ineptitude which you made up. You don't see the correlation between ugly hooters girls and trying to run a business with a clientele that prefers a good-looking waitstaff? Where does it end? Do we have to start hiring more blacks in new orleans becuase there are too many latinos there?

Glad to see that you're so well read on the issue. For you to deny the existence of other arguments people use to recommend AA is completely incorrect, and premised on the notion that you're afraid to confront discrimination-based arguments.

You still haven't named any of the other arguments, nor can you. But I'll do it for you since you are unable to provide any. The main argument besides underrepresentation is a so-called "cultural" benefit from a diverse workforce. A vague and nebulous benefit that cannot be defined.

I thought you were so well read on the issues (since you, of course, seem to KNOW that there is only ONE argument for AA; that of proportionality); you would know, then, that there is discrimination in other aspects of the market than simply employment. Moneylending (credit, mortgages, business loans) is another major aspect. ... Evidently, you have no idea how the market works, and how people are persistently denied opportunities at every angle because they are black. Until you can come to grips with that, I don't see how you're going to understand anything. Another victim of default white privelege.

Wow, you just said that black people are poor. Frankly, I think that's a racist statement. You imply that they are unable to better themselves, another racist statement. You also state that "market forces" will impede their progress. Frankly, I think that black people, as a whole, are capable of rising their cumulative standard of living and bettering their community in spite of white racism aganst them. You, however, consider them to be too inept to do so without legal assistance. Who's the real racist here?

What happens when whites become a minority and their maret as a demographic catagory is smaller than that of certain minorities? Those with the money to lend and invest for businesses will be forced to lend it or invest it with black entrepreneurs. Money lenders are quite adept in analyzing risk and would lend to anyone who will make them money on their investment regardless of the race of the recipient. Frankly, I think you are short sighted when you speak of knowing how the markets work. You see only unfair daily transactions instead of future earnings and market potential.

Can you recognize the difficulties and contradictions of what you support? Can you admit that, where hiring based on merit and hiring based on preference meet, there is inherent conflict?

I'm not saying we should force people to hire based on either, therefore there is no contradiction. My own personal choice is different than the principle of freedom of choice. This is why you are confused and think I am being contradictory. The conflict is in your unwillingness to let people make their own choices. I understand full well that sometimes people make wrong choices and I say let them make them. It usually comes back to haunt them in the end for hiring underqualified whites instead of more than qualified blacks. True capitalists would weigh all aspects of an employee and usually hire the best person who will make him the most money. Those that don't may end up losing their business.

Your sentence "Freedom to hire whomever you choose, for whatever reason" is FULLY contrary to hiring based on merit. This is a severe problem in your logic, and I hope you can see that.

Yes, that is a contradiction if you intend to force people to hire on merit. I choose not to eliminate freedom of choice. You choose to eliminate choice and institute force. You want to force people to hire on merit. Or in the affirmative action case, you choose to force people to hire based on correct proportions of minorities instead of merit. Yet you claim not to be a racist. You are the contradiction.

40 years AFTER the civil rights act, we find disparate unemployment rates between blacks and whites, we find disparate wages between blacks and whites (and also men and women, whites and hispanics as well). Your precious rational market should have eliminated those disparities, right?

YOUR MARKET HAS FAILED YOU.

Sorry, your affirmative action programs have failed YOU. According to your list of facts, they've only made things worse in the last 40 years of implementation. Try again.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='bmulligan']You still haven't named any of the other arguments, nor can you. But I'll do it for you since you are unable to provide any. The main argument besides underrepresentation is a so-called "cultural" benefit from a diverse workforce. A vague and nebulous benefit that cannot be defined.[/QUOTE]

Oh, sweetjesusgoddamnmothering christmas I'm done with you. Even in the morning, when I'm sober and cogent, I'm ing done with you.

Why?

DISCRIMINATION DISCRIMINATION MOTHERING DISCRIMINATION

That's why. That's my argument. Discrimination is entirely separate from proportionality, it's entirely separate from "cultural benefits," and it's something I've continually stated from page one. You choose to ignore it, because it is compelling, and it is correct, and its existence proves that market forces prefer to be racist rather than rational.

You've completely ignored the crux of my argument, and for that, I'm ing done here. You can go cheer for yourself, have a glass of milk, and feel proud that you-aren't-a-racist-yet-it's-perfectly-fine-if-a-bunch-of-dumb-blacks-don't-get-hired-in-favor-of-dumb-whites-because-it's-market-ing-forces.

You're a goddamned genius.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, sweetjesusgoddamnmothering christmas I'm done with you. Even in the morning, when I'm sober and cogent, I'm ing done with you.

Why?

DISCRIMINATION DISCRIMINATION MOTHERING DISCRIMINATION

That's why. That's my argument. Discrimination is entirely separate from proportionality, it's entirely separate from "cultural benefits," and it's something I've continually stated from page one. You choose to ignore it, because it is compelling, and it is correct, and its existence proves that market forces prefer to be racist rather than rational.

You've completely ignored the crux of my argument, and for that, I'm ing done here. You can go cheer for yourself, have a glass of milk, and feel proud that you-aren't-a-racist-yet-it's-perfectly-fine-if-a-bunch-of-dumb-blacks-don't-get-hired-in-favor-of-dumb-whites-because-it's-market-ing-forces.

You're a goddamned genius.[/QUOTE]

1. You havent backed up your statement pertaining to a ficticious racist quote supposedly made by me.

2. you have not stated any other arguments for affirmative action, nor have you enlightened us as to how affirmative action negates descrimination.

3. you think "market forces" are a bad thing and have to be regulated by the government. In other words, you believe individuals are incapable of making correct choices, and must be stopped from making any. You are against freedom and would probably prefer a socially engineered society like communist china over the few liberties we have left in the USA.

You claim to be vehemently against dicrimination yet you can't understand that Affirmative action is a racist action in and of itself becuase it discriminates based on race. You have to ask yourself, if the whole point is to eliminate racism, why institute a racist policy? THAT seems to be the contradiction that you cannot come to grips with.

For a consistantly level headded poster, and mostly a political moderate, you've really come unglued on this issue which tells me your emotional connection is too powerful for you to think objectively and realize that racism is not negated by reverse racism. You aren't done, you were finished before you started.

 

[Msut77]

Bmullet is nothing but a collection of logical fallacies.

Plenty of textbook examples of "Arguments no one made".

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Msut77']Bmullet is nothing but a collection of logical fallacies.

Plenty of textbook examples of "Arguments no one made".[/QUOTE]

Every post you make is just beyond the realm of comprehension.
Keep trying, you seem to be on the verge of being able to communicate with other human beings. Practicing with complete english sentences would be a good place to start.

Believe me, slut-muffin, to be regarded by you as a logical fallacy (if you even know what that means) is probably the highest honor any thinking person could recieve on these boards.

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='bmulligan']Every post you make is just beyond the realm of comprehension.[/QUOTE]

You mean your comprehension?

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan']3. you think "market forces" are a bad thing and have to be regulated by the government. In other words, you believe individuals are incapable of making correct choices, and must be stopped from making any. You are against freedom and would probably prefer a socially engineered society like communist china over the few liberties we have left in the USA.[/QUOTE]

That is one hilarious tirade. So you're either an anarcho-capitalist or a died-in-the-wool commie? And here I thought that I could believe in a form of capitalism that doesn't support practices such as child labor, massive pollution of the environment, and racist hiring practices.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='camoor']That is one hilarious tirade. So you're either an anarcho-capitalist or a died-in-the-wool commie? And here I thought that I could believe in a form of capitalism that doesn't support practices such as child labor, massive pollution of the environment, and racist hiring practices.[/QUOTE]

I'm currently reading Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' (admittedly for the first time). As I'm reading it, I recognize that it is a work of fiction, but one that nonetheless exposed the exploitative side of business in the late 19th century.

As I'm reading this, I'm thinking about government regulations that led to OSHA and other safety/hygiene/cleanliness standards, and I think about union action that led to a 40-hour work week.

The one thing I can't fathom is how people who want to concentrate all power in the hands of business (which is the domain of those small-government conservatives who are also ostensibly anti-union) would rationalize that kind of progress.

How could we as a society advanced to where we are currently without the work of organized labor and the government?

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='mykevermin']I'm currently reading Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' (admittedly for the first time). As I'm reading it, I recognize that it is a work of fiction, but one that nonetheless exposed the exploitative side of business in the late 19th century.

As I'm reading this, I'm thinking about government regulations that led to OSHA and other safety/hygiene/cleanliness standards, and I think about union action that led to a 40-hour work week.

The one thing I can't fathom is how people who want to concentrate all power in the hands of business (which is the domain of those small-government conservatives who are also ostensibly anti-union) would rationalize that kind of progress.

How could we as a society advanced to where we are currently without the work of organized labor and the government?[/QUOTE]

Somehow, I'd say that they wouldn't rationalize it as progress. More like regression. I'm sure they'd love to have the reduced safety/hegiene/cleanliness standards (especially if they go along with reduced liability with accident) and a 60-hour work week.

 

[mykevermin]

I imagine you're being sarcastic.

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='mykevermin']I imagine you're being sarcastic.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, I believe that the most strident pro-business people would relish in such practices. That is, if these practices brought down costs and increased profit.

 

[mykevermin]

Really? I couldn't fathom the idiocy of someone who would consider cleanliness and food safety a bad idea, even if it comes in the unfortunate package of a government program.

Then again, given that bmulligan couldn't even argue on the same level as me, chances are that they would think poor of it. Let the consumer decide to not purchase spoiled meat!

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='mykevermin']Really? I couldn't fathom the idiocy of someone who would consider cleanliness and food safety a bad idea, even if it comes in the unfortunate package of a government program.

Then again, given that bmulligan couldn't even argue on the same level as me, chances are that they would think poor of it. Let the consumer decide to not purchase spoiled meat![/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, it already comes into play. We see unethical practices, such as all of these insider trading fiascos, book baking problems, and a rather lax and tame response from the government.

The 40 hour work week is thrown out the window for many/most mid-level employees (whether you're an accountant, engineer or business peon, you'll always seem to have homework). This means that businesses have no problem piling the workload on to these people and firing them if they don't work them through, effectively nullifying the 40 hour work week...or worse, making your salary worth a whole lot less. On top of which, you'll see that overtime is on the rise (did an infotrac search, so I don't have any postable sources).

On the hygiene front, we see FDA debacle after debacle on the drugs front. Drugs that aren't tested well enough, development rushed, and so on. Payoffs and bribes, etc.

The business world is FULL of unethical procedures aimed at just getting the most money possible. Were restrictions loosened, I have no trouble believing that many businesses would go the full 9.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='mykevermin']I'm currently reading Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' (admittedly for the first time). As I'm reading it, I recognize that it is a work of fiction, but one that nonetheless exposed the exploitative side of business in the late 19th century.

As I'm reading this, I'm thinking about government regulations that led to OSHA and other safety/hygiene/cleanliness standards, and I think about union action that led to a 40-hour work week.

The one thing I can't fathom is how people who want to concentrate all power in the hands of business (which is the domain of those small-government conservatives who are also ostensibly anti-union) would rationalize that kind of progress.

How could we as a society advanced to where we are currently without the work of organized labor and the government?[/QUOTE]

Most just look at what businesses currently provide employees and assume business as a whole initiated those benefits. They ignore how they got to that point.

 

[soulvengeance]

[quote name='mykevermin']Really? I couldn't fathom the idiocy of someone who would consider cleanliness and food safety a bad idea, even if it comes in the unfortunate package of a government program.

Then again, given that bmulligan couldn't even argue on the same level as me, chances are that they would think poor of it. Let the consumer decide to not purchase spoiled meat![/QUOTE]
Hah! That last sentence made me think of Herbert Spencer, we just covered some of his social theory in my Dev. of Social Theory class. Good stuff.

 

[mykevermin]

How in tarnation did that make you think of Spencer?

 

[soulvengeance]

[quote name='mykevermin']How in tarnation did that make you think of Spencer?[/QUOTE]
Well, we kind of discussed how Spencer felt that consumers were responsible for themselves, and that there should be no government intervention in business, that the "buyer beware" of whatever they bought or consumed, and that it was their responsibility to figure out if it was bad or not. I think my prof used bad meat as an example.