Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Affirmative Action] Perspectives and solutions

1121315171821

Posts

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    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.

    If that's the case, make with the evidence. Where is your proof that AA is harming white people? And if you have proof, show your work. Hell, I'll take statistical evidence if you have it.
    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.

    False equivalence is false. You know they're not the same, and only in a way that is most devoid of context and honesty can you say this with a straight face.

    But I'll simply go back to an earlier point about collateral damage: if the situation without corrective action is worse than the situation with corrective action, than any sane person will go with the corrective action. Unless, of course, you stand to benefit from the lack of corrective action. You've yet to explain why lack of corrective action leads to better outcomes beyond saying "it's unjust". Really? You know what else is unjust? Allowing racism to persist without taking corrective action.

    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
    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.

    Why not?

    Why should all drunk drivers be discriminated against just because some of them drive drunk?

    Isn't this a form of profiling?

    Oh, it's because merely being drunk in itself will result in creating a hazard.

    Just like being white, in itself, will result in white privilege.

    So explain again why it's wrong to address a problem that affects all[/i] white people in general by creating a policy that affects some white people in general?

    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.

    Actually, the memo would have to say, "Hire more white people when both candidates are equal, because our office only contains 3% white people."
    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.

    For some reason, I can't imagine a black people having a strong discrimination case against a company that was primarily black and where the candidates were otherwise equal. But perhaps you would care to correct me with actual case law?

    "This college is only 80% white! That's because they hate white people!"

    Yeah. Doesn't really work.

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    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'm asking you to prove that racial discrimination is inherently wrong in the absence of racism. i.e., prove to us that it is inherently wrong to reject white actors to play Martin Luther King in a movie. Is this racial discrimination? Yes. Is this wrong? Prove it.
    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.

    So your entire analogy hinges on the idea that Jim Crow laws were absent of racism, since that's what I was asking you for.

    Are you really going to argue that Jim Crow laws weren't racist? That Jim Crow laws weren't based on the idea that white people were superior?

    You're a silly goose.

    Schrodinger on
  • PM Ex FanPM Ex Fan Registered User
    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.

    Society discriminates against people based on their race, which is unjust. AA's aim is to mitigate societal biases and level the playing field, and there are studies saying that it is effective in its aims. Saying that it's an unjust law/policy without acknowledging the fact that it serves to undermine an innate injustice within society is rather short-sighted. It's racial discrimination yes, but why is that a bad thing?

    PM Ex Fan on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    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.

    The problem seems to be more with the notion that racial discrimination is always a bad thing. It's possible (if not common) for racial discrimination to be neutral or positive in nature.

    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
    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 us

    So you're opposed to any plan that attempts to make things equal.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Schrodinger on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Does MM support racial profiling in terms of national security?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Does MM support racial profiling in terms of national security?

    Does MM support racial profiling when casting the live adaptation of Fat Albert?

    Schrodinger on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers 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.

    Really? Did you read what you just typed? Does anyone have Schrodngers home address? He might be having a brain bleed.

    For starters lets just go with the non-coercion principle(Locke "Second Treatise on Government", or John Stewart Mill "On Liberty"), aka don't fuck with people for no reason. From there its on you the "pro anti-miscegenation" position to assert that race is sufficient grounds to fuck with someone.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • kaliyamakaliyama Left to find less-moderated fora Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    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.

    Uh, the current status of equal protection analysis for racial preferences in education says that it's OK, too. Quotas aren't, and haven't been for decades, as you know. "Discrimination" - i.e. treating people differently on the basis of a membership in a class like race or religion, isn't inherently wrong. In a world of de facto segregation discrimination against black people, it's not "discrimination" in a normatively negative sense to legally recognize what goes in the real world and take steps to address it. What law and policy does in those circumstances is recognize that others will discriminate against minorities and takes remedial action. The alternative - for the law to stick its fingers in its ears and go "Lah Lah Lah Lah!" is a positive choice to allow minorities to continue to suffer from discrimination.

    You may think AA is bad from a policy standpoint, but that's a different and more nuanced argument than saying "Well, I don't discriminate" because you resist any attempts to change the status quo caused by centuries of legal discrimination and persistent racist attitudes.

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • wwtMaskwwtMask 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.

    Really? Did you read what you just typed? Does anyone have Schrodngers home address? He might be having a brain bleed.

    For starters lets just go with the non-coercion principle(Locke "Second Treatise on Government", or John Stewart Mill "On Liberty"), aka don't fuck with people for no reason. From there its on you the "pro anti-miscegenation" position to assert that race is sufficient grounds to fuck with someone.

    Oh, that's easy. "You enjoy white privilege, please see all the FUCKING EVIDENCE we've posted already. AA exists to make a small dent in that privilege."

    Thread over?

    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: »
    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.

    Really? Did you read what you just typed? Does anyone have Schrodngers home address? He might be having a brain bleed.

    For starters lets just go with the non-coercion principle(Locke "Second Treatise on Government", or John Stewart Mill "On Liberty"), aka don't fuck with people for no reason. From there its on you the "pro anti-miscegenation" position to assert that race is sufficient grounds to fuck with someone.

    Laws against drunk driving are wrong, because they punish people for no reasons.

    Laws that create free breakfast programs for needy kids are wrong, because they punish families who have money for no reason, even though those same families may not be responsible for why some children are needy.

    And are you seriously going to argue that anti-miscegenation laws are absent of actual racism, as stated by my parameters?

    Stop being a silly goose.

    If I insist, "There is nothing inherently wrong about being gay, there are plenty of gay people who are perfectly law abiding citizens," it doesn't make much such for you to respond, "Well, I guess you must be okay with gay pedophiles then, because they're gay and all?" You're purposely ignoring my parameters. Which basically means that you have no response to them.

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

    Really? Did you read what you just typed? Does anyone have Schrodngers home address? He might be having a brain bleed.

    For starters lets just go with the non-coercion principle(Locke "Second Treatise on Government", or John Stewart Mill "On Liberty"), aka don't fuck with people for no reason. From there its on you the "pro anti-miscegenation" position to assert that race is sufficient grounds to fuck with someone.

    Oh, that's easy. "You enjoy white privilege, please see all the FUCKING EVIDENCE we've posted already. AA exists to make a small dent in that privilege."

    Thread over?
    And it's still morally wrong and unjust. Means, ends, don't justify, etc.

    Just because big bad thing X exists doesn't mean that unjust solution Y becomes okay.

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

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Laws against drunk driving are wrong, because they punish people for no reasons.
    They punish people for creating an unreasonable chance of harm to others. And they're irrelevant to this discussion.
    Laws that create free breakfast programs for needy kids are wrong, because they punish families who have money for no reason, even though those same families may not be responsible for why some children are needy.
    That only works if you consider legally-enacted tax laws to be "punishment."
    And are you seriously going to argue that anti-miscegenation laws are absent of actual racism, as stated by my parameters?
    Following your logic, the only thing that seems to matter WRT discriminatory laws is the motives of the people passing those laws. Apparently, racial discrimination isn't repugnant to you as it is to me.

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

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    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.

    Really? Did you read what you just typed? Does anyone have Schrodngers home address? He might be having a brain bleed.

    For starters lets just go with the non-coercion principle(Locke "Second Treatise on Government", or John Stewart Mill "On Liberty"), aka don't fuck with people for no reason. From there its on you the "pro anti-miscegenation" position to assert that race is sufficient grounds to fuck with someone.

    Oh, that's easy. "You enjoy white privilege, please see all the FUCKING EVIDENCE we've posted already. AA exists to make a small dent in that privilege."

    Thread over?
    And it's still morally wrong and unjust. Means, ends, don't justify, etc.

    Just because big bad thing X exists doesn't mean that unjust solution Y becomes okay.

    Interestingly, when we're torturing brown people, I believe you come to the opposite conclusion about ends and means.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Interestingly, when we're torturing brown people, I believe you come to the opposite conclusion about ends and means.

    Or apparently when casting for MLK: The Movie.

    But god dammit they better not mandate handicap spots outside the theater.

    See a trend?

    Its because he's against what effects him but not what effects others.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Interestingly, when we're torturing brown people, I believe you come to the opposite conclusion about ends and means.

    Or apparently when casting for MLK: The Movie.

    But god dammit they better not mandate handicap spots outside the theater.

    See a trend?

    Its because he's against what effects him but not what effects others.

    Wouldn't MM's view of the world allow for 100% black casting for black-roles of MLK: The Movie, where everyone else would be demanding that a certain % of them be white/asian/women?

    Loklar on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    Interestingly, when we're torturing brown people, I believe you come to the opposite conclusion about ends and means.

    Or apparently when casting for MLK: The Movie.

    But god dammit they better not mandate handicap spots outside the theater.

    See a trend?

    Its because he's against what effects him but not what effects others.

    Wouldn't MM's view of the world allow for 100% black casting for black-roles of MLK: The Movie, where everyone else would be demanding that a certain % of them be white/asian/women?

    Could you rephrase? I'm not sure I understand you well enough to hazard an answer.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    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.

    Really? Did you read what you just typed? Does anyone have Schrodngers home address? He might be having a brain bleed.

    For starters lets just go with the non-coercion principle(Locke "Second Treatise on Government", or John Stewart Mill "On Liberty"), aka don't fuck with people for no reason. From there its on you the "pro anti-miscegenation" position to assert that race is sufficient grounds to fuck with someone.

    Oh, that's easy. "You enjoy white privilege, please see all the FUCKING EVIDENCE we've posted already. AA exists to make a small dent in that privilege."

    Thread over?
    And it's still morally wrong and unjust. Means, ends, don't justify, etc.

    Just because big bad thing X exists doesn't mean that unjust solution Y becomes okay.

    What world do you live in? Is it a magical land of fairies and unicorns? We do shit like this all the goddamned time in the real world, but it's only important when it might, in a ridiculously small way, affect you.

    Also, what elightenedbum said. Your hypocrisy is glaringly obvious, as usual.

    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
    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.

    Really? Did you read what you just typed? Does anyone have Schrodngers home address? He might be having a brain bleed.

    For starters lets just go with the non-coercion principle(Locke "Second Treatise on Government", or John Stewart Mill "On Liberty"), aka don't fuck with people for no reason. From there its on you the "pro anti-miscegenation" position to assert that race is sufficient grounds to fuck with someone.

    Laws against drunk driving are wrong, because they punish people for no reasons.

    Laws that create free breakfast programs for needy kids are wrong, because they punish families who have money for no reason, even though those same families may not be responsible for why some children are needy.

    And are you seriously going to argue that anti-miscegenation laws are absent of actual racism, as stated by my parameters?

    Stop being a silly goose.

    If I insist, "There is nothing inherently wrong about being gay, there are plenty of gay people who are perfectly law abiding citizens," it doesn't make much such for you to respond, "Well, I guess you must be okay with gay pedophiles then, because they're gay and all?" You're purposely ignoring my parameters. Which basically means that you have no response to them.


    I think I'm misreading your question? Or you misstated it?
    Prove that such a law[anti-miscegenation] would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism[the belief in racial superiority], without merely repeating your assertion that it is.[unjust?]

    You're asking me to prove that absent the belief in the superiority of one group of people based on race, a law restricting inter-racial relations would still be unjust?


    I am asserting that people have a general right to be free from interference, and that their race is not sufficient cause to violate that right(actually I'm saying you have to prove it is but w/e).

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • PM Ex FanPM Ex Fan Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    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.

    Really? Did you read what you just typed? Does anyone have Schrodngers home address? He might be having a brain bleed.

    For starters lets just go with the non-coercion principle(Locke "Second Treatise on Government", or John Stewart Mill "On Liberty"), aka don't fuck with people for no reason. From there its on you the "pro anti-miscegenation" position to assert that race is sufficient grounds to fuck with someone.

    Oh, that's easy. "You enjoy white privilege, please see all the FUCKING EVIDENCE we've posted already. AA exists to make a small dent in that privilege."

    Thread over?
    And it's still morally wrong and unjust. Means, ends, don't justify, etc.

    Just because big bad thing X exists doesn't mean that unjust solution Y becomes okay.

    Minorities are disadvantaged in our society, this isn't really debatable at this point. The solution we've (society) come up with isn't perfect, nor is it ideal, but that's okay, because it is much preferable to the status quo by any reasonable measure I can think of. The means don't justify the ends? What is so terrible about the means? That it slightly disadvantages white people in an effort to offset the inherent injustice within society? I'm pretty sure even with affirmative action measures in place, it's still much more advantageous on a whole to be white.

    You can't even a scale without tipping it.

    PM Ex Fan on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I am asserting that people have a general right to be free from interference, and that their race is not sufficient cause to violate that right

    This is so wrong. Racism is not a sufficient reason to interfere with racism?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    They punish people for creating an unreasonable chance of harm to others.

    Discrimination against black people doesn't hurt black people?
    Laws that create free breakfast programs for needy kids are wrong, because they punish families who have money for no reason, even though those same families may not be responsible for why some children are needy.
    That only works if you consider legally-enacted tax laws to be "punishment."

    I'm pretty sure AA is legal.
    Following your logic, the only thing that seems to matter WRT discriminatory laws is the motives of the people passing those laws.

    Yes, and?

    You act as though examining motive is a brand new concept.

    Your entire post is special pleading.

    Schrodinger on
  • PM Ex FanPM Ex Fan Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Prove that such a law[anti-miscegenation] would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism[the belief in racial superiority], without merely repeating your assertion that it is.[unjust?]

    You're asking me to prove that absent the belief in the superiority of one group of people based on race, a law restricting inter-racial relations would still be unjust?


    I am asserting that people have a general right to be free from interference, and that their race is not sufficient cause to violate that right(actually I'm saying you have to prove it is but w/e).

    We uh... tried this before. It didn't work out that well (unless you're white), that's why there was the whole civil rights movement and all.

    PM Ex Fan on
  • valiancevaliance 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.*

    let's be clear:

    the choice isn't between AA and perfect equality.

    the choice is between A) discriminating against black people (and other disadvantaged folks) who already suffer from the debilitating effects of hundreds of years of oppression and B) discriminating against white people, who not only benefit from historical discrimination, but from current (as of ~4:42pm EST on 10/12/2010) discrimination as well.

    if you choose to abolish AA without putting a similar program in its place, you're choosing to discriminate against the disadvantaged in favor of the advantaged

    so saying you're not on the hook for alternative ways of achieving X is saying that you're fine with the status quo, you're OK with current discrimination.

    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.

    All white people are in fact inherently advantaged against all black people. Not on all dimensions, but on the racial dimension--analyzing that one characteristic alone--it is a much larger advantage to be white than it is to be black. A rich, well connected black person is (probabilistically) worse off than his white peers. This is not the same thing as saying all white people discriminate against all black people. Or there are no black people better off than some white people.

    *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?

    No they can't because the discrimination we are trying to counter is explicitly racial. Removing AA demonstrably reduces minority admission rates for example--proof to my mind that aracial affirmative action fails to counter current racial discrimination and the effects of past discrimination.

    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.

    Not sure about the birthrate stuff but those criticisms of AA I can certainly agree with. What do we do to fix it? More money to public schools? there are school systems failing spectacularly that have plenty of money. merit based pay and raises for teachers? well how do you define merit? how do you legislate away the 2am rule? how do you set up a more efficient bureaucracy to handle discrimination claims (one tip would be to not gut the whole apparatus of funds and personnel as GWB did)? is it good that everyone needs a college degee now? should we even encourage that trend?
    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.

    this has been discussed, but your criteria for determining that AA harmed a particular white student is equally--if not more--nebulous

    valiance on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I think I'm misreading your question? Or you misstated it?
    Prove that such a law[anti-miscegenation] would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism[the belief in racial superiority], without merely repeating your assertion that it is.[unjust?]

    You're asking me to prove that absent the belief in the superiority of one group of people based on race, a law restricting inter-racial relations would still be unjust?

    Yes.

    Unfortunately, your example is really silly goosey, because it does not fit the standards being set.

    Let's say that a state sponsored re-enactment of Rosa Parks decides to only consider black people for the casting call.

    Is this racial discrimination? Yes.

    Is it unjust?

    Just answer the question. Don't reply with, "Let's pretend that the same play makes it illegal for different races to marry, and then figure out if it's unjust then." That's stupid. You're intentionally avoiding the question be creating an alternate scenario. Why? Because you have no response to the question at hand.

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Are Tin and MM okay with laws regarding literacy tests for voters?

    Because I'm pretty sure that there was nothing inherently racist with the letter of the law. i.e., there was nothing in the law saying "Black people can't vote." It was only racist in execution.

    According to Tim and MM, racism and society is okay, as long as it is not specifically stated/endorsed in the letter of the law. And apparently, the spirit/intention of the law also doesn't matter. i.e., it is irrelevant if a law was crafted with racist intent. So does that make literacy tests okay as well?

    Does this make AA, which does specify race, worse than a literacy test designed to prevent black people from voting?

    Would this make a casting call for Rosa Parks that discriminated against white actresses from playing the lead worse than a literacy test that doesn't specify race at all?

    Schrodinger on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I think I'm misreading your question? Or you misstated it?
    Prove that such a law[anti-miscegenation] would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism[the belief in racial superiority], without merely repeating your assertion that it is.[unjust?]

    You're asking me to prove that absent the belief in the superiority of one group of people based on race, a law restricting inter-racial relations would still be unjust?

    Yes.

    Unfortunately, your example is really silly goosey, because it does not fit the standards being set.

    Let's say that a state sponsored re-enactment of Rosa Parks decides to only consider black people for the casting call.

    Is this racial discrimination? Yes.

    Is it unjust?

    Just answer the question. Don't reply with, "Let's pretend that the same play makes it illegal for different races to marry, and then figure out if it's unjust then." That's stupid. You're intentionally avoiding the question be creating an alternate scenario. Why? Because you have no response to the question at hand.

    Right, thats not what you asked before, but moving on.

    Its not actually racial discrimination, because its impossible for a white person, to complete the task of "realistic portrayal of Rosa Parks" its analogous to the hooters waitress issue, or making a Sikh wear a hard hat at a construction site.

    Bona fide occupational qualification is the legal term for it.

    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
    I think I'm misreading your question? Or you misstated it?
    Prove that such a law[anti-miscegenation] would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism[the belief in racial superiority], without merely repeating your assertion that it is.[unjust?]

    You're asking me to prove that absent the belief in the superiority of one group of people based on race, a law restricting inter-racial relations would still be unjust?

    Yes.

    Unfortunately, your example is really silly goosey, because it does not fit the standards being set.

    Let's say that a state sponsored re-enactment of Rosa Parks decides to only consider black people for the casting call.

    Is this racial discrimination? Yes.

    Is it unjust?

    Just answer the question. Don't reply with, "Let's pretend that the same play makes it illegal for different races to marry, and then figure out if it's unjust then." That's stupid. You're intentionally avoiding the question be creating an alternate scenario. Why? Because you have no response to the question at hand.

    Right, thats not what you asked before, but moving on.

    Its not actually racial discrimination, because its impossible for a white person, to complete the task of "realistic portrayal of Rosa Parks" its analogous to the hooters waitress issue, or making a Sikh wear a hard hat at a construction site.

    Bona fide occupational qualification is the legal term for it.
    And now you see why some racial discrimination is ok. Because there is a logical reason for it.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Right, thats not what you asked before, but moving on.

    Its not actually racial discrimination, because its impossible for a white person, to complete the task of "realistic portrayal of Rosa Parks" its analogous to the hooters waitress issue, or making a Sikh wear a hard hat at a construction site.

    You realize that you didn't actually disprove that this is an example of racial discrimination, you're simply arguing that some examples of racial discrimination is legitimate, right?

    Which, of course, was the entire point of the analogy of the first place.

    If you want to make the argument "All gay people are pedophiles" and I point to a gay person who clearly isn't, it doesn't make much sense for you to reply, "Well, then he isn't actually gay, because it's impossible for someone who isn't a pedophile to be a pedophile." No, he is gay. You're simply missing the point.

    Casting a black woman as Rosa Parks is racial discrimination, because it falls under the definition of racial discrimination. However, it is not racist, because it does not fall under the definition of racism.

    Racism and racial discrimination are related, but it is possible to have one without the other. For instance, creating literacy tests with a grandfather clause is racist, even though it doesn't specify race and therefore is not racially discriminatory on face. Casting a black woman as Rosa Parks is discriminatory, but not racist.

    BTW, all casting and all hiring are inherently discriminatory. Because you will always discriminate against certain applicants who are less qualified. The word "discrimination" simply implies "to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately." Any time you choose one candidate over another candidate, you are engaging in discrimination.

    Racial discrimination means that you are factoring race into the equation. However, as proven with the Rosa Parks example, racial discrimination is not inherently wrong. The problem occurs when the discrimination is also racist.

    As such, in order to refute AA, it is not enough to prove that AA discriminates. You must also prove racism. The definition for racism and the definition for discrimination are separate.

    Schrodinger on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Right, thats not what you asked before, but moving on.

    Its not actually racial discrimination, because its impossible for a white person, to complete the task of "realistic portrayal of Rosa Parks" its analogous to the hooters waitress issue, or making a Sikh wear a hard hat at a construction site.

    You realize that you didn't actually disprove that this is an example of racial discrimination, you're simply arguing that some examples of racial discrimination is legitimate, right?

    Which, of course, was the entire point of the analogy of the first place.

    If you want to make the argument "All gay people are pedophiles" and I point to a gay person who clearly isn't, it doesn't make much sense for you to reply, "Well, then he isn't actually gay, because it's impossible for someone who isn't a pedophile to be a pedophile." No, he is gay. You're simply missing the point.

    Casting a black woman as Rosa Parks is racial discrimination, because it falls under the definition of racial discrimination. However, it is not racist, because it does not fall under the definition of racism.

    Racism and racial discrimination are related, but it is possible to have one without the other. For instance, creating literacy tests with a grandfather clause is racist, even though it doesn't specify race and therefore is not racially discriminatory on face. Casting a black woman as Rosa Parks is discriminatory, but not racist.

    BTW, all casting and all hiring are inherently discriminatory. Because you will always discriminate against certain applicants who are less qualified. The word "discrimination" simply implies "to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately." Any time you choose one candidate over another candidate, you are engaging in discrimination.

    Racial discrimination means that you are factoring race into the equation. However, as proven with the Rosa Parks example, racial discrimination is not inherently wrong. The problem occurs when the discrimination is also racist.

    As such, in order to refute AA, it is not enough to prove that AA discriminates. You must also prove racism. The definition for racism and the definition for discrimination are separate.


    Its discrimination on the ability to complete a task, not on race.

    Its why the catholic school can discriminate in selecting teachers, but not the night cleaning crew. Atheism clearly precludes me from giving the prescribed catholic education, but it would not interfere with my ability to mop floors.

    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


    Its discrimination on the ability to complete a task, not on race.

    You're being willfully dense now. The ability to complete the task here hinges on race in the instance of depicting Rosa Parks. They do not select people of other races. They discriminate against them.

    You're just acting like words mean what you want them to. Choosing someone based on race is racial discrimination, BY FUCKING DEFINITION. Its not inherently good or bad and you're just looking like a silly goose by trying to pretend this isn't racial discrimination, because if we can show a difference between discrimination and racism you have no argument.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • PM Ex FanPM Ex Fan Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Right, thats not what you asked before, but moving on.

    Its not actually racial discrimination, because its impossible for a white person, to complete the task of "realistic portrayal of Rosa Parks" its analogous to the hooters waitress issue, or making a Sikh wear a hard hat at a construction site.

    You realize that you didn't actually disprove that this is an example of racial discrimination, you're simply arguing that some examples of racial discrimination is legitimate, right?

    Which, of course, was the entire point of the analogy of the first place.

    If you want to make the argument "All gay people are pedophiles" and I point to a gay person who clearly isn't, it doesn't make much sense for you to reply, "Well, then he isn't actually gay, because it's impossible for someone who isn't a pedophile to be a pedophile." No, he is gay. You're simply missing the point.

    Casting a black woman as Rosa Parks is racial discrimination, because it falls under the definition of racial discrimination. However, it is not racist, because it does not fall under the definition of racism.

    Racism and racial discrimination are related, but it is possible to have one without the other. For instance, creating literacy tests with a grandfather clause is racist, even though it doesn't specify race and therefore is not racially discriminatory on face. Casting a black woman as Rosa Parks is discriminatory, but not racist.

    BTW, all casting and all hiring are inherently discriminatory. Because you will always discriminate against certain applicants who are less qualified. The word "discrimination" simply implies "to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately." Any time you choose one candidate over another candidate, you are engaging in discrimination.

    Racial discrimination means that you are factoring race into the equation. However, as proven with the Rosa Parks example, racial discrimination is not inherently wrong. The problem occurs when the discrimination is also racist.

    As such, in order to refute AA, it is not enough to prove that AA discriminates. You must also prove racism. The definition for racism and the definition for discrimination are separate.


    Its discrimination on the ability to complete a task, not on race.

    Its why the catholic school can discriminate in selecting teachers, but not the night cleaning crew. Atheism clearly precludes me from giving the prescribed catholic education, but it would not interfere with my ability to mop floors.

    What do you call it then? The catholic school not allowing you to teach is religious discrimination, is it not?

    PM Ex Fan on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    connotation and denotation, folks.

    Evander on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Tin is trying to make a distinction between a moral argument and a legal argument, while ignoring the fact that AA is also legal.

    Quite the opposite.

    Tin is trying to use the fact that AA is on the law books in order to argue that AA is wrong.

    There is no consistency. Casting a black women as Rosa Parks is okay, because it's legal. Admitting a black person to college is wrong, because it's legal.

    Tin is trying to argue that the law makes something moral in one case and immoral in the other, without actually explaining the distinction.

    But then he tries to abandon the moral argument of casting Rosa Parks by going with the lawbooks.

    In other words, he's not relying on legality or morality in building his arguments.

    But trust him, AA is wrong.

    Schrodinger on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    AA is wrong

    nothing at all is ALSO wrong

    AA is better than nothing, but it would be nice to find something better than AA

    Evander on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Its not actually racial discrimination, because its impossible for a white person, to complete the task of "realistic portrayal of Rosa Parks" its analogous to the hooters waitress issue, or making a Sikh wear a hard hat at a construction site.

    What if the task is to increase the diversity at a school that is 80% white?

    Is it possible for a white person to complete this task better than a black person?

    Schrodinger on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    AA is wrong

    nothing at all is ALSO wrong

    AA is better than nothing, but it would be nice to find something better than AA

    AA is like abortion. No one likes it, we just think its an acceptable solution to a problem.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    It is a massive waste of time assigning MM a motivation, and then berating him for it, and it's strawmanning. And glossy.

    So instead, let's see if we have this straight...

    MM: Passing laws that give advantage based on race is wrong. Doing so in an attempt to 'balance the scales' might be for a good cause, but it makes it no less racist, and no less wrong.

    About right?

    Schrodinger: Affirmitive Action works only to correct an imbalance. Taking a job away from a white person, and giving it to a black person would be specific, and wrong (as well as ineffective). However AA is general, and based on probability, which makes it appropriate to address an inequity which is also just a probability.

    And does that sound about right?

    Notice neither of these opposing, but reasonable ideas relate in any way to white privilege or white guilt. Just sayin.

    MentalExercise on
    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Notice neither of these opposing, but reasonable ideas relate in any way to white privilege or white guilt. Just sayin.

    It does when one side refuses to acknowledge or doesn't care about the advantages of being white in America.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
Sign In or Register to comment.