Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
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.

[Affirmative Action] Perspectives and solutions

2456721

Posts

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    A lot of that is anecdotal. Being very poor puts you at a proven disadvantage in many ways beyond simply not having money. There are social stigmas attached. Yes some people can work hard and get wealthy, but its by no means common.

    Of course it is. Thats sort of my point about how AA is viewed by people. Its easy for folks who might normally be pretty progressive to say "hey wait a second, in MY situation we had to earn our shit. I dont want my earned shit to count against me or my kids..."

    You can also very easily hide your class in most situations. So theres no real obvious bias being applied. The bias comes from the fact you got less opportunities to study or to learn. But sometimes theres advantages that people simply just dont get.

    Person A comes from a wealthy family, gets a good education so they acquire skill 1 and 2.

    Person B comes from a normal family, but is super smart so they figure it out on their own and acquire skills 1 and 2.

    Person C comes from a normal family but isnt that smart so they just acquire skill 1.

    Person D is smart, but poor so they just acquire skill 1.

    Person E is poor and not smart, they have no skill.

    What solutions are fair to "even this out." Why do we say wealth from parents is an unfair advantage, but good genes isnt?

    Applicant #1 I can program in C++
    Applicant #2 I can program in C++ ... and I speak fluent Mandarin Chinese.

    This is why I like my name-in-the-hat idea.

    emnmnme on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    I would be interested in hearing AA opponents address the point Feral brought up about stripping names from resumes. Is this type of Affirmative Action acceptable? Perhaps we could try to hammer down the various manifestations of AA and address each type. Quotas, for example, as mentioned, are out or on the way out. I don't know anyone in my family, at least, who has benefited from quotas based on race.
    I think we're over-defining affirmative action. Simply removing potentially racially-identifying information is not affirmative action. And quotas are illegal.

    I'd define it as any policy that takes into consideration a characteristic such as race, gender or religion, rather than pure merit, in determining who should get a certain position, be promoted or receive some other positive benefit.

    At its purest, I'd say a system that weighs test scores and grades differently based on race (which is what happened in the University of Michigan case a few years back) is the best example of affirmative action.

    Affirmative action can also include emphasis on recruitment of people based on one of these characteristics, rather than a neutral process based on things like test scores.

    Your definition, at least the way you are interpreting it, seems less than neutral.

    Affirmative Action can be removing potentially racially identifying information. That is taking race into account. It accounts for the fact that people might be motivated by racial things, and then removes that motivation.

    I think the words Affirmative Action have so much baggage that we need to be specific about specific policies, if they are good or bad. If we just say Affirmative Action (TM) no one is really going to be happy.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm wondering how AA in the context of employment would work. An employer would need to get tax records or financial statements from every employee, which is pretty intrusive. This would also serve to discriminate against older people, as they tend to have more accumulated wealth. That's a legal no-no.

    And this wouldn't work all that well in the white-collar world. Very few of your applicants for a lawyer position would qualify as poor, for example.
    Its not a matter of making things fair or not, its about breaking the cycle of poverty that arises from racism or social stigma.

    You can throw up your hands and yell about reverse racism against white people but then the question remains, what do we do about the crushing poverty facing minority groups? Without a hand up its never going to get better for the majority of them.
    Fix schools in poor communities. Work to prevent unmarried motherhood. Encourage marriage.

    People from poor backgrounds who are at the point where they are actually applying to colleges or jobs in the regular world aren't really the problem. They've figured out how to get their act together enough to most likely escape poverty. In many cases, affirmative action ends up giving an advantage to minorities who don't really need it, since they're coming from a middle-class background.

    But the kid from Anacostia whose mom had him at 15, whos dad ran off and who had never taken more than a passing interest in education? AA ain't doing a thing for him.

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

  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Slider's post is not to be taken as an example of how we will conduct ourselves in this thread.

    For fuck's sake...


    Nay. I don't not like AA, because it provides an unfair advantage to presumably disadvantaged minorities. I take offense when I'm asked to complete an AA questionaire, as if I'm somehow too advantageous and therefore unworthy of favoritism. Who deemed that life is easier for white males? We have just as many problems.

    Yes, but everyone else has the same fucking problems as white males in addition to the fact that they're disadvantaged by race/gender/disability.


    I'm not responsible for their problems. I have my own life to worry about.

    The issue is that for a long time employers have given preferential treatment to white men and white people, in general. For the most part, I think this has changed.

    Unless it can be proved that employers still discriminate in their hiring practices, then I don't think that AA needs to be continued.

    Slider on
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    There wouldn’t be need for AA if Corporations from the "Pure, White-Christian good ol days", weren’t acting like the silly geese that they where and in some instances, still do today. There are ways to get around AA policy.

    Humans are basically evil, no sugarcoating that. As long as humanity exist, evil will. So its basically wishful thinking that "If we get rid of AA, everything will be alright". Thats a pipe dream thinking that corporations will willing become "good natured" overnight. Its going to take generations before we can get AA abolished if humans continue to be greedy assholes by baseline nature. As history has shown us, thats a "fat chance in hell" happening.

    Ticaldfjam on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm not responsible for their problems. I have my own life to worry about.

    The issue is that for a long time employers have given preferential treatment to white men and white people, in general. For the most part, I think this has changed.

    Unless it can be proved that employers still discriminate in their hiring practices, then I don't think that AA needs to be continued.
    This is in doubt?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    A lot of that is anecdotal. Being very poor puts you at a proven disadvantage in many ways beyond simply not having money. There are social stigmas attached. Yes some people can work hard and get wealthy, but its by no means common.

    Of course it is. Thats sort of my point about how AA is viewed by people. Its easy for folks who might normally be pretty progressive to say "hey wait a second, in MY situation we had to earn our shit. I dont want my earned shit to count against me or my kids..."

    You can also very easily hide your class in most situations. So theres no real obvious bias being applied. The bias comes from the fact you got less opportunities to study or to learn. But sometimes theres advantages that people simply just dont get.

    Person A comes from a wealthy family, gets a good education so they acquire skill 1 and 2.

    Person B comes from a normal family, but is super smart so they figure it out on their own and acquire skills 1 and 2.

    Person C comes from a normal family but isnt that smart so they just acquire skill 1.

    Person D is smart, but poor so they just acquire skill 1.

    Person E is poor and not smart, they have no skill.

    What solutions are fair to "even this out." Why do we say wealth from parents is an unfair advantage, but good genes isnt?

    Well, we believe in Merit. We value intelligence. Because you were born dumb is kind of tough luck. There is basically no solution, barring extreme genetic engineering.

    However, I would say that environment affects how intelligent you are far more than genetics.

    At any rate, even using your math 1 is better than 0. Would you rather have a society with lots of 1 skilled people or no skilled people?

    This isn't about equal outcomes, it is about equal opportunity. Genetics isn't something we can control. Environment is.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Its not a matter of making things fair or not, its about breaking the cycle of poverty that arises from racism or social stigma.

    You can throw up your hands and yell about reverse racism against white people but then the question remains, what do we do about the crushing poverty facing minority groups? Without a hand up its never going to get better for the majority of them.

    Eh, I dunno. I dont know if the cycle needs to be broken. Like I said, racism is one thing. But you can simply hide your class pretty easily. So the only bias is simply through what advantages you can afford. Which, unless you can convince me that a majority of the lower class are there because of racism or other blatantly unjust practices, I wont agree that the cycle needs breaking. Because if they arent there because of unjust things, then they...unfortunately deserve to be there.

    Note, we are talking specifically about the idea of class based AA as opposed to race based.
    This isn't about equal outcomes, it is about equal opportunity. Genetics isn't something we can control. Environment is.

    But opportunity shouldnt always be equal. If I want to work hard to save money for my kid to go to college, its not moral to say "well Disrupter's son, your dad was wealthy, so we are giving this poor kid your job because he couldnt go to college and didnt get your opportunity."

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm not responsible for their problems. I have my own life to worry about.

    The issue is that for a long time employers have given preferential treatment to white men and white people, in general. For the most part, I think this has changed.

    Unless it can be proved that employers still discriminate in their hiring practices, then I don't think that AA needs to be continued.
    This is in doubt?

    I'm an unemployed white male. Provide some evidence or statistics that prove blatant discrimination exists and I'll sing a different tune.

    Slider on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    There wouldn’t be need for AA if Corporations from the "Pure, White-Christian good ol days", weren’t acting like the silly geese that they where and in some instances, still do today. There are ways to get around AA policy.

    Humans are basically evil, no sugarcoating that. As long as humanity exist, evil will. So its basically wishful thinking that "If we get rid of AA, everything will be alright". Thats a pipe dream thinking that corporations will willing become "good natured" overnight. Its going to take generations before we can get AA abolished if humans continue to be greedy assholes by baseline nature. As history has shown us, thats a "fat chance in hell" happening.

    That is a load. People aren't bad. There are reasons that people pick the people they do that aren't because they are "evil".

    For example, I pick Todd over Tyrese because I can relate to him more. We grew up in the same white culture, we use the same slang, and talk about the same white guy things.

    It isn't because I am a dick, it is because of a cultural bias.

    The only way to eliminate this cultural bias is to work towards having a more integrated culture.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I'm wondering how AA in the context of employment would work. An employer would need to get tax records or financial statements from every employee, which is pretty intrusive. This would also serve to discriminate against older people, as they tend to have more accumulated wealth. That's a legal no-no.

    And this wouldn't work all that well in the white-collar world. Very few of your applicants for a lawyer position would qualify as poor, for example.

    It doesn't have to be AA applied to the same categories in every single case, such as wealth in your lawyer example. It could be something geared to see more African American or Hispanic or Asian representation in the legal community, or more women, or whatever.

    As I mentioned, I was heavily recruited in high school to major in engineering as a woman, not a black person. All of my female friends (most white, one Asian) were recruited as well. However, we didn't get into the programs because of our gender, but rather based on our individual performance. That's Affirmative Action, too.

    I think while people tend to focus on "oh no that guy took my job" as Affirmative Action, my understand is that it really comes more from observing "wow, there are like no black people/women/Asians/Hispanics/etc. in this field. Why is that, is it because they suck, or some other reason?"

    If it is found that there may just be "some other reason", AA attempts to make up that difference. While, as I said, I am of mixed views on the subject, the alternative "merit based" system really just means "status quo" and I don't know how we as a society can be happy with that.

    sidhaethe on
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Slider's post is not to be taken as an example of how we will conduct ourselves in this thread.

    For fuck's sake...


    Nay. I don't not like AA, because it provides an unfair advantage to presumably disadvantaged minorities. I take offense when I'm asked to complete an AA questionaire, as if I'm somehow too advantageous and therefore unworthy of favoritism. Who deemed that life is easier for white males? We have just as many problems.

    Yes, but everyone else has the same fucking problems as white males in addition to the fact that they're disadvantaged by race/gender/disability.


    I'm not responsible for their problems. I have my own life to worry about.

    The issue is that for a long time employers have given preferential treatment to white men and white people, in general. For the most part, I think this has changed.

    Unless it can be proved that employers still discriminate in their hiring practices, then I don't think that AA needs to be continued.

    Sipping the kool aid much? The majority of CEOs are still overwhelmingly white males. Like I stated, there are ways around Affirmative Action. You don't have to hire "black people". Hiring Indians and Arabs, since they also fall under the Negroid class, works as well. I don't know where the frothing " Those damn welfare-caddy driving scum getting a frebbie over me" sentiment is coming from with you.

    Ticaldfjam on
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Slider's post is not to be taken as an example of how we will conduct ourselves in this thread.

    For fuck's sake...


    Nay. I don't not like AA, because it provides an unfair advantage to presumably disadvantaged minorities. I take offense when I'm asked to complete an AA questionaire, as if I'm somehow too advantageous and therefore unworthy of favoritism. Who deemed that life is easier for white males? We have just as many problems.

    Yes, but everyone else has the same fucking problems as white males in addition to the fact that they're disadvantaged by race/gender/disability.


    I'm not responsible for their problems. I have my own life to worry about.

    The issue is that for a long time employers have given preferential treatment to white men and white people, in general. For the most part, I think this has changed.

    Unless it can be proved that employers still discriminate in their hiring practices, then I don't think that AA needs to be continued.

    Sipping the kool aid much? The majority of CEOs are still overwhelmingly white males. Like I stated, there are ways around Affirmative Action. You don't have to hire "black people" just hiring Indians and Arabs, since they also fall under the Negroid class , works as well. I don't know where the frothing " Those damn welfare- caddy driving scum getting a frebbie over me" sentiment is coming from with you.

    Actually East Indians and Arabs fall under Caucasoid, and Native Americans fall under Mongoloid, if we're using those particular moldy characterizations :). In fact, IIRC Arabs and Middle Easterners are considered White under the US Census, am I right?

    sidhaethe on
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm not responsible for their problems. I have my own life to worry about.

    The issue is that for a long time employers have given preferential treatment to white men and white people, in general. For the most part, I think this has changed.

    Unless it can be proved that employers still discriminate in their hiring practices, then I don't think that AA needs to be continued.
    This is in doubt?

    I'm an unemployed white male. Provide some evidence or statistics that prove blatant discrimination exists and I'll sing a different tune.

    And statisically, you'll be the first to gain employment, even if you had a criminal record, over a black or latino, all the time.

    Yeah, you are the only race that was affected by unemployment. Yup, the darkies never get unemployed, no sirree.

    Ticaldfjam on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Sipping the kool aid much? The majority of CEOs are still overwhelmingly white males. Like I stated, there are ways around Affirmative Action. You don't have to hire "black people". Hiring Indians and Arabs, since they also fall under the Negroid class, works as well. I don't know where the frothing " Those damn welfare-caddy driving scum getting a frebbie over me" sentiment is coming from with you.
    It's been my experience that employers in high-end job markets, such as the law, will fall all over themselves to recruit a black candidate with the right qualifications. That's a major prize at most companies.

    If you're a black or (to a lesser extent) hispanic graduate of a top-tier law school or business school, the world's your oyster. It's just that the percentage of those two groups (especially men) at top-tier schools is fairly low, compared to the population as a whole.

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

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Sipping the kool aid much? The majority of CEOs are still overwhelmingly white males. Like I stated, there are ways around Affirmative Action. You don't have to hire "black people". Hiring Indians and Arabs, since they also fall under the Negroid class, works as well. I don't know where the frothing " Those damn welfare-caddy driving scum getting a frebbie over me" sentiment is coming from with you.
    It's been my experience that employers in high-end job markets, such as the law, will fall all over themselves to recruit a black candidate with the right qualifications. That's a major prize at most companies.

    If you're a black or (to a lesser extent) hispanic graduate of a top-tier law school or business school, the world's your oyster. It's just that the percentage of those two groups (especially men) at top-tier schools is fairly low, compared to the population as a whole.

    But the quote was, initially, at least, referring to CEOs, not new hires.

    This ties in to your observation about lack of representation compared to the rest of the population. Why do you think that might be? Is this a case of (paraphrasing myself from earlier) "don't know, they just must suck or something?"

    sidhaethe on
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm not responsible for their problems. I have my own life to worry about.

    The issue is that for a long time employers have given preferential treatment to white men and white people, in general. For the most part, I think this has changed.

    Unless it can be proved that employers still discriminate in their hiring practices, then I don't think that AA needs to be continued.
    This is in doubt?

    I'm an unemployed white male. Provide some evidence or statistics that prove blatant discrimination exists and I'll sing a different tune.

    And statisically, you'll be the first to gain employment, even if you had a criminal record, over a black or latino, all the time.

    Yeah, you are the only race that was affected by unemployment. Yup, the darkies never get unemployed, no sirree.

    Also, some sources:

    Study Shows How Deeply Black Men Face Discrimination in Hiring

    BTW, you may be thinking "bah, that study is from 2003!"

    Still an issue in 2008.

    sidhaethe on
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Sipping the kool aid much? The majority of CEOs are still overwhelmingly white males. Like I stated, there are ways around Affirmative Action. You don't have to hire "black people". Hiring Indians and Arabs, since they also fall under the Negroid class, works as well. I don't know where the frothing " Those damn welfare-caddy driving scum getting a frebbie over me" sentiment is coming from with you.
    It's been my experience that employers in high-end job markets, such as the law, will fall all over themselves to recruit a black candidate with the right qualifications. That's a major prize at most companies.

    If you're a black or (to a lesser extent) hispanic graduate of a top-tier law school or business school, the world's your oyster. It's just that the percentage of those two groups (especially men) at top-tier schools is fairly low, compared to the population as a whole.

    I'm not going to argue with that. Like you stated, the higher top disciplines [Health, Law and Engineering] has a low attendance rate for Blacks, Arabs and Latinos, so from a PR standpoint I could understand why Fortune 500 companies would go that route. My response earlier was more a reply to the "silly goose" who will remained unnamed thats throwing the underlying, "Why me" sob fest in a thread thats discussing about AA and why it needs to stay or be abolished.

    The only way AA is abolished is if the practice of discriminations goes the way of the dodo. That'll take another generation or two IMHO.

    Ticaldfjam on
  • NuckerNucker Registered User
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    Who deemed that life is easier for white males? We have just as many problems.

    Yes, but everyone else has the same fucking problems as white males in addition to the fact that they're disadvantaged by race/gender/disability.

    Just gotta say, this is probably the most succinct description of white male priviledge I've ever seen. Well done, sir.

    That said, as expressed earlier, the best AA is the kind that eliminates the possibility of discrimination, as opposed to disadvantaging white males or unfairly providing an advantage for everyone else. The whole point is to level the playing field, and the best way to do that is to bring everyone up rather than take anyone down.

    Nucker on
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    well if you take the racial aspect out of it, its not like the socio-economic classism still won't be an issue :/

    dlinfiniti on
    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Sipping the kool aid much? The majority of CEOs are still overwhelmingly white males. Like I stated, there are ways around Affirmative Action. You don't have to hire "black people". Hiring Indians and Arabs, since they also fall under the Negroid class, works as well. I don't know where the frothing " Those damn welfare-caddy driving scum getting a frebbie over me" sentiment is coming from with you.
    It's been my experience that employers in high-end job markets, such as the law, will fall all over themselves to recruit a black candidate with the right qualifications. That's a major prize at most companies.

    If you're a black or (to a lesser extent) hispanic graduate of a top-tier law school or business school, the world's your oyster. It's just that the percentage of those two groups (especially men) at top-tier schools is fairly low, compared to the population as a whole.

    But the quote was, initially, at least, referring to CEOs, not new hires.

    This ties in to your observation about lack of representation compared to the rest of the population. Why do you think that might be? Is this a case of (paraphrasing myself from earlier) "don't know, they just must suck or something?"
    Almost no one is going to hire a corporate CEO based on AA. The stakes are too high.

    And blacks/hispanics are underrepresented in top-tier schools because poor people are underrepresented in top-tier schools, generally speaking. These schools are highly competitive, so you need to be a star in high school and then in college (and preferably a top-tier college). That is, for many obvious reasons, tougher for someone coming from a poor background. Yeah, we had black students at my law school, but they were socioeconomically very similar to the white students.

    Keep in mind, we didn't have many white people from a poor background, either. It was almost universally middle class and up.

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

  • Samir Duran DuranSamir Duran Duran Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »

    It's like sodomy laws. Sure it's ridiculous that blow jobs are illegal, but it's a helluva lot easier to ignore it than to be painted as the pro-sodomy guy.

    Wait is fellatio actually illegal in that state?

    Samir Duran Duran on
    Ani121OD.pngSpr_3e_121.gifAni121OD.png
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Sipping the kool aid much? The majority of CEOs are still overwhelmingly white males. Like I stated, there are ways around Affirmative Action. You don't have to hire "black people". Hiring Indians and Arabs, since they also fall under the Negroid class, works as well. I don't know where the frothing " Those damn welfare-caddy driving scum getting a frebbie over me" sentiment is coming from with you.
    It's been my experience that employers in high-end job markets, such as the law, will fall all over themselves to recruit a black candidate with the right qualifications. That's a major prize at most companies.

    If you're a black or (to a lesser extent) hispanic graduate of a top-tier law school or business school, the world's your oyster. It's just that the percentage of those two groups (especially men) at top-tier schools is fairly low, compared to the population as a whole.

    But the quote was, initially, at least, referring to CEOs, not new hires.

    This ties in to your observation about lack of representation compared to the rest of the population. Why do you think that might be? Is this a case of (paraphrasing myself from earlier) "don't know, they just must suck or something?"
    Almost no one is going to hire a corporate CEO based on AA. The stakes are too high.

    And blacks/hispanics are underrepresented in top-tier schools because poor people are underrepresented in top-tier schools, generally speaking. These schools are highly competitive, so you need to be a star in high school and then in college (and preferably a top-tier college). That is, for many obvious reasons, tougher for someone coming from a poor background. Yeah, we had black students at my law school, but they were socioeconomically very similar to the white students.

    Keep in mind, we didn't have many white people from a poor background, either. It was almost universally middle class and up.

    My cousin from my mother's side is a testament to this. My mother's oldest sister, his mother, was the Clydesdale of my mom's family. Even though all of the women, including my mother, are educated and received their respective degrees from England, my Aunt was the real breadwinner. Married to my Uncle in the late seventies who worked for METLIFE, where able to live in an upper middle class area east of NYC. My cousin was bright, eventually getting accepted to both Havard for his CPA and Yale for his Law degree, now married with a child and living within Suburban DC and living well. Thats one helluva a resume, especially with the cost of going to a top tier Law school period.

    Ticaldfjam on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    AA is a clumsy band-aid 'fix'. GJ you helped a black kid get into a college they are under qualified for versus a less prestigious one or going to community college.
    While 1/2 his peers failed to graduate high school

    Problem Solved!

    edit:

    While at the same time hurting lower-class whites, and engendering resentment among middle class whites(and their friends/acquaintances/family) who were more qualified for said school and perceive to have lost their spot based on AA.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    There wouldn’t be need for AA if Corporations from the "Pure, White-Christian good ol days", weren’t acting like the silly geese that they where and in some instances, still do today. There are ways to get around AA policy.

    Humans are basically evil, no sugarcoating that. As long as humanity exist, evil will. So its basically wishful thinking that "If we get rid of AA, everything will be alright". Thats a pipe dream thinking that corporations will willing become "good natured" overnight. Its going to take generations before we can get AA abolished if humans continue to be greedy assholes by baseline nature. As history has shown us, thats a "fat chance in hell" happening.

    That is a load. People aren't bad. There are reasons that people pick the people they do that aren't because they are "evil".

    For example, I pick Todd over Tyrese because I can relate to him more. We grew up in the same white culture, we use the same slang, and talk about the same white guy things.

    It isn't because I am a dick, it is because of a cultural bias.
    The only way to eliminate this cultural bias is to work towards having a more integrated culture.


    disclamier
    **not trying to put you on the spot here and saying "You racist."**

    What if Todd, who spoke with the standard American accent and was familiar with a few of the slang dialect from your region, but when you first meet him for the second interview was black, Latino, arab, etc.? Since you'd already stated that companies should work to have a more integrated culture, I know your answer would be; “yeah, Todd is a likeable candidate and I would proceed to hire him (granted he has no criminal record, but thats for another topic.) into our group.

    The unfortunate side is there are those in power that refuse to change perception. That'll possibly fade over time when the next generation takes the mantle of corporate leaders of tomorrow.

    Ticaldfjam on
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    My general idea of AA is that given two people of equal skill and who both equally mesh with the company's culture you should choose the one from a more disenfranchised background (meaning racial, gender, financial, socio-economic, whatever) since the assumption is that they had to do more work to get to that equal level.

    I also think the claims of AA keeping jobs/college openings out of the hands of people to be overblown at best and suspect at worst. I believe that it's a case of sour grapes and blame misdirection in the majority of cases by people who are so entitled/overconfident that they can't believe they didn't get the job and that some outside force blocked them from getting it.

    Opty on
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    AA is a clumsy band-aid 'fix'. GJ you helped a black kid get into a college they are under qualified for versus a less prestigious one or going to community college.
    While 1/2 his peers failed to graduate high school

    Problem Solved!

    edit:

    While at the same time hurting lower-class whites, and engendering resentment among middle class whites(and their friends/acquaintances/family) who were more qualified for said school and perceive to have lost their spot based on AA.

    So, what is your solution to it?

    Also, why is it that AA is always equated to "Works for Blacks only"? Last I remembered, Latinos, Women, and certain foreign races also benefited from AA. Is this a cousin to the infamous, Regan created: "Welfare momma from Chi-town riding in her Cadillac" sentiment?

    Ticaldfjam on
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    AA is a clumsy band-aid 'fix'. GJ you helped a black kid get into a college they are under qualified for versus a less prestigious one or going to community college.
    While 1/2 his peers failed to graduate high school

    Problem Solved!

    edit:

    While at the same time hurting lower-class whites, and engendering resentment among middle class whites(and their friends/acquaintances/family) who were more qualified for said school and perceive to have lost their spot based on AA.

    A) Have you actually read the other posts in this thread discussing various forms of Affirmative Action?
    B) Does the scenario you describe actually exist outside of the nightmares of white men? Citation, please.

    sidhaethe on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm not responsible for their problems. I have my own life to worry about.

    The issue is that for a long time employers have given preferential treatment to white men and white people, in general. For the most part, I think this has changed.

    Unless it can be proved that employers still discriminate in their hiring practices, then I don't think that AA needs to be continued.
    This is in doubt?

    I'm an unemployed white male. Provide some evidence or statistics that prove blatant discrimination exists and I'll sing a different tune.

    http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/26/news/economy/applicant_names/index.htm

    YodaTuna on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm not responsible for their problems. I have my own life to worry about.

    The issue is that for a long time employers have given preferential treatment to white men and white people, in general. For the most part, I think this has changed.

    Unless it can be proved that employers still discriminate in their hiring practices, then I don't think that AA needs to be continued.
    This is in doubt?

    I'm an unemployed white male. Provide some evidence or statistics that prove blatant discrimination exists and I'll sing a different tune.

    Black unemployment is double white unemployment. By your own fucking logic, that's enough evidence to support my side. You need to get on with singing.

    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
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    AA is a clumsy band-aid 'fix'. GJ you helped a black kid get into a college they are under qualified for versus a less prestigious one or going to community college.
    While 1/2 his peers failed to graduate high school

    Problem Solved!

    edit:

    While at the same time hurting lower-class whites, and engendering resentment among middle class whites(and their friends/acquaintances/family) who were more qualified for said school and perceive to have lost their spot based on AA.

    A) Have you actually read the other posts in this thread discussing various forms of Affirmative Action?
    B) Does the scenario you describe actually exist outside of the nightmares of white men? Citation, please.

    applause.gif

    One has to wonder withsome of the knee jerk responses to the question in the OP topic, are they serious about what their offered alternative(s) to AA are or are they just trolling for the sake of shits and giggles?

    Ticaldfjam on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    AA is a clumsy band-aid 'fix'. GJ you helped a black kid get into a college they are under qualified for versus a less prestigious one or going to community college.
    While 1/2 his peers failed to graduate high school

    Problem Solved!

    edit:

    While at the same time hurting lower-class whites, and engendering resentment among middle class whites(and their friends/acquaintances/family) who were more qualified for said school and perceive to have lost their spot based on AA.

    So, what is your solution to it?

    Also, why is it that AA is always equated to "Works for Blacks only"? Last I remembered, Latinos, Women, and certain foreign races also benefited from AA. Is this a cousin to the infamous, Regan created: "Welfare momma from Chi-town riding in her Cadillac" sentiment?

    Anti-AA people never have a solution that doesn't involve pretending that discrimination ceased to exist once the Civil Rights Act was passed.

    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
  • SimpsonsParadoxSimpsonsParadox Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    If you're that wealthy, you've got plenty of advantages as it is. Like you know, wealth.

    Ok....yes, but not every advantage needs to be compensated for. If I want to work hard to pay for my kids college to get them a better education to have them have an advantage in the job market over some other guys kid who slacked off and spent his money on beer, i should be able to. That's one of the great things about this country.

    I don't believe that was what his point was. I think his point was more "You can pay your way for your kids to have a better chance". For example, SAT Study Sessions (or whatever they're called in your local area) generally cost a large amount of money. If someone, say, you, can buy their kids study sessions that puts them at an advantage over people without the money to buy said sessions. Assuming that the sessions earn you a higher SAT score (Which varies case by case and is usually no, but for sake of argument), does getting a higher score mean you're objectively smarter than someone who couldn't afford such sessions?

    And herein lies my thoughts on AA. I think it should be used to attempt to weigh how much your backround helps you. For example, if 2 people, one taking SAT Prep courses and one not, both scored the same on the test, I would say that the non-course-taker should be considered higher, because if he HAD had test prep he/she might of gotten a better grade.

    -edit- Ack, that was from a page back. Dang, didn't realize there was that much time before I hit 'quote' and actually finished the point.

    SimpsonsParadox on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    Can we just sticky a White Guilt thread at the top of the forums so we have one place for our weekly Five Minute Hate of the the white man instead of having to look all over the place? TIA.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Can we just sticky a White Guilt thread at the top of the forums so we have one place for our weekly Five Minute Hate of the the white man instead of having to look all over the place? TIA.

    There is sufficient goosery at hand thank you.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Can we just sticky a White Guilt thread at the top of the forums so we have one place for our weekly Five Minute Hate of the the white man instead of having to look all over the place? TIA.

    Hey guys, remember that it's only ok to play the victim if you're a white dude. If you ever suggest that white privilege exists and dare to post statistics indicating that it does, you're RACIST AGAINST WHITE FOLK.

    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
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Can we just sticky a White Guilt thread at the top of the forums so we have one place for our weekly Five Minute Hate of the the white man instead of having to look all over the place? TIA.

    Hey guys, remember that it's only ok to play the victim if you're a white dude. If you ever suggest that white privilege exists and dare to post statistics indicating that it does, you're RACIST AGAINST WHITE FOLK.
    I lobbied for minority scholarship grants back in the day.

    Does... that make me a race traitor?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • SimpsonsParadoxSimpsonsParadox Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Can we just sticky a White Guilt thread at the top of the forums so we have one place for our weekly Five Minute Hate of the the white man instead of having to look all over the place? TIA.

    Hey guys, remember that it's only ok to play the victim if you're a white dude. If you ever suggest that white privilege exists and dare to post statistics indicating that it does, you're RACIST AGAINST WHITE FOLK.
    I lobbied for minority scholarship grants back in the day.

    Does... that make me a race traitor?

    The Judas Epidermiraiot of our time.

    SimpsonsParadox on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Can we just sticky a White Guilt thread at the top of the forums so we have one place for our weekly Five Minute Hate of the the white man instead of having to look all over the place? TIA.

    Hey guys, remember that it's only ok to play the victim if you're a white dude. If you ever suggest that white privilege exists and dare to post statistics indicating that it does, you're RACIST AGAINST WHITE FOLK.
    I lobbied for minority scholarship grants back in the day.

    Does... that make me a race traitor?

    I'm afraid so. Please gather your belongings and turn in your skin at the front desk.

    emnmnme on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    Sorry guys not going to feel guilty about the past based on some bullshit abstract theory of guilt that its my fault Shwandaria Brown had 4 kids by the time she's 17 and dropped out of high school.

    Edit: Ooo, ironic posting. This place becomes more and more like Something Awful's D&D board everyday.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
Sign In or Register to comment.