As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Affirmative Action] Perspectives and solutions

17810121321

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    You're not being harmed unless you're so myopic that you think race relations are zero sum.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    But our system of law is based around the idea that you can only demand compensation from someone who has actually harmed you.

    Good thing we're not taking anything from anyone. You have a pretty inaccurate view of what AA really is and an even worse ability to grasp just how racism from the past still effects every one today.

    AA isn't reparations, its actions taken to help a group out of the hole that our history has dug for them.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I want to mention my names-in-a-hat idea again. No one gets punished, no one gets a freebie pass.

    emnmnme on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    This is just a silly statement. The disadvantages of being a minority are that you're not white and therefore the disadvantages are defined by the advantages that white people give to themselves.

    No offense, but thats bull. There is a difference.

    Advantage: Generations of prosperity have given me a better education, I can use this to get better jobs and continue propering.

    Disadvantage: People named Tyrone are not hired as often.

    Advantage: I have money so I can relocate easier and find a better job.

    Disadvantage: Standardized tests are skewed against minorities, thus they have trouble matching up score wise with others and wont be able to get into college.

    Advantage: My Dad is a successful business man with connections, these connections help me get a better job.

    Disadvantage: Public school systems in poor neighborhoods suck and thus lower class people are not as equipped to compete.

    This is still silly. You're just reversing the statement so as not to make it say "white people have this advantage".
    I could go on. The thing is, I will agree that all the disadvantages need to be fixed and even compensated for. I will not however, completely agree that the advantages need to be fixed or compensated for. My problem is that a lot of people who are pro AA DO think they should be. And thats why I have trouble jumping on board.

    And this is a bit of rhetorical trickery you're pulling. AA is about addressing UNfair advantages. Not that I'm opposed to programs to help even out other advantages that weren't necessarily unfairly earned (namely those related to family ties and hereditary wealth), but AA is explicitly about mitigating the effects on minorities of unfair advantages for white people. I challenge anyone to name a fairly gained advantage that white people have over minorities which AA is currently attempting to mitigate.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because I'm only responsible for my own actions.

    You can't just say that when things go wrong and you want to dodge any blame that happens to be floating by. You have to mention the positive things that have happened that weren't due to your own actions, too. I'm sure more than a few parents of posters here paid the bulk of their child's college tuition, for example.
    I'm not sure that adds anything to this discussion. Yeah, sure, my parents did pay the majority of my tuition. But that didn't take money out of anyone else's pocket or harm some poor black kid.

    So when your parents are able to move into the neighborhood of their choosing, while the black family that tries to move in falsely told that the apartment is no longer available as soon as they show up, that doesn't bring any harm to the poor black kid?

    When your parents are able to apply for entry level work, but the equally qualified black guy is denied the opportunity based on skin color, that doesn't bring any harm to black people?

    When your parents are able to get bank loans for housing and schooling, where as the same banks will deny loans to black people, that doesn't bring harm?

    When your great grandparents have access to programs like the homestead act, programs that were denied to black people, that doesn't bring harm?

    Your parents had a much easier time of being able to pay for your college tuition because they were born white. Had they been born black, they would have been shut out of a lot of the opportunities that made their wealth possible.

    Meanwhile, you deny that any of this has any effect on your current position. You insist that you are responsible for own actions. But the moment you get rejected from the college of your choice, you're quick to put the blame squarely on some nameless black kid, rather than putting the blame on yourself.

    When you insist that you have to take a "hit" because of AA, you're implying that you were entitled to that position in the first place. Where does that feeling of entitlement come from? The fact that you are white. And you would be damned if anyone were to take that sense of entitlement away from you.

    Schrodinger on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    What matters to you is that you're here now, and too bad that shit happened in the past that made the statement "it's really great to be white" true, because it's so unfair that a black person might get an "unfair" advantage when you get none. You know, except that advantage of being white.
    Yup. It sucks that groups of people in the past have disadvantaged other groups of people in the past. If slaveowners and slaves were still alive, I'd fully support seizing the formers' property to compensate the latter.

    But our system of law is based around the idea that you can only demand compensation from someone who has actually harmed you.

    I'm glad you phrased it this way, because you've just argued that AA is sound policy. See, since the US government, state governments, and local governments used their power to confer advantages to whites at the expense of minorities, these entities, which aren't dead and buried, can be held accountable for their actions and compensation can be demanded and gotten from them.
    You don't have the right to demand anything from someone just because their ancestors might have harmed your ancestors. And you have even less right to demand that someone compensate you just because they share superficial traits (like skin color) with people who might have harmed your ancestors.

    What's being demanded from you, specifically? Better yet, what exactly gives you the right to be free from the effects of AA?
    Enacting a legal ban on discrimination is as far as we can legitimately go to redress past oppression when everyone involved in that repression is dead and buried.

    Well, no, since AA is actually the law, it is, in fact, possible to extract a form of compensation from society as a whole for past actions of people who were culpable, and it's totally legit.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    But our system of law is based around the idea that you can only demand compensation from someone who has actually harmed you.

    And yet you never actually answered the question, how can you be so certain that AA has ever actually harmed you?

    You personally?

    How can you be absolutely certain that when you failed, it's because a negro stole your entitlements, and not because of your own short coming?

    How can you be so sure that the position that you saw as being rightfully yours went to some negro, and that it didn't just go to another white dude?

    How can you be so sure that in a parallel universe where AA didn't exist, that open position would go to you, and not some other white dude?

    You have a 50% better chance of finding work than an equally qualified black dude. And keep in mind that a black dude would have to overcome far more disadvantages in order to be equally qualified in the first place. i.e., a black kid has a statistically harder time of staying out of prison than a white kid, due to poverty rates and police bias. Yet, the black kid who stays out of jail still has a harder time finding work than the white kid who gets arrested for selling cocaine. Which means that even when the black kid manages to overcome the odds, the deck is still stacked heavily against him. But you insist that this has absolutely no affect on your current position in society.

    Meanwhile, thanks to AA, you might have a 1-2% reduced chance of getting into college.

    Why are you more worried about the thing with the 1-2% chance of affecting your life, and not worried at all about the thing with the 50% chance of affecting your life?

    Schrodinger on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Dude...again, putting the blame on the current "runner" is not even remotely a fair analogy. Putting the blame on previous legs of a relay race is more appropriate.

    I didnt cheat.

    I didnt run out of bounce.

    I simply got handed a batton earlier and now people are telling me my teammates cheated in the past.

    Dude....again, you're complaining that you shouldn't have to wait for the blue shirts because you didn't ASK to get the baton earlier. That's a non sequitur.
    Disrupter wrote: »
    And if AA is about fixing a problem, not "punishing" then I think wording needs to be changed. Stop talking about my "advantages" and start focusing on others "disadvantages"

    Because frankly, its a big difference.

    Frankly, no, it isn't a big difference. The only difference is that it's uncomfortable to admit we have advantages we didn't ask for and maybe even didn't realize we had. It's uncomfortable to be proud that I won a race and then somebody quietly tells me "One of the reasons you beat Blue Shirt Guy is that your starting line was fifty yards ahead of his."

    "Advantages" says nothing about blame. It isn't a synonym for 'cheating' or 'deliberately jumping on it'. And you can't really talk about disadvantages without advantages, because if the blue shirts have the disadvantage of being held back, then the red shirts have an advantage.

    Getting hung up on feeling picked on and blamed is silly. Nobody is accusing you of being racist.

    Yes we need to make sure my leg of the race is fair. Any cheating or disadvantages to the other runners that occured in previous legs need to be removed. I will agree with that. As for my getting the batton earlier. You have a difficult task of convincing me that my lead wasnt earned by better runners and was instead earned by injustice.[/QUOTE]

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I need to be clear, I dont really have a dog in this fight. I am not opposed to AA, I am just stating where I am coming from and how I see things. So, please believe me when I say im not trying to be tricky with my statements or skew facts to make my side seem right. Its literally just how I see things.

    That being said, I didnt quite understand the following:
    This is still silly. You're just reversing the statement so as not to make it say "white people have this advantage".

    What do you mean here?

    I guess it comes down to the difference between a base right or need being taken away versus a luxury being afforded.

    If everyone starts at 0, which is a completely even playing field, things like affording college would be a +. But things like a poor public school system in lower class areas would be a -.

    Yes the end result of +1 to whites or -1 to minorities is still a difference of 1. Yes, the end game should be everyone has the same +s, but I do not think we need to compensate for those +s. But I do think we need to fix the -s and even compensate for them.

    I understand that some of the +s are gained because my white ancestors profited off the past -s. However it seems nigh impossible to determine what kind of impact that actually had. And the question is where do you draw the line, how do you decide that this advantage was gained through bad practices in the past versus this one which was gained through hard work?
    Dude....again, you're complaining that you shouldn't have to wait for the blue shirts because you didn't ASK to get the baton earlier. That's a non sequitur.

    This is silly, we are getting caught up arguing over HOW the "race" represents the problem in society. Its a bit of a side track for me to be like "No see, the batton getting to me earlier is analagious to THIS. " Because then we go back and forth as to how the race represents the situation. Im done with the race analogy.

    Also, retyping the "Dude...again" can only be read in a antagonistic manner, theres really no need to antagonize each other.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I understand that some of the +s are gained because my white ancestors profited off the past -s. However it seems nigh impossible to determine what kind of impact that actually had. And the question is where do you draw the line, how do you decide that this advantage was gained through bad practices in the past versus this one which was gained through hard work?

    Well, considering that slavery itself is hard work, and black people don't have much to show for it...

    Schrodinger on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    This is the problem with your reasoning: if you don't think that you should try to mitigate or compensate for the advantages, then you don't really desire a level playing field. It's simply muddying the water to say "well, who knows if this is from unfair advantages or hard work". We know that unfair advantages exist. It is not a reasonable position to just throw up your hands and say that, since you can't perfectly account for how much the unfair advantages are affecting things, or because you don't personally believe that you're benefiting, the best policy is to do nothing.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Honestly, I really think that if you take away years of racism after slavery, slavery itself doesnt have much of an impact on the classes today.

    There has been a lot of time, many wars, depressions, recessions and whole lot of other factors since then which would have done a lot to even out the field.

    I could be wrong, obviously. But I doubt theres really a way to determine it one way or another. But yeah, the years of racism and unjust practices since then have definately impacted the class structure today.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I understand that some of the +s are gained because my white ancestors profited off the past -s.

    Hold it right there.

    When you phrase it this way, the implication is that racism, discrimination and the negative effects thereof all happened in the past, and now we live in a golden utopia where nobody does any of that stuff.

    But we don't, really. We live in a world where people are not just dealing with the echoes of long ago, but are dealing with racism and bigotry NOW. We don't have Jim Crow, but we still have companies that are less likely to hire a candidate if he is named Jamaal instead of William, for example. We still have universities that give an edge to applicants who had a parent or grandparent who went to that school. Hell, Congress is just repealing AFTER DECADES laws that treated cocaine used primarily by black people (crack) much more harshly than cocaine used by white people (powder coke) so that black kids went to jail for things that got their white brothers and sisters a slap on the wrist.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Yes, if you ignore that thing that was a direct result of slavery, slavery isn't relevant.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I want to mention my names-in-a-hat idea again. No one gets punished, no one gets a freebie pass.

    With respect, no. I am not hiring someone based solely on a nameless resume. First candidate sweep, sure, completely blind till they show up for work day one with their penis hanging out of their hello kitty sweat pants...no.

    Deebaser on
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    This is the problem with your reasoning: if you don't think that you should try to mitigate or compensate for the advantages, then you don't really desire a level playing field

    I dont desire a level playing field. I desire a FAIR playing field. WHich is not the same. You level things out today, and take away any racial or other bias from the equation, and eventually you have an unlevel playing field again. I work every day to unlevel the playing field. I want advantages over the other guy. I want to be able to give my kids those advantages.

    That being said, I admit the playing field is NOT fair. And its tricky because you go back one step and you say "well you got to go to college" which is a fair advantage. But then you go back two steps and its "you got to go to college because your dad got to get hired because he was more qualified so he made money to pay for your college." Seems fair. You go back 3 steps and its "hey your dad was more qualified because he went to better schools because the public schools in that poor neighborhood sucks." Which isnt very fair. and then its "hey those black guys had to live in that poor neighboorhood because their dads couldnt attend white schools and werent as educated...etc." And suddenly its clearly unfair.

    I get that. The problem is how do you address that issue without making it seem like your also undoing the advantages earned fairly?
    When you phrase it this way, the implication is that racism, discrimination and the negative effects thereof all happened in the past, and now we live in a golden utopia where nobody does any of that stuff.

    No no no. I dont. Those are the current MINUSES. Those are the disadvantages. All the bad stuff the unfair stuff, that gets categorized under the MINUS section.

    You can make an convincing argument to me that my 4.0 GPA in school somewhat stems from the fact that I got a better education due to my dad making more money, due to unfair disadvantages in the past.

    You can not make a convincing argument to me that my 4.0GPA in school is related to some guy not hiring black sounding names right now.

    The disadvantages can cause advantages in the future, but they dont have an immediate impact like that.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    So when your parents are able to move into the neighborhood of their choosing, while the black family that tries to move in falsely told that the apartment is no longer available as soon as they show up, that doesn't bring any harm to the poor black kid?

    When your parents are able to apply for entry level work, but the equally qualified black guy is denied the opportunity based on skin color, that doesn't bring any harm to black people?

    When your parents are able to get bank loans for housing and schooling, where as the same banks will deny loans to black people, that doesn't bring harm?

    When your great grandparents have access to programs like the homestead act, programs that were denied to black people, that doesn't bring harm?

    Your parents had a much easier time of being able to pay for your college tuition because they were born white. Had they been born black, they would have been shut out of a lot of the opportunities that made their wealth possible.
    I'm going to assume you mean the generic "you" since some of the things you listed don't really apply to my family history.

    But, yes, if a loan officer discriminates against a black applicant while treating a white applicant fairly, or a landlord treats a white applicant fairly, rather than rejecting them out of hand based on race, then the fact that the hypothetical white people were treated justly has nothing to do with the black person being treated unjustly. The solution is to enforce existing laws to make sure that the black applicant for whatever is considered based solely on his relevant characteristics, rather than his skin color. The solution is not to replace one injustice with another, which is what AA does,
    Meanwhile, you deny that any of this has any effect on your current position. You insist that you are responsible for own actions. But the moment you get rejected from the college of your choice, you're quick to put the blame squarely on some nameless black kid, rather than putting the blame on yourself.
    I got into the college I wanted, so this isn't an issue for me. But if you look at the admission numbers that came to light in the U of Michigan case, it became clear that a decent number of black kids were getting admitted who would not have been admitted if they were white (let alone Asian). So, yeah, I think white kids who are getting rejected in favor of less-qualified minority kids have a legit complaint.
    When you insist that you have to take a "hit" because of AA, you're implying that you were entitled to that position in the first place. Where does that feeling of entitlement come from? The fact that you are white. And you would be damned if anyone were to take that sense of entitlement away from you.
    The Michigan case is the best example of why white folks get pissed off at AA. The evidence in that case made it pretty clear that more deserving candidates were losing out on admissions for no reason other than their skin color. You can call it "entitlement" if you want, but I wonder what world you live in where people are expected to just shrug off a blatantly race-based spoils system.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Honestly, I really think that if you take away years of racism after slavery, slavery itself doesnt have much of an impact on the classes today.

    And if your grandma had a beard she'd be your grandpa. So what?

    "Years of racism after slavery" were, you know, a result of both slavery and attitudes that led to slavery being an accepted institution. And those 'years of racism' still exist today, even though things are much better. You talk about this stuff like we didn't have segregated drinking fountains and "anti-miscegenation laws" and separate high school proms for black and white students within living memory.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Honestly, I really think that if you take away years of racism after slavery, slavery itself doesnt have much of an impact on the classes today.

    Good point. I hear that as soon as slavery was outlawed, this happened the next day:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfU17niXOG8

    It's sort of like in HS, when you tattle on the bully who's been picking on you, and then the bully holds no lingering resentment towards you and no one ever bothers you again.
    There has been a lot of time, many wars, depressions, recessions and whole lot of other factors since then which would have done a lot to even out the field.

    So if someone breaks your ankle at the beginning of an obstacle course, do you say, "Well, the obstacle course featured lots of things, like fire hoops and rock climbing and what not, so I'm sure that any disadvantage that the other guy had would have evened out by now." Or do you acknowledge the fact that the guy who started the obstacle course with a disadvantage would be impacted worse than you were?

    Do you think that black people and white people were treated equally by the great depression? Do you think that black people and white people were treated equally by the plans meant to stimulate the economy?

    Schrodinger on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I want to mention my names-in-a-hat idea again. No one gets punished, no one gets a freebie pass.

    With respect, no. I am not hiring someone based solely on a nameless resume. First candidate sweep, sure, completely blind till they show up for work day one with their penis hanging out of their hello kitty sweat pants...no.

    That's ... not going to be a common occurrence.

    emnmnme on
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I dont talk about it like racism wasnt a massive issue recently, and isnt still a big one. But, you cant go from talking about specifics to generalities like that. When I admit that there is a history of racism which has given my race advantages, but then say its hard to pinpoint specifics.

    And someone says "Slavery"

    We are now specifically talking about the act of owning slaves. Not the racism which followed, because I JUST admitted that was an issue.

    So my point was that the act of owning slaves, the revenue gained from it, and the lack of revenue for the slaves themselves was a disparity that would have likely vanished through wars, depressions etc.

    Slavery got brought up as a specific. As in, whites are better off then blacks because years ago Blacks worked for free for whites and the revenue difference created then specifically impacts the classes today. That was what I was arguing that was possibly untrue. That specific logic.

    If that wasnt the intent when bringing slavery up, then it shouldnt have been mentioned after I pretty much said "its hard to pinpoint specific advantages versus hard work"

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    What matters to you is that you're here now, and too bad that shit happened in the past that made the statement "it's really great to be white" true, because it's so unfair that a black person might get an "unfair" advantage when you get none. You know, except that advantage of being white.
    Yup. It sucks that groups of people in the past have disadvantaged other groups of people in the past. If slaveowners and slaves were still alive, I'd fully support seizing the formers' property to compensate the latter.

    But our system of law is based around the idea that you can only demand compensation from someone who has actually harmed you.

    I'm glad you phrased it this way, because you've just argued that AA is sound policy. See, since the US government, state governments, and local governments used their power to confer advantages to whites at the expense of minorities, these entities, which aren't dead and buried, can be held accountable for their actions and compensation can be demanded and gotten from them.
    If you want to make some argument where you can show how specific living individual members of minority groups who have quantifiably (in a monetary sense) been ilegally harmed by government policies, have at it. People sue government all the time for such things.

    But you know you can't prove that, because your entire argument is based on nebulous concepts of past harm and speculative lost wages and wealth. And, anyway, AA doesn't try to get government to pay out for damages- it shifts the burden on individuals. It would be like me suing you because the police violated my rights.
    What's being demanded from you, specifically? Better yet, what exactly gives you the right to be free from the effects of AA?
    As we've been discussing, AA gives an advantage to people based on race, while disadvantaging others for their race, in things like school, job and federal contracting requirements.
    Well, no, since AA is actually the law, it is, in fact, possible to extract a form of compensation from society as a whole for past actions of people who were culpable, and it's totally legit.
    I'm not aware of any law requiring AA, except in fairly limited settings.

    And, no, it's not legit to demand stuff from people who haven't actually damaged you. Nobody owes you anything just because your ancestors got a shitty deal.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I want to mention my names-in-a-hat idea again. No one gets punished, no one gets a freebie pass.

    With respect, no. I am not hiring someone based solely on a nameless resume. First candidate sweep, sure, completely blind till they show up for work day one with their penis hanging out of their hello kitty sweat pants...no.

    That's ... not going to be a common occurrence.

    Yes, it's an exageration, but it is a a quite common occurrence that the quality of the dude that shows up for an interview is not alligned with the quality of their resume.

    Deebaser on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    But, yes, if a loan officer discriminates against a black applicant while treating a white applicant fairly, or a landlord treats a white applicant fairly, rather than rejecting them out of hand based on race, then the fact that the hypothetical white people were treated justly has nothing to do with the black person being treated unjustly. The solution is to enforce existing laws to make sure that the black applicant for whatever is considered based solely on his relevant characteristics, rather than his skin color.

    Except that people who discriminate will always have plausible deniability, thanks to the fact that they generally practice aversive racism, rather than overt racism. Aversive racism means, "If I can come up with a non-racial excuse to discriminate against the black guy, then I will subconsciously act on it." In the real world, you will never see a case of two perfectly identical candidates applying for the exact same position, one black and one white. Which means that you can almost always make a non-racial excuse for your actions. If the white candidate has a higher SAT score but a lower GPA, you can insist that you valued raw aptitude. If the white candidate has a higher GPA but a lower SAT, you can insist that you valued consistency and hard work.

    Since the person has a non-racial excuse, it is next to impossible to prove whether or not he is lying in a court of law, and no one would bother to litigate.

    Your "solution" here is completely useless.
    The solution is not to replace one injustice with another, which is what AA does,

    Really? So if someone gives you a stolen Xbox for Christmas and then the cops knock on your door and say that the original owner wants it back, are you going to claim that this is an injustice? That just because the original owner had his Xbox stolen from him, that doesn't justify the cops taking an Xbox away from you?

    Because that's pretty much what you're saying. "Oh, I feel really bad that the original owner lost his Xbox. But it's unjust to subject me to the same thing! Two wrongs don't make a right!"

    Except in this case, it kind of does. You have an Xbox that doesn't belong to you. There is no way to correct that situation, except to return that Xbox to the original owner.
    I got into the college I wanted, so this isn't an issue for me. But if you look at the admission numbers that came to light in the U of Michigan case, it became clear that a decent number of black kids were getting admitted who would not have been admitted if they were white (let alone Asian).

    1200 less qualified white kids got in vs. 100 less qualified black kids.

    Why do only the black kids bother you?

    There's a word for that.

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you want to make some argument where you can show how specific living individual members of minority groups who have quantifiably (in a monetary sense) been ilegally harmed by government policies, have at it.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    As we've been discussing, AA gives an advantage to people based on race, while disadvantaging others for their race, in things like school, job and federal contracting requirements.

    These two points are inconsistent.

    Why do black people have the burden of proof on them to proof that they specifically and individually were harmed in a quantifiable way by government policies, where as white people who oppose government policies are under no such burden?

    Why do black people have to prove specific harms and damages, where as white people merely need to assert a general and vague idea of being disadvantaged?

    Why do black people have to prove monetary damages? What monetary damages have white opponents of AA proven?

    Why can't black people rely on a general and vague idea of being disadvantaged? Why can't white people be forced to prove specific harms and damages?

    Why are you holding black people to a radically different standard than what you are holding white people to?

    Oh, wait.

    I think we all already know the answer to that one.

    Schrodinger on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    What matters to you is that you're here now, and too bad that shit happened in the past that made the statement "it's really great to be white" true, because it's so unfair that a black person might get an "unfair" advantage when you get none. You know, except that advantage of being white.
    Yup. It sucks that groups of people in the past have disadvantaged other groups of people in the past. If slaveowners and slaves were still alive, I'd fully support seizing the formers' property to compensate the latter.

    But our system of law is based around the idea that you can only demand compensation from someone who has actually harmed you.

    I'm glad you phrased it this way, because you've just argued that AA is sound policy. See, since the US government, state governments, and local governments used their power to confer advantages to whites at the expense of minorities, these entities, which aren't dead and buried, can be held accountable for their actions and compensation can be demanded and gotten from them.
    If you want to make some argument where you can show how specific living individual members of minority groups who have quantifiably (in a monetary sense) been ilegally harmed by government policies, have at it. People sue government all the time for such things.

    But you know you can't prove that, because your entire argument is based on nebulous concepts of past harm and speculative lost wages and wealth.

    It's only nebulous if you intend to ignore that economists (and lawyers!) do this sort of thinking all the time, and that it's not actually hard to put a ballpark figure on the cost to minorities that racist government policies had. But, you know, keep on beating the drum that it's too hard for you to think about, therefore we should do nothing.

    I mean, it's not like we can't prove that white people stole the fruits of slave labor from the slaves...
    And, anyway, AA doesn't try to get government to pay out for damages- it shifts the burden on individuals. It would be like me suing you because the police violated my rights.

    AA isn't about paying out damages. If it was, it's failed because I haven't seen my check. AA is about compensating for past and current racism by enforcing behavior that mitigates the long term effects of said racism on agents of the government. Your statement amounts to saying that your tax dollars shouldn't have to go towards settling lawsuits against the government because you didn't personally do the harm.
    What's being demanded from you, specifically? Better yet, what exactly gives you the right to be free from the effects of AA?
    As we've been discussing, AA gives an advantage to people based on race, while disadvantaging others for their race, in things like school, job and federal contracting requirements.

    So do you intend to answer the questions?
    Well, no, since AA is actually the law, it is, in fact, possible to extract a form of compensation from society as a whole for past actions of people who were culpable, and it's totally legit.
    I'm not aware of any law requiring AA, except in fairly limited settings.

    Is AA not a part of federal law? Maybe I missed it being repealed or overturned.
    And, no, it's not legit to demand stuff from people who haven't actually damaged you. Nobody owes you anything just because your ancestors got a shitty deal.

    I can think of a few situations where you're wrong. For instance, just because your grandfather stole paintings during his time serving in Europe in WW2 doesn't mean you're entitled to keep them or the money that you make from selling it. AA isn't even demanding white people pay actual money that they ought to pay in compensation. It's demanding that you take a slight hit to your stupidly high chances at entering college or getting a job. People like you have a full fucking banquet but are complaining that minorities are getting a small plate.

    That's ultimately what this comes down to: entitlement. You think you're entitled to enjoy the advantages of being white without having to cede even a slight advantage to a black person for being black. Your idea of a fair, level playing field is one in which you never have to acknowledge that the present is built upon the past. You don't live in a vacuum, your place in society is, in fact, affected by your skin color, and denying this is denying reality itself.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Except that people who discriminate will always have plausible deniability, thanks to the fact that they generally practice aversive racism, rather than overt racism. Aversive racism means, "If I can come up with a non-racial excuse to discriminate against the black guy, then I will subconsciously act on it." In the real world, you will never see a case of two perfectly identical candidates applying for the exact same position, one black and one white. Which means that you can almost always make a non-racial excuse for your actions. If the white candidate has a higher SAT score but a lower GPA, you can insist that you valued raw aptitude. If the white candidate has a higher GPA but a lower SAT, you can insist that you valued consistency and hard work.

    Since the person has a non-racial excuse, it is next to impossible to prove whether or not he is lying in a court of law, and no one would bother to litigate.

    Your "solution" here is completely useless.
    If you want to prove racism occurred, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

    You're basically proposing that any time a black person is denied something, it must be aversive racism. Your position can't be disproved, I guess, so you can declare victory. Hooray!
    Really? So if someone gives you a stolen Xbox for Christmas and then the cops knock on your door and say that the original owner wants it back, are you going to claim that this is an injustice? That just because the original owner had his Xbox stolen from him, that doesn't justify the cops taking an Xbox away from you?

    Because that's pretty much what you're saying. "Oh, I feel really bad that the original owner lost his Xbox. But it's unjust to subject me to the same thing! Two wrongs don't make a right!"

    Except in this case, it kind of does. You have an Xbox that doesn't belong to you. There is no way to correct that situation, except to return that Xbox to the original owner.
    In the case where you can prove that individual X illegally has something that belongs to individual Y, then of course he should return it.

    But, you can't do that in the case of something so difuse as centuries of discrimination against black people.

    Tell you what- if you can show that I took some black dude's Xbox, or his job or anything concrete, due to my race, I promise to give it back to him. Until then, no I don't owe anyone 40 acres and an Xbox.
    1200 less qualified white kids got in vs. 100 less qualified black kids.

    Why do only the black kids bother you?

    There's a word for that.
    Because, based on the numbers, it was pretty clear that a significant number of the black kids wouldn't have gotten in but for their race.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    the "fuck you, got mine" is strong in this thread.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    the "fuck you, got mine" is strong in this thread.

    Have you ever read MM's posts? Self-centeredness is basically his raisson d'etre.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you want to prove racism occurred, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

    We did. We have numerous statistics and controlled studies to back that up. Which you have never once acknowledged or refuted.
    You're basically proposing that any time a black person is denied something, it must be aversive racism.

    No, the argument is that aversive racism means that black people are denied things at a dramatically higher rate, when all other things are equal. Why aren't you willing to address the actual argument?
    In the case where you can prove that individual X illegally has something that belongs to individual Y, then of course he should return it.

    Thus disproving your point on two wrongs making a right.
    Because, based on the numbers, it was pretty clear that a significant number of the black kids wouldn't have gotten in but for their race.

    Can you give us specific, quantifiable numbers here? How many is significant?

    When are you going to hold yourself to the same standards that you hold black people to?

    Schrodinger on
  • reddeathreddeath Registered User
    edited October 2010
    I didn't see this mentioned in the thread, but One thing I've noticed recently is that employers are using more and more often "background(credit)" check results against potential employees.

    It seems to often be being used against prospective applicants who have grown up in urban areas and do not have established or have bad credit.

    One of my friends recently "failed" two subsequent background checks, despite having never been arrested, convicted, or anything criminal, just for having subpar credit from what we could dig up.

    It's almost a bizzare anti AA thing.

    reddeath on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you want to make some argument where you can show how specific living individual members of minority groups who have quantifiably (in a monetary sense) been ilegally harmed by government policies, have at it.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    As we've been discussing, AA gives an advantage to people based on race, while disadvantaging others for their race, in things like school, job and federal contracting requirements.

    These two points are inconsistent.

    Why do black people have the burden of proof on them to proof that they specifically and individually were harmed in a quantifiable way by government policies, where as white people who oppose government policies are under no such burden?

    Why do black people have to prove specific harms and damages, where as white people merely need to assert a general and vague idea of being disadvantaged?

    Why do black people have to prove monetary damages? What monetary damages have white opponents of AA proven?

    Why can't black people rely on a general and vague idea of being disadvantaged? Why can't white people be forced to prove specific harms and damages?

    Why are you holding black people to a radically different standard than what you are holding white people to?

    Oh, wait.

    I think we all already know the answer to that one.

    i'm uh for affirmative action in general

    but if a party is seeking redress from the government by asking for policies to be implemented, then i think it's reasonable that they be asked to demonstrate harm

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you want to make some argument where you can show how specific living individual members of minority groups who have quantifiably (in a monetary sense) been ilegally harmed by government policies, have at it.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    As we've been discussing, AA gives an advantage to people based on race, while disadvantaging others for their race, in things like school, job and federal contracting requirements.

    These two points are inconsistent.

    Why do black people have the burden of proof on them to proof that they specifically and individually were harmed in a quantifiable way by government policies, where as white people who oppose government policies are under no such burden?

    Why do black people have to prove specific harms and damages, where as white people merely need to assert a general and vague idea of being disadvantaged?

    Why do black people have to prove monetary damages? What monetary damages have white opponents of AA proven?

    Why can't black people rely on a general and vague idea of being disadvantaged? Why can't white people be forced to prove specific harms and damages?

    Why are you holding black people to a radically different standard than what you are holding white people to?

    Oh, wait.

    I think we all already know the answer to that one.
    Simple answer- if you're demanding that government or some other entity treat you more favorably than it does other people, the onus is on you to show why you deserve such special treatment. The default setting is that we should all be treated equally.

    People seeking to overturn a discriminatory program don't have any burden of proof on them- the burden is on the side supporting the discrimination.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    i'm uh for affirmative action in general

    but if a party is seeking redress from the government by asking for policies to be implemented, then i think it's reasonable that they be asked to demonstrate harm

    Except that Modern Man is not holding white people to the same standard.

    That's the problem.

    If a black man wants to claim discrimination, he has to have video evidence of the white employer wiping his ass with his job application while wearing a KKK mask while accepting a white applicant who was less qualified in every possible way.

    If a white man wants to claim discrimination, then all he has to do is point out that AA exists. He doesn't have to point to specific evidence that he was denied the job due to AA, or even that removing AA would significantly improve his chances of getting a job. The mere existence of such a program is good enough.

    So why is the mere existence of AA good enough for white people, but the numerous studies showing that discrimination is still alive and well in the work place not good enough for minorities?

    Therein lies the double standard.

    Schrodinger on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you want to make some argument where you can show how specific living individual members of minority groups who have quantifiably (in a monetary sense) been ilegally harmed by government policies, have at it.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    As we've been discussing, AA gives an advantage to people based on race, while disadvantaging others for their race, in things like school, job and federal contracting requirements.

    These two points are inconsistent.

    Why do black people have the burden of proof on them to proof that they specifically and individually were harmed in a quantifiable way by government policies, where as white people who oppose government policies are under no such burden?

    Why do black people have to prove specific harms and damages, where as white people merely need to assert a general and vague idea of being disadvantaged?

    Why do black people have to prove monetary damages? What monetary damages have white opponents of AA proven?

    Why can't black people rely on a general and vague idea of being disadvantaged? Why can't white people be forced to prove specific harms and damages?

    Why are you holding black people to a radically different standard than what you are holding white people to?

    Oh, wait.

    I think we all already know the answer to that one.
    Simple answer- if you're demanding that government or some other entity treat you more favorably than it does other people, the onus is on you to show why you deserve such special treatment. The default setting is that we should all be treated equally.

    People seeking to overturn a discriminatory program don't have any burden of proof on them- the burden is on the side supporting the discrimination.

    You make this statement as if proof hasn't been offered. Lots and lots of proof. You may refuse to acknowledge it, but it's been presented it, so you don't get to say this and expect us to take you seriously.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Simple answer- if you're demanding that government or some other entity treat you more favorably than it does other people, the onus is on you to show why you deserve such special treatment. The default setting is that we should all be treated equally.

    People seeking to overturn a discriminatory program don't have any burden of proof on them- the burden is on the side supporting the discrimination.

    So basically, black people have to prove that discrimination is occurring, where as white people can be taken on their word.

    Your attempt to weasel out of this is by saying, "White people don't have to prove that they are being discriminated against, because we already know that they're being discriminated against."

    You're relying on circular logic.

    Schrodinger on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    AA isn't even demanding white people pay actual money that they ought to pay in compensation.

    You know whats great about being white? All the money my polish peasant farmer ancestors who emigrated here in the 1900s made from slavery. Let me tell you back in the old country everyone has a mansion that makes Tara look like a a double wide. Hell my kin there probably still have house servants, even if they did sell off the family potato plantation.

    Plus Polish people have never been discriminated against in the US. My Great-Grandparents got off the boat and used their slave money to move into a lovely house in the nice part of town, and then used their high-paying executive jobs to buy a summer house in Martha's Vineyard. Hell my grandfather didn't pay a dime for school thanks to the polish scholarship fund, he even got to take a few cruises around the Pacific before enrolling. Like a year off to backpack in Europe, except with boats.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Hey Tim, I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation that the University of Wisconsin gives free tuition to Asian people solely for being Asian, regardless of income.

    Thanks!

    Schrodinger on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Simple answer- if you're demanding that government or some other entity treat you more favorably than it does other people, the onus is on you to show why you deserve such special treatment. The default setting is that we should all be treated equally.

    People seeking to overturn a discriminatory program don't have any burden of proof on them- the burden is on the side supporting the discrimination.

    So basically, black people have to prove that discrimination is occurring, where as white people can be taken on their word.

    Your attempt to weasel out of this is by saying, "White people don't have to prove that they are being discriminated against, because we already know that they're being discriminated against."

    You're relying on circular logic.
    AA, by its very nature, discriminates based on race. That's kind of the whole damn point of AA- it gives one group an advantage based on race. Or do you disagree? So, people supporting AA are supporting a system that is designed to dicriminate against people whereas people who oppose AA are supporting a system that eliminates that dicrimination.

    The onus is on the person demanding special treatment to make their case, not on the person who argues for equal treatment for all.
    wwtMask wrote: »
    You make this statement as if proof hasn't been offered. Lots and lots of proof. You may refuse to acknowledge it, but it's been presented it, so you don't get to say this and expect us to take you seriously.
    No, you haven't shown any proof that black person X deserves special treatment because he has personally been discriminated against. The fact that black people, as a group, tend to be less wealthy is meaningless. If you want special compensation, you personally have to show why you deserve it.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Hey Tim, I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation that the University of Wisconsin gives free tuition to Asian people solely for being Asian, regardless of income.

    Thanks!

    I claimed they gave a full ride to a Vietnamese kid I knew personally because he was Vietnamese(cause he didn't need the $ thats for damn sure). Not that it was some universal policy, just that its example of the flawed nature of race as a "need for assistance" marker.

    But heres an example from the engineering college(which would probably exclude Asians).

    New Freshman LEED (Leaders in Engineering Excellence and Diversity) Scholarship (formerly the Diversity Affairs Scholarship)
    Class Level: Freshman Students
    Major: Any in Engineering
    Number of Awards: Varies
    Amount of Award: Varies
    Application Deadline: March 15
    (Adobe Acrobat PDF application form)
    Eligibility: Underrepresented minority students and women of all ethnic backgrounds
    Contact: Libby A. Lee, Diversity Affairs Office, [email protected].

    There are the 2 requirements:
    Attend the college offering the scholarship
    Be a Minority / Women


    Doesn't take a genius to imagine the firestorm the inverse of this scholarship would cause, aka white / male exclusive.

    looking at the http://scholarships.wisc.edu/Scholarships/Scholarships.jsp?orgId=29
    The nursing college scholarships
    I can't find any that reference men(a clear minority in nursing), though their are 2 that are racial minority exclusive.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
Sign In or Register to comment.