[Affirmative Action] Perspectives and solutions

1111214161721

Posts

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.
    Except, the solution you support is, on its face, racially discriminatory. I fail to see how racial discrimination is a legitimate solution to racial discrimination.

    The point that your missing is that doing nothing is also racially discriminatory. As proven by numerous studies that show that doing nothing will result in discrimination against black people.

    You just don't care, because it's the type of discrimination that benefits you, by giving you an unfair advantage. Where as that other type of discrimination will benefit everyone by taking away your unfair advantage.
    Except, the two situations are not the same. You support active racial discrimination. On the other hand, I'm not happy with the results of past discrimination that disadvantage certain minorities, but that system of passive disadvantage is better than being in favor of active racial discrimination.

    You keep trying to dance around the fact that you're the one who supports active racial discrimination, while I oppose such a system.
    AA supporters seem to have no problem with disadvantaging people for the sins of others.

    You benefit from racism. You.

    That is not a "sins of others" thing. That is something that you personally benefit from.
    Maybe. But even if I do, my hands are clean since I don't engage in discrimination against anyone.

    This makes no sense. If you're benefitting from the bad behavior of others, how are your hands clean?
    Therefore, you don't have the moral or legal right to demand I suffer any diasdvantage to make up for other peoples' sins.

    If you're benefitting from the bad behavior, you're not morally separated from the bad behavior, so why should you be separated from the corrective action?
    Do you consider it morally acceptable to punish someone for the wrongdoings of others?

    What's wrong with this if the person in question is benefitting from the bad behavior. For example, when we attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, the majority of the people who suffered the consequences of the war had nothing at all to do with the Taliban or Al Qaeda or 9/11. And yet I bet you'll say that it was justified that we invaded that country.

    EDIT: Actually, this example is better suited to the "punishing someone who had nothing to do with it" line. A better example would be the FDIC, whom all banks have to give money to for insurance, but they will only ever be used by bad banks.

    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: »
    Every racially discriminatory practice in the past benefitted somebody. And they were all as wrong as AA.

    Wow, that's a terrible non-sequitur that shows zero grasp of logic.

    I'm arbitrarily declare every drug on Earth to be immoral.

    Why? Because every drug on Earth has benefited someone. Maybe it was a drug dealer. Or someone who needed the inheritance money.

    Therefore, Tylenol is morally wrong.
    If a good solution doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. That's unfortunately the case sometimes. But the fact that I can't come up with a better solutiuon doesn't mean that your solution is any good.

    The fact that you can't come up with a better solution shows that you're just complaining because you don't like to see anything challenge your white privilege.

    Schrodinger on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Do you consider it morally acceptable to punish someone for the wrongdoings of others?

    It's not moral but it makes for great reading in the fourth grade.

    emnmnme on
  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Heartlash wrote: »
    valiance wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    I'm honestly of the opinion that the more fair and pragmatic solution to the social and economic racial divide should involve a significantly heavier investment of local and federal money into social and educational programs and facilities in problematic areas.

    The playing field needs to be leveled at a foundational level. Schools, social programs, and public facilities need to be elevated to the level of schools and public facilities in affluent areas. This prevents the problem from being highlighted as specifically racial, while solving the racial problem inherent in our current socio-economic situation.

    We don't give someone an advantage because they're a member of a minority. We consider poorer areas the highest priority for effort and funding.

    except this does nothing to address the explicitly racial disadvantages and discrimination that minorities suffer every day. see: ease of getting loans, ease of getting a job, ease of getting a mortgage, ease of finding a place to rent.

    Additionally, I hold that racial inequality is a problem in and of itself, not just as an adjunct to the more general problem of class discrimination. if your problem is: black people are underrepresented in higher education and the workplace; then you solve that problem by addressing black people, not by trying to help everyone else and helping black people only incidentally or not at all.

    I disagree, as legal racial discrimination no longer exists in this country. I think the problem is primarily a byproduct of past discriminatory practices creating a glass ceiling for members of specific groups.

    From a legal standpoint, I don't think the issue can properly be addressed through any means outside of economic class unless you establish a currently relevant systemic reason (e.g. segregation, etc) that particular minorities have it worse.

    It HAS to be based on class, because the problem itself IS class. Poor black kids aren't missing out in life because they're black, they're missing out because they're poor. Prior racial discrimination is what got them there, sure, but it's no longer what's keeping them there.

    read the thread. we have talked extensively about current racial discrimination against blacks that while not legal, does occur every day. so the current laws are wholly ineffective to prevent the ills we are discussing--hence, affirmative action.

    @ tinwhiskers: schrodinger's point re: pollution is that IF the standard for enforcing pollution laws were as high as the standard you're using to prove discrimination, there' would be no effective anti-pollution legislation

    valiance on
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Heartlash wrote: »

    I disagree, as legal racial discrimination no longer exists in this country.

    As Schrodinger pointed out, the thing that AA is meant to address is something that is impossible to address with current anti-discrimination laws. It is not explicit, it is in fact hidden so much that some people don't even consciously do it. An employer can point to millions of reasons why he chose to hire William over Jamal, so many that he can convince himself that he isn't being racist in fact.




    (also, firefox spell checker is racist because it doesn't recognize Jamal as valid while it does William (it also doesn't recognize firefox...))

    Julius on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Does anyone else notice how Tin responds to several pages worth of analysis by posting the same meaningless statement over and over again, without actually bothering to defend or explain said sentence when he is challenged on it?

    Tin, you never answered the question.

    White people, in general, benefit from a racial bonus. How do you plan to correct for this advantage that white people receive in general without actually targeting the problem in general? How do you address a problem that affects the entire white population without affecting the entire white population?

    Your comparison to water boarding and racial profiling fails, because there is nothing inherent about being middle eastern and being a terrorist. However, there is something inherent about being white and benefiting from white privilege. There is no comparison. A Middle Eastern has to make a conscious effort to commit an act of terrorism. A white person applying for a job doesn't have to do anything to benefit from his whiteness. Benefiting from whiteness is inherent to being white.

    So your comparison fails. Your attempt to insist that this is discrimination fails.
    You are framing your question to me as "How do we do X without doing Y?" all I'm saying "You can't do Y, Y is unjust", I'm not on the hook for alternative ways of achieving X.*

    Except in this case, "X" is the fact that white people received an unfair racial bonus based solely on being white, and "Y" is any attempt to challenge said racial bonus.

    So what you're saying is that any attempt to challenge the natural racial bonus of white people is unjust.

    While patting yourself on the back on how non-racist you are.

    Oh sure, you might claim that you're opposed to the unfair racial bonus of white people. But you're not responsible if you demand that people find a way to take that bonus away in a way that doesn't take that bonus away.

    Schrodinger on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    My world view includes a belief that it is not just to try and balance out discrimination through more discrimination.

    So if someone gives you a stolen Xbox, it would be wrong for the owner to reclaim his property.

    Because it's wrong for someone to try to balance out taking an Xbox by taking an Xbox.

    There's a logical disconnect there, right?
    If you can show how I am currently in the possession of something that belongs to someone else, of course I should be required to return that item. That's basically what laws that allow people to sue for racial discrimination do- they let people recover damages for losses arising from racial discrimination.

    But AA is quite different because it completely avoids trying to punish individuals for wrongdoing, but instead assumes that every white person deserves to be disadvantaged based on their skin color.
    You either don't get, or don't care, that AA leads to discrimination against innocent individuals for the past sins of other people, or for the sins of society in general.

    Again, you're holding white people to a completely different standard to black people in an attempt to prove you aren't racist. When your double standard actually proves the exact opposite.

    White people in general benefit from a massive racial bonus simply for being white. You have no problem with this.

    Affirmative Action attempts to take some of that bonus away. Not all of it. Just a little. And only in very specific areas. But this is something that you have a huge problem with.

    Again, if white people in general have a racial bonus, then how do you solve that problem without negatively affecting white people in general?
    Again, you keep talking about vague terms like "general benefits" which are completely meaningless. You keep dodging the central issue her: you're the one who supports a system based on racial discrimination. And I oppose such a system. You can't really spin your way out of that.

    I don't have a solution. But that doesn't mean your favored solution (AA) is right or just.

    So you don't have any actual moral standard to accuse someone else of being immoral, but you're going to say that they are anyway, because you don't want to give up your white privilege.
    I think most people would agree that racial discrimination is wrong. You support a system of racial discrimination. What does that say about you?

    It's sad that you accuse people who don't support AA of supporting racial privilege, yet you're the one supporting the existence of a system based around giving people advantages and disadvantages based on race.

    You're like those conservatives who claim to dislike big government, unless big government is enforcing their personal preferences.

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

  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.
    Except, the solution you support is, on its face, racially discriminatory. I fail to see how racial discrimination is a legitimate solution to racial discrimination.

    The point that your missing is that doing nothing is also racially discriminatory. As proven by numerous studies that show that doing nothing will result in discrimination against black people.

    You just don't care, because it's the type of discrimination that benefits you, by giving you an unfair advantage. Where as that other type of discrimination will benefit everyone by taking away your unfair advantage.
    Except, the two situations are not the same. You support active racial discrimination. On the other hand, I'm not happy with the results of past discrimination that disadvantage certain minorities, but that system of passive disadvantage is better than being in favor of active racial discrimination.

    You keep trying to dance around the fact that you're the one who supports active racial discrimination, while I oppose such a system.
    AA supporters seem to have no problem with disadvantaging people for the sins of others.

    You benefit from racism. You.

    That is not a "sins of others" thing. That is something that you personally benefit from.
    Maybe. But even if I do, my hands are clean since I don't engage in discrimination against anyone. Therefore, you don't have the moral or legal right to demand I suffer any diasdvantage to make up for other peoples' sins.

    Do you consider it morally acceptable to punish someone for the wrongdoings of others?

    leaving the system of passive disadvantage in place is only better than being in favor of active racial discrimination for you and people like you. discrimination is going on right now but you don't care when it doesn't affect you. the active/passive dichotomy is a false one. and its completely morally bankrupt.

    you arbitrarily privilege one form of discrimination (past discrimination against blacks, which is AOK in your book) over the other (current discrimination against whites) simply because it happened first (and not to your people), disregarding all other context and the things which make them different i.e. the things which make one form acceptable in limited circumstances (affirmative action), and the other reprehensible at all times (jim crow).

    not all discrimination is equally wrong. in fact, not all discrimination is illegal or immoral.

    here's a similar question: post-revolution, what should have happened to the land in Zimbabawe that was unfairly monopolized by white farmers for generations? should it be apportioned up and given to the black farmers to try to rectify past injustices? Or is that merely countering one form of theft with another? (in which case, conveniently, nothing can ever change)

    valiance on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    [QUOTE=Modern Man;16910040Except, the two situations are not the same. You support active racial discrimination.[/quote]

    Do handicap lanes discriminate against people who aren't handicap?

    Just answer the question.
    You keep trying to dance around the fact that you're the one who supports active racial discrimination, while I oppose such a system.

    Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

    Discriminating against people with black names is racism, because you're assuming that the black candidate is inferior based on racial differences, even though the resumes are otherwise identical. The same goes for when an employer hires the white felon over the crime free black kid.

    AA does not promote the idea that black people are superior. It does not promote the idea that white people are inferior. Quite the contrary. AA is created under the assumption that black people should be treated as equal, and should therefore have the same opportunities to attend colleges that white people do. It does not assume any differences regarding individual differences because of the person's race. In predominately black colleges, AA has allowed white people to gain admission.

    Racism: "People think that black people and white people are equal, but they're not. White people are actually superior."

    Affirmative Action: "People think that white people are superior to black people, but they're not. If a black person were allowed into college, then a black person would have the same chance of succeeding."

    Your refusal to acknowledge the fundamental difference is dishonest.

    AA doesn't promote racism. The status quo you're suggesting that everyone live by does.

    Maybe. But even if I do, my hands are clean since I don't engage in discrimination against anyone. Therefore, you don't have the moral or legal right to demand I suffer any diasdvantage to make up for other peoples' sins.

    You didn't steal the Xbox yourself, you only received it as a Christmas present.

    Therefore, no one has a moral right to demand that you return the Xbox and suffer a disadvantage to make up for someone else's sin.

    Seriously though, would you keep the Xbox?

    Schrodinger on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    valiance wrote: »

    @ tinwhiskers: schrodinger's point re: pollution is that IF the standard for enforcing pollution laws were as high as the standard you're using to prove discrimination, there' would be no effective anti-pollution legislation
    That's not correct. Anti-pollution laws say "you can't dump X into the environment." If a company is caught dumping X into the environment, that gives rise to either the government or private parties suing them for damages, getting an injunction etc. That's no different than anti-discrimination laws which give government/private parties the power to sue companies for discriminating.

    But, in all such cases, you need to show that the company actually did violate the law before you force them to do something.

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

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Does anyone else notice how Tin responds to several pages worth of analysis by posting the same meaningless statement over and over again, without actually bothering to defend or explain said sentence when he is challenged on it?

    Tin, you never answered the question.

    White people, in general, benefit from a racial bonus. How do you plan to correct for this advantage that white people receive in general without actually targeting the problem in general? How do you address a problem that affects the entire white population without affecting the entire white population?

    Your comparison to water boarding and racial profiling fails, because there is nothing inherent about being middle eastern and being a terrorist. However, there is something inherent about being white and benefiting from white privilege. There is no comparison. A Middle Eastern has to make a conscious effort to commit an act of terrorism. A white person applying for a job doesn't have to do anything to benefit from his whiteness. Benefiting from whiteness is inherent to being white.

    So your comparison fails. Your attempt to insist that this is discrimination fails.
    You are framing your question to me as "How do we do X without doing Y?" all I'm saying "You can't do Y, Y is unjust", I'm not on the hook for alternative ways of achieving X.*

    Except in this case, "X" is the fact that white people received an unfair racial bonus based solely on being white, and "Y" is any attempt to challenge said racial bonus.

    So what you're saying is that any attempt to challenge the natural racial bonus of white people is unjust.

    While patting yourself on the back on how non-racist you are.

    Oh sure, you might claim that you're opposed to the unfair racial bonus of white people. But you're not responsible if you demand that people find a way to take that bonus away in a way that doesn't take that bonus away.

    Hit the quote button, delete all but one sentence, ignore direct questions, straw man, pat yourself on the back for your well reasoned argument.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Again, trying to frame racism solely as a byproduct of economic inequality is wrong. Being in the upper class doesn't insulate minorities from discrimination based on their race.

    it seems to greatly ease it

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    No, that was a pretty good summation of your position, tinwhiskers.

    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
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    stop that

    have a discussion or don't

    but don't give sniping metacommentary on another person's posting style

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Again, trying to frame racism solely as a byproduct of economic inequality is wrong. Being in the upper class doesn't insulate minorities from discrimination based on their race.

    it seems to greatly ease it

    Won't prevent a racist cop from pulling you over for driving while black.

    Yeah it makes it easier to get over, but that rich people can still experience racism pretty much proves that ignoring race and only treating poverty isn't sufficient.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you can show how I am currently in the possession of something that belongs to someone else, of course I should be required to return that item.

    So in other words, it is okay to punish you for someone else's sin, as long as we can prove that you benefit from that sin and that there is no way to address that sin without putting you at a disadvantage.

    Which means that your entire objection to AA falls.
    But AA is quite different because it completely avoids trying to punish individuals for wrongdoing, but instead assumes that every white person deserves to be disadvantaged based on their skin color.

    Not every white person. Just the ones who received a stolen Xbox for Christmas.

    Since you're already okay with punishing people who received a stolen Xbox by taking away their Xbox, I'm not sure what the problem is for doing this on a large scale.

    Again, you keep talking about vague terms like "general benefits" which are completely meaningless.

    If talk of "general benefits" are meaningless, then your talk of being "disadvantaged" is equally meaningless. Because in both cases, we are discussing the exact same thing: A matter of statistical likelihood.

    Why do you consider a statistical disadvantage something "meaningless" when it affects black people, but the greatest injustice in Earth history when it affects white people?

    Is it because you're white, and you see white people as more deserving?

    Schrodinger on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Again, trying to frame racism solely as a byproduct of economic inequality is wrong. Being in the upper class doesn't insulate minorities from discrimination based on their race.

    it seems to greatly ease it

    It eases class discrimination, not racial discrimination. There have been rich black people in America since at least the 1800s. Said wealth didn't open the Whites Only doors for them.

    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
    Do handicap lanes discriminate against people who aren't handicap?

    Just answer the question.
    Sure. I don't support handicapped parking spots being mandated by law.
    You keep trying to dance around the fact that you're the one who supports active racial discrimination, while I oppose such a system.

    Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

    Discriminating against people with black names is racism, because you're assuming that the black candidate is inferior based on racial differences, even though the resumes are otherwise identical. The same goes for when an employer hires the white felon over the crime free black kid.

    AA does not promote the idea that black people are superior. It does not promote the idea that white people are inferior. Quite the contrary. AA is created under the assumption that black people should be treated as equal, and should therefore have the same opportunities to attend colleges that white people do. It does not assume any differences regarding individual differences because of the person's race. In predominately black colleges, AA has allowed white people to gain admission.

    Racism: "People think that black people and white people are equal, but they're not. White people are actually superior."

    Affirmative Action: "People think that white people are superior to black people, but they're not. If a black person were allowed into college, then a black person would have the same chance of succeeding."

    Your refusal to acknowledge the fundamental difference is dishonest.

    AA doesn't promote racism. The status quo you're suggesting that everyone live by does.
    Go back and read my statement in the bolded above. I really have no idea what your comment here has to do with what I wrote.

    Unless you're trying to dodge around the fact that AA is racial discrimination?

    Maybe. But even if I do, my hands are clean since I don't engage in discrimination against anyone. Therefore, you don't have the moral or legal right to demand I suffer any diasdvantage to make up for other peoples' sins.

    You didn't steal the Xbox yourself, you only received it as a Christmas present.

    Therefore, no one has a moral right to demand that you return the Xbox and suffer a disadvantage to make up for someone else's sin.

    Seriously though, would you keep the Xbox?
    I would return it since, in this scenario, there is a specific person who can point to a specific piece of property that rightfully belongs to him.

    Of course, that is completely different than AA, where no specific individual can point to a specific piece of property that was unlawfully taken from him. And they certainly can't show that I am in possession of their property.

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

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Again, you keep talking about vague terms like "general benefits" which are completely meaningless.

    If talk of "general benefits" are meaningless, then your talk of being "disadvantaged" is equally meaningless. Because in both cases, we are discussing the exact same thing: A matter of statistical likelihood.

    Why do you consider a statistical disadvantage something "meaningless" when it affects black people, but the greatest injustice in Earth history when it affects white people?

    Is it because you're white, and you see white people as more deserving?

    This is actually a great point. MM and Tinwhiskers, can you show that you have individually been the victim of AA? If not, what are you complaining about? Your bar for corrective action on behalf of minorities is "provable individual cases of racial discrimination". Why is that bar not the same height for corrective action on behalf of whites against AA?

    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
  • PM Ex FanPM Ex Fan Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Do handicap lanes discriminate against people who aren't handicap?

    Just answer the question.
    Sure. I don't support handicapped parking spots being mandated by law.

    I'm not really sure what can be said about this. Does it not strike you as self-serving for an able-bodied man to be opposed to handicapped parking spots?

    PM Ex Fan on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Again, trying to frame racism solely as a byproduct of economic inequality is wrong. Being in the upper class doesn't insulate minorities from discrimination based on their race.

    it seems to greatly ease it

    It eases class discrimination, not racial discrimination. There have been rich black people in America since at least the 1800s. Said wealth didn't open the Whites Only doors for them.

    it has struck me that modern racism is centrally informed by the expectation of poverty. when i was waiting tables in west texas, servers (of all races) would fight over who had to take tables of black guests because they assumed the black people were poor and wouldn't tip well. it went about the same for mexicans.

    most of the stories you hear about, like, sammy davis junior or james brown or harry belafonte being discriminated against revolve around someone assuming that they're poor and treating them shabbily and then once it comes out that they're someone rich and important then suddenly everyone is bowing and scraping.

    and, sure, the assumption of poverty is kind of racist in and of itself, but it's also informed by the fact that black people are statistically much more likely to be poor.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Does anyone else notice how Tin responds to several pages worth of analysis by posting the same meaningless statement over and over again, without actually bothering to defend or explain said sentence when he is challenged on it?

    Tin, you never answered the question.

    White people, in general, benefit from a racial bonus. How do you plan to correct for this advantage that white people receive in general without actually targeting the problem in general? How do you address a problem that affects the entire white population without affecting the entire white population?

    Your comparison to water boarding and racial profiling fails, because there is nothing inherent about being middle eastern and being a terrorist. However, there is something inherent about being white and benefiting from white privilege. There is no comparison. A Middle Eastern has to make a conscious effort to commit an act of terrorism. A white person applying for a job doesn't have to do anything to benefit from his whiteness. Benefiting from whiteness is inherent to being white.

    So your comparison fails. Your attempt to insist that this is discrimination fails.
    You are framing your question to me as "How do we do X without doing Y?" all I'm saying "You can't do Y, Y is unjust", I'm not on the hook for alternative ways of achieving X.*

    Except in this case, "X" is the fact that white people received an unfair racial bonus based solely on being white, and "Y" is any attempt to challenge said racial bonus.

    So what you're saying is that any attempt to challenge the natural racial bonus of white people is unjust.

    While patting yourself on the back on how non-racist you are.

    Oh sure, you might claim that you're opposed to the unfair racial bonus of white people. But you're not responsible if you demand that people find a way to take that bonus away in a way that doesn't take that bonus away.

    Hit the quote button, delete all but one sentence, ignore direct questions, straw man, pat yourself on the back for your well reasoned argument.

    I'll address the rest of the posting when you explain your first point.

    Suppose that I'm in a creationism thread and someone posts, "I believe that curriculum should be scientific, but I don't support scientific method." Now, I could try refuting their evidence. But it would be pointless to try to address their evidence on scientific grounds if that other person already rejects the entire foundation of science.

    You say that you're against pro-white racial bonuses, but you also opposed to anything that takes that bonus away. There's no point to any further discussion.

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Again, you keep talking about vague terms like "general benefits" which are completely meaningless.

    If talk of "general benefits" are meaningless, then your talk of being "disadvantaged" is equally meaningless. Because in both cases, we are discussing the exact same thing: A matter of statistical likelihood.

    Why do you consider a statistical disadvantage something "meaningless" when it affects black people, but the greatest injustice in Earth history when it affects white people?

    Is it because you're white, and you see white people as more deserving?

    This is actually a great point. MM and Tinwhiskers, can you show that you have individually been the victim of AA? If not, what are you complaining about? Your bar for corrective action on behalf of minorities is "provable individual cases of racial discrimination". Why is that bar not the same height for corrective action on behalf of whites against AA?

    It's because white people are better.

    Schrodinger on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    PM Ex Fan wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Do handicap lanes discriminate against people who aren't handicap?

    Just answer the question.
    Sure. I don't support handicapped parking spots being mandated by law.

    I'm not really sure what can be said about this. Does it not strike you as self-serving for an able-bodied man to be opposed to handicapped parking spots?

    Libertarianism is inherently self-serving.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You keep trying to dance around the fact that you're the one who supports active racial discrimination, while I oppose such a system.

    Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

    Discriminating against people with black names is racism, because you're assuming that the black candidate is inferior based on racial differences, even though the resumes are otherwise identical. The same goes for when an employer hires the white felon over the crime free black kid.

    AA does not promote the idea that black people are superior. It does not promote the idea that white people are inferior. Quite the contrary. AA is created under the assumption that black people should be treated as equal, and should therefore have the same opportunities to attend colleges that white people do. It does not assume any differences regarding individual differences because of the person's race. In predominately black colleges, AA has allowed white people to gain admission.

    Racism: "People think that black people and white people are equal, but they're not. White people are actually superior."

    Affirmative Action: "People think that white people are superior to black people, but they're not. If a black person were allowed into college, then a black person would have the same chance of succeeding."

    Your refusal to acknowledge the fundamental difference is dishonest.

    AA doesn't promote racism. The status quo you're suggesting that everyone live by does.
    Go back and read my statement in the bolded above. I really have no idea what your comment here has to do with what I wrote.

    Unless you're trying to dodge around the fact that AA is racial discrimination?

    Can you tell us why racial discrimination is bad in the absence of actual racism?

    Are cosmetic companies racist when they sort out makeup based on skin color?
    I would return it since, in this scenario, there is a specific person who can point to a specific piece of property that rightfully belongs to him.

    Which nullifies your main objection about being punished for the sins of others.

    Of course, that is completely different than AA, where no specific individual can point to a specific piece of property that was unlawfully taken from him.[/quote]

    That sure doesn't seem to stop you from blaming all your problems on AA as a white person, does it?

    Why are black people held to a different standard?

    Why are black people forced to prove specific damages, but white people only need to assert damages in general? Why do they continue doing this even after they already got into the college of their choosing, and AA obviously had no impact on them whatsoever?

    Schrodinger on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Can you tell us why racial discrimination is bad in the absence of actual racism?

    Are cosmetic companies racist when they sort out makeup based on skin color?

    This is a good point. Racial discrimination =/= racism in every case.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Again, trying to frame racism solely as a byproduct of economic inequality is wrong. Being in the upper class doesn't insulate minorities from discrimination based on their race.

    it seems to greatly ease it

    It eases class discrimination, not racial discrimination. There have been rich black people in America since at least the 1800s. Said wealth didn't open the Whites Only doors for them.

    it has struck me that modern racism is centrally informed by the expectation of poverty. when i was waiting tables in west texas, servers (of all races) would fight over who had to take tables of black guests because they assumed the black people were poor and wouldn't tip well. it went about the same for mexicans.

    most of the stories you hear about, like, sammy davis junior or james brown or harry belafonte being discriminated against revolve around someone assuming that they're poor and treating them shabbily and then once it comes out that they're someone rich and important then suddenly everyone is bowing and scraping.

    and, sure, the assumption of poverty is kind of racist in and of itself, but it's also informed by the fact that black people are statistically much more likely to be poor.

    Your point is indeed is pretty much the issue. Most racism that occurs nowadays is indeed about statistical bullshitting. The assumption of poverty is racist and harmful though.

    I understand it when people say it's about class and not race, but I disagree because when someone is assumed to be lower class because of their race it's absurd to suggest it's not about their race.

    Julius on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Again, you keep talking about vague terms like "general benefits" which are completely meaningless.

    If talk of "general benefits" are meaningless, then your talk of being "disadvantaged" is equally meaningless. Because in both cases, we are discussing the exact same thing: A matter of statistical likelihood.

    Why do you consider a statistical disadvantage something "meaningless" when it affects black people, but the greatest injustice in Earth history when it affects white people?

    Is it because you're white, and you see white people as more deserving?

    This is actually a great point. MM and Tinwhiskers, can you show that you have individually been the victim of AA? If not, what are you complaining about? Your bar for corrective action on behalf of minorities is "provable individual cases of racial discrimination". Why is that bar not the same height for corrective action on behalf of whites against AA?
    I oppose AA for the same reason that I oppose things like racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws: any law or policy that dicriminates for/against someone based on their race is unjust. Whether or not such a law harms me personally is irrelevant.

    Following your logic, white people shouldn't have supported the passage of civil rights laws, since it wasn't like Jim Crow laws hurt Joe McWhitedude.
    Can you tell us why racial discrimination is bad in the absence of actual racism?

    Are cosmetic companies racist when they sort out makeup based on skin color?

    This is a good point. Racial discrimination =/= racism in every case.
    Except, this is not an example of racial discrimination, since cosmetics companies will sell you whatever shade of lipstick you want. Regardless of your race.

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

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Is medicare wrong because they only let old people use it? That's ageism!

    Ageism, apparently being in Firefox's dictionary.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • NuckerNucker Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Is medicare wrong because they only let old people use it? That's ageism!

    Ageism, apparently being in Firefox's dictionary.

    And people who've been receiving social security disability benefits for two full years. Not just old folks.

    Nucker on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Is medicare wrong because they only let old people use it? That's ageism!

    Ageism, apparently being in Firefox's dictionary.
    You do realize that different types of discrimination are handled differently, from a Constitutional point of view, in this country? Giving someone an advantage based on age is more permissible because we're all going to get old (hopefully). Giving advantages based on race is different, since people can't really change their race.

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

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Again, you keep talking about vague terms like "general benefits" which are completely meaningless.

    If talk of "general benefits" are meaningless, then your talk of being "disadvantaged" is equally meaningless. Because in both cases, we are discussing the exact same thing: A matter of statistical likelihood.

    Why do you consider a statistical disadvantage something "meaningless" when it affects black people, but the greatest injustice in Earth history when it affects white people?

    Is it because you're white, and you see white people as more deserving?

    This is actually a great point. MM and Tinwhiskers, can you show that you have individually been the victim of AA? If not, what are you complaining about? Your bar for corrective action on behalf of minorities is "provable individual cases of racial discrimination". Why is that bar not the same height for corrective action on behalf of whites against AA?
    I oppose AA for the same reason that I oppose things like racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws: any law or policy that dicriminates for/against someone based on their race is unjust. Whether or not such a law harms me personally is irrelevant.

    Following your logic, white people shouldn't have supported the passage of civil rights laws, since it wasn't like Jim Crow laws hurt Joe McWhitedude.

    You call that following my logic? That's serious abuse of the phrase, to the point that I question your understanding of it. If you followed my logic (which is actually your logic), white people should only have had to see that black people were individually harmed by Jim Crow laws to support civil rights laws. The whole line of thought is based on the (idiotic) idea that harm from racial discrimination is only valid if individual cases can be proven. Only, for you and tin, the only time you apply this standard is to minorities. When you apply it to your objection to AA, you forget that you care about specific, individual cases and instead argue it from a general perspective. In other words, it's a double standard, which you've yet to explain your reasoning for holding.

    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
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Again, you keep talking about vague terms like "general benefits" which are completely meaningless.

    If talk of "general benefits" are meaningless, then your talk of being "disadvantaged" is equally meaningless. Because in both cases, we are discussing the exact same thing: A matter of statistical likelihood.

    Why do you consider a statistical disadvantage something "meaningless" when it affects black people, but the greatest injustice in Earth history when it affects white people?

    Is it because you're white, and you see white people as more deserving?

    This is actually a great point. MM and Tinwhiskers, can you show that you have individually been the victim of AA? If not, what are you complaining about? Your bar for corrective action on behalf of minorities is "provable individual cases of racial discrimination". Why is that bar not the same height for corrective action on behalf of whites against AA?

    1) Personal injury isn't required to have an opinion on something. I don't need to be hit by a drunk driver to know drunk driving should be illegal.

    2) You know how Schrodinger was saying its hard to prove racism, because companies don't generally send out public memos reading 'Hire more white people, this office is getting too dark ;) ;) ', when schools make AA policies, they are sending out that memo. If a company did that and hired in a way consistent with it, their ass should get nailed, but the low hanging bigot fruit has peen picked pretty cleanly at this point.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    You do realize that different types of discrimination are handled differently, from a Constitutional point of view, in this country? Giving someone an advantage based on age is more permissible because we're all going to get old (hopefully). Giving advantages based on race is different, since people can't really change their race.

    And there you go, you've explained why we use AA. SS only being available to old people (for the most part) is ok even though I as a young person have to pay for it because old people need it. AA is ok even though some white person somewhere might be effected in a small way because many minorities need it.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Somehow, every single white kid who ever applied for AA is a "victim" of Affirmative Action. It doesn't matter if the white applicant got in despite AA, or if the white applicant would have been rejected without it. 100 hundred black kids got in despite being less qualified than Jennifer Gratz, therefore, all white kids are victims. Please ignore that 1200 less qualified white kids.

    To put this in perspective, keep in mind that UofM has over 40,000 students. I have no idea how many kids actually apply, but it appears that every black kid who gets in results in thousands of victims.

    Modern Man insist that some of these black kids managed to get in without any white equivalent, but he hasn't presented any specific numbers. Is this 5 black kids out of 40,000, 10 black kids out of 40,000, how many?

    It's funny how in order to prove victim hood, you don't actually have to prove that AA hurt you, or even that it might have hurt you (A white kid who gets into college can't blame his rejection on AA. Because he wasn't rejected.). What is his sole proof of victim hood? Why, it's the color of his skin.

    It's funny how Modern Man keeps going on and on about how he doesn't racially discriminate, yet he has absolutely no problem making general claims of "All white people are victims, I know, because there white."

    Why is it okay for Modern Man to generalize all white people as victims, but it's wrong for anyone else to generalize that all white people are beneficiaries? Especially considering the fact that AA is far more limited in scope. i.e., if you're a white kid applying for community college, then AA probably isn't going to affect you. If you don't apply to college at all, then AA probably isn't going to affect you. If you have an 800 SAT and a 2.0 GPA, then AA probably isn't going to affect you.

    It seems that the main objection to AA, compared to the rampant discrimination in society, is that AA is well defined and specific in scope. And somehow this makes it worse. It's sort of a reversal on the whole "Devil you know" concept.

    Schrodinger on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Again, you keep talking about vague terms like "general benefits" which are completely meaningless.

    If talk of "general benefits" are meaningless, then your talk of being "disadvantaged" is equally meaningless. Because in both cases, we are discussing the exact same thing: A matter of statistical likelihood.

    Why do you consider a statistical disadvantage something "meaningless" when it affects black people, but the greatest injustice in Earth history when it affects white people?

    Is it because you're white, and you see white people as more deserving?

    This is actually a great point. MM and Tinwhiskers, can you show that you have individually been the victim of AA? If not, what are you complaining about? Your bar for corrective action on behalf of minorities is "provable individual cases of racial discrimination". Why is that bar not the same height for corrective action on behalf of whites against AA?
    I oppose AA for the same reason that I oppose things like racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws: any law or policy that dicriminates for/against someone based on their race is unjust. Whether or not such a law harms me personally is irrelevant.

    Following your logic, white people shouldn't have supported the passage of civil rights laws, since it wasn't like Jim Crow laws hurt Joe McWhitedude.

    You call that following my logic? That's serious abuse of the phrase, to the point that I question your understanding of it. If you followed my logic (which is actually your logic), white people should only have had to see that black people were individually harmed by Jim Crow laws to support civil rights laws. The whole line of thought is based on the (idiotic) idea that harm from racial discrimination is only valid if individual cases can be proven. Only, for you and tin, the only time you apply this standard is to minorities. When you apply it to your objection to AA, you forget that you care about specific, individual cases and instead argue it from a general perspective. In other words, it's a double standard, which you've yet to explain your reasoning for holding.
    Jim Crow laws/practices were wrong because they discriminated for/against people based on race. AA laws/practices are wrong because they discriminate for/against people based on race.

    Seems like a pretty consistent position to me.

    In both cases, it wouldn't take much effort to find individuals harmed by Jim Crow laws/AA. But there's no need to do so, since both Jim Crow and AA are racially discriminatory by their very nature, and are therefore unjust.

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

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I oppose AA for the same reason that I oppose things like racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws: any law or policy that dicriminates for/against someone based on their race is unjust.

    Prove that such a law would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism, without merely repeating your assertion that it is.
    Following your logic, white people shouldn't have supported the passage of civil rights laws, since it wasn't like Jim Crow laws hurt Joe McWhitedude.

    Jim Crow was based the dictionary definition of racism that was posted earlier. AA is not. Your analogy is fail.
    This is a good point. Racial discrimination =/= racism in every case.
    Except, this is not an example of racial discrimination, since cosmetics companies will sell you whatever shade of lipstick you want. Regardless of your race.[/QUOTE]

    Is it racist to say that a black man should play Martin Luther King in the biopic? What happens if white people aren't considered for the role?

    Schrodinger on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Does anyone else notice how Tin responds to several pages worth of analysis by posting the same meaningless statement over and over again, without actually bothering to defend or explain said sentence when he is challenged on it?

    Tin, you never answered the question.

    White people, in general, benefit from a racial bonus. How do you plan to correct for this advantage that white people receive in general without actually targeting the problem in general? How do you address a problem that affects the entire white population without affecting the entire white population?

    Your comparison to water boarding and racial profiling fails, because there is nothing inherent about being middle eastern and being a terrorist. However, there is something inherent about being white and benefiting from white privilege. There is no comparison. A Middle Eastern has to make a conscious effort to commit an act of terrorism. A white person applying for a job doesn't have to do anything to benefit from his whiteness. Benefiting from whiteness is inherent to being white.

    So your comparison fails. Your attempt to insist that this is discrimination fails.
    You are framing your question to me as "How do we do X without doing Y?" all I'm saying "You can't do Y, Y is unjust", I'm not on the hook for alternative ways of achieving X.*

    Except in this case, "X" is the fact that white people received an unfair racial bonus based solely on being white, and "Y" is any attempt to challenge said racial bonus.

    So what you're saying is that any attempt to challenge the natural racial bonus of white people is unjust.

    While patting yourself on the back on how non-racist you are.

    Oh sure, you might claim that you're opposed to the unfair racial bonus of white people. But you're not responsible if you demand that people find a way to take that bonus away in a way that doesn't take that bonus away.

    Hit the quote button, delete all but one sentence, ignore direct questions, straw man, pat yourself on the back for your well reasoned argument.

    I'll address the rest of the posting when you explain your first point.

    Suppose that I'm in a creationism thread and someone posts, "I believe that curriculum should be scientific, but I don't support scientific method." Now, I could try refuting their evidence. But it would be pointless to try to address their evidence on scientific grounds if that other person already rejects the entire foundation of science.

    You say that you're against pro-white racial bonuses, but you also opposed to anything that takes that bonus away. There's no point to any further discussion.

    Okay X is your goal of 'eliminating racial disparity'
    Y is how you want to achieve it.

    Y can be things like
    Increased federal need based scholarships or
    A $500 a year tax only on white people given directly to minorities, or
    Seizing random white houses and giving them to minority families or
    Racial discriminatory hiring/college admittance process or
    indenturing every 10th white male or
    Increased funding for Teach For America and inner city schools

    I don't have to provide an alternative Y to say "Its unjust to seize peoples homes at random you shouldn't do that".

    for your ease of use
    QUOTE=tinwhiskers;16909972]
    Does anyone else notice how Tin responds to several pages worth of analysis by posting the same meaningless statement over and over again, without actually bothering to defend or explain said sentence when he is challenged on it?

    Tin, you never answered the question.

    White people, in general, benefit from a racial bonus. How do you plan to correct for this advantage that white people receive in general without actually targeting the problem in general? How do you address a problem that affects the entire white population without affecting the entire white population?

    Your comparison to water boarding and racial profiling fails, because there is nothing inherent about being middle eastern and being a terrorist. However, there is something inherent about being white and benefiting from white privilege. There is no comparison. A Middle Eastern has to make a conscious effort to commit an act of terrorism. A white person applying for a job doesn't have to do anything to benefit from his whiteness. Benefiting from whiteness is inherent to being white.

    So your comparison fails. Your attempt to insist that this is discrimination fails.
    You are framing your question to me as "How do we do X without doing Y?" all I'm saying "You can't do Y, Y is unjust", I'm not on the hook for alternative ways of achieving X.*

    It is on you(as the person who wishes to penalize someone) to prove that the individual warrants penalization, because our legal system deals with people as individuals not racial groups, and statistical data about not having a black name doesn't provide that. Alternatively you could assert white privilege as a universal -not general- claim, but that statement is "All white people are inherently advantaged against all black people.", which is trivial to disprove.

    Your reasoning(generality => universality & collective guilt) can be used to support both of these:

    example1: In general users of crack cocaine are more likely to commit crimes, beyond the consumption of cocaine, than users of powdered cocaine. Therefore it is reasonable to punish possession of crack more harshly than possession of powder cocaine.


    example2:
    Men rape women at disproportionate rates and reap some collective male economic advantage generated by it (economists can probably find one for just the ability to pee standing), therefore all men should share the punishment for every rape.



    *The AA goals(related to college admittance) can be achieved using non-race based criteria(Title 1 schools/single parent homes/first generation college student/low household income), or the Texas example(with tweaking since 10% to any school is causing havoc at the more cool/desirable schools). Why is this solution unacceptable to you?

    Beyond that, jiggling the college admittance bar around is a cart before horse fix when minority HS grad rates sit in the 50% range and birth rates are inversely proportional to education. I haven't done the math but the year to year growth you'd need for the minority middle class, just to keep the current middle:lower class ratio is probably insane. So it would make more sense to focus efforts on the 50-75% of minorities who will not currently attend college at any admittance standard, rather than those that would attend a poorer one without AA.
    Moreover, your solution of ignoring the problem on a general scale and suing businesses that discriminate fails, because you haven't given us a method for identifying such businesses in the first place. It is logically equivalent to saying, "We should not have laws against pollution, we should merely allow for sick people to sue offenders for damages." The problem being that this is completely inefficient and impossible to prove. How do you definitively establish that it was their pollution specifically caused your illness? All they would have to say is, "You got sick because of someone else's pollutions, not ours."

    Um, we have laws against both pollution and racial discrimination. You seem to be arguing that "Prove this company polluted" is an unreasonable standard for enforcing the pollution laws. "They use scary chemicals, the must be polluting, fine them" is no more rational than "they are run by white people, they must be discriminating, fine them". Sorry enforcing the law justly is so much work? But shortcuts to justice are really bad ideas.[/QUOTE]

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Is it racist to say that a black man should play Martin Luther King in the biopic? What happens if white people aren't considered for the role?

    Exactly. Racial discrimination isn't racist when there is a real logical reason to do so. Black people should play MLK because MLK was black.

    AA isn't racist because minorities actually do need a program like this. Racially discriminatory? Sure. Racist? No.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I oppose AA for the same reason that I oppose things like racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws: any law or policy that dicriminates for/against someone based on their race is unjust.

    Prove that such a law would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism, without merely repeating your assertion that it is.
    I'm kind of speechless here. Are you really saying that racial discrimination is OK so long as the motives behind such discrimination are OK, based on your subjective standards.

    Wow. Just wow.

    I guess the Southern states should have just re-enacted Jim Crow while pretending they were doing so out of love, and they would have been all set.

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

Sign In or Register to comment.