[Affirmative Action] Perspectives and solutions

1568101121

Posts

  • FagatronFagatron Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Except Columbine, totally Doom's fault.

    Fagatron on
  • FroThulhuFroThulhu Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    But, see, it's not my culture. I'm black. I'm fuckpoor (it's funny that we live in a place where someone can be poor and still be typing on a computer, using the internet). I've been directly discriminated against because of my skin color.
    I listen to metal and Jazz. I wear buttondown shirts and slacks that are actually my size. I have the wonderful experience of regularly being told I'm 'the whitest black guy around' because I make a habit of pronouncing my 'r's and 'ing's. Hip-Hop culture is not our culture. It's a musical subculture. It's a fashion movement.
    Ya wanna know what a Crusty is? It's a punk-rocker who lives like a hippy; unwashed, with second-hand clothes, constantly expounding on the evils of The Man. The greater portion of Crusties that I know came from very well-to-do homes. Yet they chose to be absolutely repugnant. And they get jobs here. If that flies, a black person who fits the Hip-Hopper description should have no problem, right? Wrong. That's not how it works. You can be a filthy, odiferous Crusty; you can wear sagged pants and try to talk street, and you can still get a job; but you can't get away with it if you're black.
    These are facts of life.

    What I'm getting at here is that you do not get to hold my people to a higher standard than your own ethnic group is held to, simply because your ethnic group fucked mine over for a very, very long time and we should... what, prove to you that we're better, or something? One group of people does not get to oppress another, then say "Hey! If you can just reverse every single fucked up thing we did to you four several hundred years right f-ing now, you can have something like a fair shake!"

    But screw it. I'm tired.

    FroThulhu on
    Nova_C wrote: »
    "I'm arresting you for failing to check yourself. You have the right to wreck yourself."
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Right on, FroThulhu.

    Fagatron, you said something earlier about being dismissed as a Stormfront poster. A lot of the stuff you've posted thus far, especially the last 4 or five posts, have been totally stormfront worthy. If you're trying to avoid the comparison, you're failing miserably.

    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
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Fagatron wrote: »
    What I'm worried about is you'll see a trend where white people become the minority, continue to get shouted down as racists any time they say anything about how maybe they're getting the short side of racial equality, and AA laws stick around forever because they're definitely not hurting anybody right?

    Seriously? Your overriding concern is that white people are going to get picked on? "Brown people will do to us what we've been doing to them" is kind of an ugly paranoia, and you repeat it in post after post. Do you know what confirmation bias is?

    Yes, it sucks to be poor. Yes, there is a boatload of classism, even in the oh-so-progressive Bay Area. Yes, there are brown people who are jerks. But you know what? Imagine how much fun your life would be if you were black and poor. Ask some of the folks in Marin City about how 'progressive' the North Bay is.

    ETA: Just a thought, Fagatron, but maybe the reason you're getting crap from people in San Francisco is not that you're an oppressed white person, but because you're coming across as a silly goose. You may have picked up by now that there's a lot of negative sentiment in the SF area towards people who come from, say, Bakersfield or Fresno. Some of that is classism. A lot of it is the perception that people who are from those areas (without actually fleeing them at top speed) are troglodyte conservatives who would happily take a shotgun to all the lib'ruls and queers up here if they thought they could get away with it.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Snoqualmie, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    But, see, it's not my culture. I'm black. I'm fuckpoor (it's funny that we live in a place where someone can be poor and still be typing on a computer, using the internet). I've been directly discriminated against because of my skin color.
    I listen to metal and Jazz. I wear buttondown shirts and slacks that are actually my size. I have the wonderful experience of regularly being told I'm 'the whitest black guy around' because I make a habit of pronouncing my 'r's and 'ing's. Hip-Hop culture is not our culture. It's a musical subculture. It's a fashion movement.
    Ya wanna know what a Crusty is? It's a punk-rocker who lives like a hippy; unwashed, with second-hand clothes, constantly expounding on the evils of The Man. The greater portion of Crusties that I know came from very well-to-do homes. Yet they chose to be absolutely repugnant. And they get jobs here. If that flies, a black person who fits the Hip-Hopper description should have no problem, right? Wrong. That's not how it works. You can be a filthy, odiferous Crusty; you can wear sagged pants and try to talk street, and you can still get a job; but you can't get away with it if you're black.
    These are facts of life.

    What I'm getting at here is that you do not get to hold my people to a higher standard than your own ethnic group is held to, simply because your ethnic group fucked mine over for a very, very long time and we should... what, prove to you that we're better, or something? One group of people does not get to oppress another, then say "Hey! If you can just reverse every single fucked up thing we did to you four several hundred years right f-ing now, you can have something like a fair shake!"


    But screw it. I'm tired.

    Fagtraon's PCish, behind the bush white privilege is so fucking obvious. People like him wonder why Klan members, and outright racist are given more respect than him. Its because I'd rather have someone say "I don't like your kind" up front to my face, than some cowardly, passive aggressive, silly goose who tries to do it in a round and about way.

    Sad to see that the main point of the topic was AA, if you are for it why? If you are against it, what are your alternatives to it? Instead we get a few ;" Whaaa! why is it that I have to feel sorry for those darkies that I personally didn’t do anything to!", responses from a few silly geese that totally missed the point of the OP's question at hand.

    Ticaldfjam on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    BTW, I'm still waiting for Tim to elaborate on Wisconsin's policy of giving free tuition to Asian people, regardless of income.

    Because I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist.

    Schrodinger on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    BTW, I'm still waiting for Tim to elaborate on Wisconsin's policy of giving free tuition to Asian people, regardless of income.

    Because I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist.

    Given the number of Asian people in Wisconsin I doubt they've even had an opportunity to implement the program.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Much like the way teabaggers like to vent about government spending, anti-AA people don't really have any ideas that will actually address the problem in a way that achieves the aims of AA and also addresses their problems with AA. Their solutions amount vague statements of purpose and a desire for the issue to exist in an ideal world rather than the world that we actually live in.

    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
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Much like the way teabaggers like to vent about government spending, anti-AA people don't really have any ideas that will actually address the problem in a way that achieves the aims of AA and also addresses their problems with AA. Their solutions amount vague statements of purpose and a desire for the issue to exist in an ideal world rather than the world that we actually live in.

    Or, more cynically, they don't actually want to achieve the aims of AA. Or they don't really care whether or not those aims are achieved.

    sidhaethe on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    BOOTSTRAPS

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I have a question.

    I can agree that the current wealth disparity and racism makes it very difficult for poor black folk to even the gap. And that as the gap widdens, it will perpetuate some of those factors which make it more difficult.

    The question is, lets say racism wasnt a part of it. Lets say the discepencies in wealth happened naturally, within a single race. So we have a world of Grey people who over time seperated into different classes. Now, it becomes easier for those on top to grow their money, and more difficult for those on bottom to climb up.

    Would it make sense to try to fix that? Would it be morally right to try to even out that above situation?

    Basically, do we need to hit a reset button on wealth every once in a while to even out the playing field?

    Disrupter on
  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    BOOTSTRAPS

    This took entirely too long to be posted.

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I have a question.

    I can agree that the current wealth disparity and racism makes it very difficult for poor black folk to even the gap. And that as the gap widdens, it will perpetuate some of those factors which make it more difficult.

    The question is, lets say racism wasnt a part of it. Lets say the discepencies in wealth happened naturally, within a single race. So we have a world of Grey people who over time seperated into different classes. Now, it becomes easier for those on top to grow their money, and more difficult for those on bottom to climb up.

    Would it make sense to try to fix that? Would it be morally right to try to even out that above situation?

    Basically, do we need to hit a reset button on wealth every once in a while to even out the playing field?

    In theory, that's what the estate tax is for.

    In theory.

    Schrodinger on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    The problem being that money = political influence, so unless the economic reset was a part of the constitution and was etched in stone, the current crop of wealthy people would simply buy off politicians and inundate the public square with anti-reset propaganda in order to prevent the reset from happening. That's essentially what Citizens United boils down to.

    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
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I have a question.

    I can agree that the current wealth disparity and racism makes it very difficult for poor black folk to even the gap. And that as the gap widdens, it will perpetuate some of those factors which make it more difficult.

    The question is, lets say racism wasnt a part of it. Lets say the discepencies in wealth happened naturally, within a single race. So we have a world of Grey people who over time seperated into different classes. Now, it becomes easier for those on top to grow their money, and more difficult for those on bottom to climb up.

    Would it make sense to try to fix that? Would it be morally right to try to even out that above situation?

    Basically, do we need to hit a reset button on wealth every once in a while to even out the playing field?

    In theory, that's what the estate tax is for.

    In theory.

    Speaking of! ~80 days until the great old rich people assisted suicide orgy of 2010!

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    My question was less about the realistic implementation of an economic reset, and more about the opinions of those debating AA in regards to one.

    I was, and still am, honestly curious as to how people would feel about it. Personally, I would be firmly against such an economic reset. In the situation I described, wealth and the advantages gained by it were 100% earned.

    I do understand that at some point, your lower class gets to a point where it seems impossible for them to catch up to the higher class. But I think as as on the individual level, it was possible to improve your standing, its ok. And as long as you were not at a disadvantage due to your class.

    Its important to note that an advantage for the upper class is not the same as a disadvantage to the lower class. For example, if the upper class can afford an education that the lower can't, that is an advantage to the upper class and I think that is fine. If folks don't hire people from a certain area, or with a certain name, because that usually means they are from the lower class, then that is a disadvantage to the lower class.

    I think theres a responsibility to remove the disadvantages, but not necissarily to even out the advantages.

    Again, things change when you factor in racism and other concepts that are very much a large part of the actual AA discussion. My opinions can only be taken in my hypothetical "Grey" scenerio.

    Disrupter on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    You can't really achieve equality or economic/class mobility if inherent disparity can't be mitigated. This is why true class mobility is an exception rather than a rule.

    I'm generally in favor of things the decrease the disparity between the classes, particularly weighted in favor of the lower middle and lower class. Yes, this even includes explicit wealth redistribution schemes. I'm in favor of AA as a part of reducing disparity because racism is, itself, a vehicle for increasing class disparity.

    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
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Much like the way teabaggers like to vent about government spending, anti-AA people don't really have any ideas that will actually address the problem in a way that achieves the aims of AA and also addresses their problems with AA. Their solutions amount vague statements of purpose and a desire for the issue to exist in an ideal world rather than the world that we actually live in.

    The problem is that right now, opponents claim to be against racism, but they don't want to lose their unfair racial advantage.

    You can't reconcile these two basic points.

    Right now, white people are in an artificially strong position and minorities are in an artificially weak position, due to institutional racism. Any attempt to level the playing field will undermine those artificial positions, thus causing white people to end up a little weaker and minorities to end up a little stronger. The problem is that many white people see this as an unearned "punishment," rather than an attempt to level the playing field. They ask for the game to be made more fair (the aim of AA), but without making white people weaker or minorities stronger (which is their problem with AA). It's an impossible position.

    Suppose that, due to a billing error, it turns out that you have been receiving a small portion of your co-workers paycheck for the past several years, despite the fact that both of you work equally hard. You agree that this is unfair, and that this should be addressed. However, you refuse to take a pay cut, or compensate your co-worker for lost wages. This is what it means to oppose AA.

    Schrodinger on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Much like the way teabaggers like to vent about government spending, anti-AA people don't really have any ideas that will actually address the problem in a way that achieves the aims of AA and also addresses their problems with AA. Their solutions amount vague statements of purpose and a desire for the issue to exist in an ideal world rather than the world that we actually live in.

    The problem is that right now, opponents claim to be against racism, but they don't want to lose their unfair racial advantage.

    You can't reconcile these two basic points.

    Right now, white people are in an artificially strong position and minorities are in an artificially weak position, due to institutional racism. Any attempt to level the playing field will undermine those artificial positions, thus causing white people to end up a little weaker and minorities to end up a little stronger. The problem is that many white people see this as an unearned "punishment," rather than an attempt to level the playing field. They ask for the game to be made more fair (the aim of AA), but without making white people weaker or minorities stronger (which is their problem with AA). It's an impossible position.

    Suppose that, due to a billing error, it turns out that you have been receiving a small portion of your co-workers paycheck for the past several years, despite the fact that both of you work equally hard. You agree that this is unfair, and that this should be addressed. However, you refuse to take a pay cut, or compensate your co-worker for lost wages. This is what it means to oppose AA.

    it's hard to get someone to advocate against their own interests, especially in the absence of an overt and active continuing injustice.

    black people are poor and uneducated in the US, by and large. this is an injustice and a by-product of a great historical injustice, but it's today really only passively continued. and, of course, the mechanisms of perpetuation of poverty are pretty ugly and end up pointing to a lot of poor choices by individuals.

    i honestly don't think that "poor white trash" acquits itself any better socially, and probably don't have much better luck in the sense of economic advancement than to poor black people. i live in boston, and the destructive cultural attitudes of lower-class irish-american or italian-american townies up here are at least as bad as any i've witnessed in poor black communities.

    i support AA, or whatever less-offensive moniker and mechanism it's adopted today. on the other hand, i'm a scientist/ engineer, and AA isn't likely to put me out of a job the way that it might if i were a working-class white guy. i also don't have kids, so i don't have the sense of guilt that i'm taking something away from my children. so i try not to judge too harshly.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I feel that too much of the discussion around Affirmative Action revolves around the negative. Redress for old wounds, fighting against racism, and leveling a wealth disparity. These are poor motivations in that they center around contention and conflict when the goal should be to promote humanity rather than referee a game of tribal football.
    I see much here to remind me of my former condition, and I confess I should be ashamed to lift up my voice against American slavery, but that I know the cause of humanity is one the world over. He who really and truly feels for the American slave, cannot steel his heart to the woes of others; and he who thinks himself an abolitionist, yet cannot enter into the wrongs of others, has yet to find a true foundation for his anti-slavery faith.
    It is only about six centuries since the blue-eyed and fair-haired Anglo-Saxons were considered inferior by the haughty Normans, who once trampled upon them. If you read the history of the Norman Conquest, you will find that this proud Anglo-Saxon was once looked upon as of coarser clay than his Norman master, and might be found in the highways and byways of Old England laboring with a brass collar on his neck, and the name of his master marked upon it. You were down then! [Laughter and applause.] You are up now. I am glad you are up, and I want you to be glad to help us up also.

    If you get into a pissing match of who has it worse off you're not helping. In terms of fairness, AA is indefensible. In terms of humanity, AA serves its goal. It gives a subset of those who could succeed given better circumstances a leg up.

    Our society has been on an upward swing. Racial divisions in this country are nothing like they were fifty years ago, and unrecognizable compared to what they were a century ago. We should celebrate those successes and aspire to be better without hammering on our flaws.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    In terms of fairness, AA is indefensible.

    Elaborate.

    Schrodinger on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    In terms of fairness, AA is indefensible.

    Elaborate.

    If you completely ignore context and magically eliminate prejudice, AA is unfair.

    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
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    In terms of fairness, AA is indefensible.

    Elaborate.

    On an individual level, there will be people who receive help when others could use it more. It targets diversity and racial status over need.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    In terms of fairness, AA is indefensible.

    Elaborate.

    On an individual level, there will be people who receive help when others could use it more. It targets diversity and racial status over need.

    Define "need".

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    In terms of fairness, AA is indefensible.

    Elaborate.

    On an individual level, there will be people who receive help when others could use it more. It targets diversity and racial status over need.

    Define "need".

    Define nitpick.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Suppose that, due to a billing error, it turns out that you have been receiving a small portion of your co-workers paycheck for the past several years, despite the fact that both of you work equally hard. You agree that this is unfair, and that this should be addressed. However, you refuse to take a pay cut, or compensate your co-worker for lost wages. This is what it means to oppose AA.
    That's a terrible analogy. It assumes that a white person's mere existence results in money being taken out of a minority's pocket. That's not the case. Whatever harm past/existing discrimination has caused minorities shouldn't come out of my pocket, since I have not personally taken part in such discrimination.

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

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Suppose that, due to a billing error, it turns out that you have been receiving a small portion of your co-workers paycheck for the past several years, despite the fact that both of you work equally hard. You agree that this is unfair, and that this should be addressed. However, you refuse to take a pay cut, or compensate your co-worker for lost wages. This is what it means to oppose AA.
    That's a terrible analogy. It assumes that a white person's mere existence results in money being taken out of a minority's pocket. That's not the case. Whatever harm past/existing discrimination has caused minorities shouldn't come out of my pocket, since I have not personally taken part in such discrimination.

    You realize that this is exactly what happens, right?

    Just because you don't personally own slaves doesn't mean that you don't benefit from racism.

    The fact that you aren't even aware of this phenomenon shows that you take this privileged for granted, and proves my point that opponents will see any attempt to level the playing field as a personal slight.

    http://www.blackelectorate.com/dev/original/articles.asp?ID=951
    Two young high-school graduates with similar job histories and demeanors apply in person for jobs as waiters, warehousemen or other low-skilled positions advertised in a Milwaukee newspaper. One man is white and admits to having served 18 months in prison for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The other is black and hasn't any criminal record.

    Which man is more likely to get called back?

    It is surprisingly close. In a carefully crafted experiment in which college students posing as job applicants visited 350 employers, the white ex-con was called back 17% of the time and the crime-free black applicant 14%. The disadvantage carried by a young black man applying for a job as a dishwasher or a driver is equivalent to forcing a white man to carry an 18-month prison record on his back.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_2_48/ai_97873146/
    The results are a bit disturbing, the researchers admit. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be contacted for job interviews than those with typical black names. There were no significant differences between the rates at which men and women were contacted.

    This isn't the first time we've posted examples like this. You choose to willfully ignore them, thus proving the point of the analogy.

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    In terms of fairness, AA is indefensible.

    Elaborate.

    On an individual level, there will be people who receive help when others could use it more. It targets diversity and racial status over need.

    So it's indefensible to give anything to anyone or to help anyone in any way, as long as there are other people who need it more.

    Schrodinger on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Suppose that, due to a billing error, it turns out that you have been receiving a small portion of your co-workers paycheck for the past several years, despite the fact that both of you work equally hard. You agree that this is unfair, and that this should be addressed. However, you refuse to take a pay cut, or compensate your co-worker for lost wages. This is what it means to oppose AA.
    That's a terrible analogy. It assumes that a white person's mere existence results in money being taken out of a minority's pocket. That's not the case. Whatever harm past/existing discrimination has caused minorities shouldn't come out of my pocket, since I have not personally taken part in such discrimination.

    You realize that this is exactly what happens, right?

    Just because you don't personally own slaves doesn't mean that you don't benefit from racism.

    The fact that you aren't even aware of this phenomenon shows that you take this privileged for granted, and proves my point that opponents will see any attempt to level the playing field as a personal slight.

    If you're saying that my position in life, my salary, education and whatnot are somehow ill-gotten, then yeah, I'm going to take it as a personal slight. That's exactly what the analogy in question suggests- that money that rightfully belongs to someone else has ended up in my pocket due to my race, and that I am legally or morally obligated to give it back. Well, fuck that, I don't owe anyone else anything due to their race, or mine. And I'm going to oppose any program that seeks to put me or my family at a disadvantage due to race.

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

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    By all means ignore the parts of his post that showed you how wrong you are.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    By all means ignore the parts of his post that showed you how wrong you are.
    It sucks that minorities, especially black men get discriminated against. That's obviously an injustice.

    But explain to me why I have a moral obligation to take a hit to help solve those injustices, seeing as I'm not the one refusing to hire black dudes based on their names?

    In the example in that post, I'd hire the black guy without the criminal record, all other things being equal.

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

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Suppose that, due to a billing error, it turns out that you have been receiving a small portion of your co-workers paycheck for the past several years, despite the fact that both of you work equally hard. You agree that this is unfair, and that this should be addressed. However, you refuse to take a pay cut, or compensate your co-worker for lost wages. This is what it means to oppose AA.
    That's a terrible analogy. It assumes that a white person's mere existence results in money being taken out of a minority's pocket. That's not the case. Whatever harm past/existing discrimination has caused minorities shouldn't come out of my pocket, since I have not personally taken part in such discrimination.

    You realize that this is exactly what happens, right?

    Just because you don't personally own slaves doesn't mean that you don't benefit from racism.

    The fact that you aren't even aware of this phenomenon shows that you take this privileged for granted, and proves my point that opponents will see any attempt to level the playing field as a personal slight.

    If you're saying that my position in life, my salary, education and whatnot are somehow ill-gotten, then yeah, I'm going to take it as a personal slight. That's exactly what the analogy in question suggests- that money that rightfully belongs to someone else has ended up in my pocket due to my race, and that I am legally or morally obligated to give it back. Well, fuck that, I don't owe anyone else anything due to their race, or mine. And I'm going to oppose any program that seeks to put me or my family at a disadvantage due to race.

    But you're totally cool when you get put at a huge advantage due to race. You see the minor issue here?

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you're saying that my position in life, my salary, education and whatnot are somehow ill-gotten, then yeah, I'm going to take it as a personal slight.

    Would you have the same position, salary, education, and what-not if you were born in Somalia? Y/n?

    If the answer is "no," then your position/salary/education/what-not was only possible within what you were able to achieve within the context of society.

    And the current context of society is designed in such a way that it rewards white people more than black people, even in cases where merits are equal. If you had been born black, you would have a much harder time finding entry level work, and you would have also had a much harder time working yourself up to your current position. You would have had a harder time moving into a nice neighborhood. You would have had a harder time getting a loan.
    That's exactly what the analogy in question suggests- that money that rightfully belongs to someone else has ended up in my pocket due to my race, and that I am legally or morally obligated to give it back.

    Yes, my analogy would suggest that, wouldn't it?

    But what exactly is wrong with the conclusion, other than the fact that you would have to sacrifice one iota of white privilege?
    Well, fuck that, I don't owe anyone else anything due to their race, or mine. And I'm going to oppose any program that seeks to put me or my family at a disadvantage due to race.

    So you're going to oppose any program that attempts to level the playing field, even after the data has shown that the current system is tilted against black people. Because hey, you're not black, and any attempt to level the playing field will put you at a disadvantage.

    It's like a football coach who discovers that some of his players have been taking steroids, and he complains about how awful it is. But he refuses to tell his players to stop taking steroids or kick them off the team, because then he would lose all his good players.

    Why is it that you're absolutely positive that the statistical benefits of being white have no effect on you whatsoever, while you're also absolutely convinced that if you don't get the job, it's because of some negro on affirmative action?

    Why are you willing to blame all of your shortcomings on racism, but none of your accomplishments?

    Schrodinger on
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    In terms of fairness, AA is indefensible. In terms of humanity, AA serves its goal.

    Elaborate.

    On an individual level, there will be people who receive help when others could use it more. It targets diversity and racial status over need.

    So it's indefensible to give anything to anyone or to help anyone in any way, as long as there are other people who need it more.

    I guess to you the only value that matters is fairness since you ignored the rest of quote. If that's the case, then yes, it is indefensible.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    By all means ignore the parts of his post that showed you how wrong you are.
    It sucks that minorities, especially black men get discriminated against. That's obviously an injustice.

    But explain to me why I have a moral obligation to take a hit to help solve those injustices, seeing as I'm not the one refusing to hire black dudes based on their names?

    How can you be so sure that you, personally, are the one taking the hit?

    Explain that one to us. How do you know that you didn't take the hit due to your own personal incompetence? Why exactly are you so quick to blame your personal failings on the black dude, even if there might only be a 2% chance of that being the actual case?
    In the example in that post, I'd hire the black guy without the criminal record, all other things being equal.

    Do you honestly think that any of those employers being tested would openly admit to hiring a felon white dude over a crime free black dude if given a choice? Do you think they're even aware of their own racism, much less consciously acting on it?

    The studies aren't conducted by literally sending identical resumes to the same employers and checking to see how the employers response when they have a direct choice. That would be too easy for the employer to spot. The studies are conducted by sending identical resumes to different employers, hundreds of times over, and seeing which resumes gets a better response on average. i.e., if you send resume A to 200 employers and resume B to 200 employers, you expect that the individual biases of each employers to average out, until the only real variable left is skin color.

    So you can claim you would hire the black guy over the white dude. But that's not how the choice would be framed to you. The fact that you're quick to blame black people for your personal failures shows that you're not as non-racist as you might think.

    http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5976/Aversive-Racism.html
    Because aversive racists consciously recognize and endorse egalitarian values and because they truly aspire to be nonprejudiced, they will not discriminate in situations in which strong social norms would make discrimination obvious to others and to themselves. Specifically, when people are presented with a situation in which the normatively appropriate response is clear (i.e., in which right and wrong is clearly defined), aversive racists will not discriminate against blacks. In these contexts, aversive racists will be especially motivated to avoid feelings, beliefs, and behaviors that could be associated with racist intent. To avoid the attribution of racist intent, aversive racists will either treat blacks and whites equally or they will respond even more favorably to blacks than to whites. In such a situation, wrongdoing, which would directly threaten their nonprejudiced self-image, would be too costly. However, because aversive racists still possess feelings of uneasiness, these feelings will eventually be expressed, but they will be expressed in subtle, indirect, and rationalizable ways. For instance, discrimination will occur in situations in which normative structure is weak, when the guidelines for appropriate behavior are vague, or when the basis for social judgment is ambiguous. In addition, discrimination will occur when an aversive racist can justify or rationalize a negative response on the basis of some factor other than race. Under these circumstances, aversive racists may engage in behaviors that ultimately harm blacks, but they will do so in ways that allow them to maintain their self-image as nonprejudiced and that insulate them from recognizing that their behavior is not color-blind.

    Evidence in support of the aversive racism framework comes from a range of paradigms. For instance, white bystanders who are the only witness to an emergency (and thus are fully responsible for helping) are just as likely to help a black victim as a white victim. However, when white bystanders believe that others also witness the emergency (distributing the responsibility for helping), they are less likely to help a black victim than a white victim. In personnel or college-admission selection decisions, whites do not discriminate on the basis of race when candidates have very strong or weak qualifications. Nevertheless, they do discriminate against blacks when the candidates have moderate qualifications and the appropriate decision is therefore more ambiguous. In these circumstances, aversive racists weigh the positive qualities of white applicants and the negative qualities of black applicants more heavily in their evaluations. Analogously, aversive racists have more difficulty discounting incriminating evidence that is declared inadmissible when evaluating the guilt or innocence of black defendants relative to white defendants in studies of juridic decisions. In interracial interactions, whites’ overt behaviors (e.g., verbal behavior) primarily reflect their expressed, explicit racial attitudes, whereas their more spontaneous and less controllable behaviors (e.g., their nonverbal behaviors) are related to their implicit, generally unconscious attitudes.

    Aversive racism also contributes to opposition to policies designed to benefit blacks, such as affirmative action, but also primarily in rationalizable ways. Whites generally support the principle of affirmative action more than specific policy implementations, which contain elements that allow them to rationalize opposition on the basis of factors other than race (e.g., unfairness). Thus, aversive racists’ responses to public policies are substantially influenced by how these policies are framed. They express general support for affirmative action when addressing historical and contemporary discrimination, but they tend to oppose a policy when it is portrayed as benefiting blacks in particular, or when the description implies it involves quotas or reverse discrimination.

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    In terms of fairness, AA is indefensible. In terms of humanity, AA serves its goal.

    Elaborate.

    On an individual level, there will be people who receive help when others could use it more. It targets diversity and racial status over need.

    So it's indefensible to give anything to anyone or to help anyone in any way, as long as there are other people who need it more.

    I guess to you the only value that matters is fairness since you ignored the rest of quote. If that's the case, then yes, it is indefensible.

    Food stamps are an indefensible program, because people are starving in Africa.

    Schrodinger on
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    In terms of fairness, AA is indefensible. In terms of humanity, AA serves its goal.

    Elaborate.

    On an individual level, there will be people who receive help when others could use it more. It targets diversity and racial status over need.

    So it's indefensible to give anything to anyone or to help anyone in any way, as long as there are other people who need it more.

    I guess to you the only value that matters is fairness since you ignored the rest of quote. If that's the case, then yes, it is indefensible.

    Food stamps are an indefensible program, because people are starving in Africa.

    In your world where fairness is the only benchmark, sure why not.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    http://www.blackelectorate.com/dev/original/articles.asp?ID=951
    Two young high-school graduates with similar job histories and demeanors apply in person for jobs as waiters, warehousemen or other low-skilled positions advertised in a Milwaukee newspaper. One man is white and admits to having served 18 months in prison for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The other is black and hasn't any criminal record.

    Which man is more likely to get called back?

    It is surprisingly close. In a carefully crafted experiment in which college students posing as job applicants visited 350 employers, the white ex-con was called back 17% of the time and the crime-free black applicant 14%. The disadvantage carried by a young black man applying for a job as a dishwasher or a driver is equivalent to forcing a white man to carry an 18-month prison record on his back.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_2_48/ai_97873146/
    The results are a bit disturbing, the researchers admit. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be contacted for job interviews than those with typical black names. There were no significant differences between the rates at which men and women were contacted.

    This isn't the first time we've posted examples like this. You choose to willfully ignore them, thus proving the point of the analogy.

    i wonder, and i don't really know so i'm just kind of musing here, but i wonder if this phenomenon of preferring whites for employment is much more dominant among the working-class than among the professional class.

    i suspect it is. my experience as an engineer is that black engineers are assiduously courted and extreme efforts to ensure fair and courteous workplace behavior are established. my brother, a banker and lawyer, tells me that much the same is done at his wall street office.

    on the other hand, the non-college job/ working class job market is really where whites and blacks compete heavily for not enough jobs in this country. i guess most of the really strong discontent towards leveling schemes and affirmative action i've heard has come from working-class whites.

    the professional whites who bitch about it seem to generally do it because the implication of white professional privilege is just the mirror image of accusations of "affirmative action" - that you didn't really earn your professional position or accolades on your own merits, but because of your race.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • FroThulhuFroThulhu Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Yeah, I'd say the more blue-collar job market is where a lot of the problems are. And I'd say it's more because of a lack of procedural monitoring in that area. Top dollar corporate jobs are closely watched because they 'register' on the governmental radar, while small-time private businesses can basically get away with murder because nobody's looking

    FroThulhu on
    Nova_C wrote: »
    "I'm arresting you for failing to check yourself. You have the right to wreck yourself."
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    i wonder, and i don't really know so i'm just kind of musing here, but i wonder if this phenomenon of preferring whites for employment is much more dominant among the working-class than among the professional class.

    i suspect it is. my experience as an engineer is that black engineers are assiduously courted and extreme efforts to ensure fair and courteous workplace behavior are established. my brother, a banker and lawyer, tells me that much the same is done at his wall street office.

    Oh, I don't know. I've heard some pretty hair-raising stories about how the professional class deals with race - people getting 'assidiously courted' for meetings and client calls to show We Care About Diversity, but still being shut out of company culture, last hired and first fired, treated as the representative of all black people, etc. etc. Whereas I've also heard plenty of blue-collar folks who don't give a shit what color you are as long as you pull your weight.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you're saying that my position in life, my salary, education and whatnot are somehow ill-gotten, then yeah, I'm going to take it as a personal slight. That's exactly what the analogy in question suggests- that money that rightfully belongs to someone else has ended up in my pocket due to my race, and that I am legally or morally obligated to give it back. Well, fuck that, I don't owe anyone else anything due to their race, or mine. And I'm going to oppose any program that seeks to put me or my family at a disadvantage due to race.

    Sorry, are we pretending that AA is a program which imposes a Race Tax on white people paycheck's and directly diverts it to black people's paychecks?

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
Sign In or Register to comment.