Okay, let me explain it this way: We have a race between two competitors. Bur before the race starts, we take and hobble one of the competitors with weights, chains, all sorts of things. Then we start the race. Now the guy who isn't fettered, he's running along easily, while the guy we've chained up is doing the best that he can, but he keeps falling further and further behind. Now about halfway through the race, we take and remove all the burdens we put on the one racer, and restart the race from where they stand.
Your argument is that from that point forward, the race is "fair". Which anyone who has half a clue can tell you, is not the case. That's why cries of "reverse racism" are such bullshit - if we actually want to have a colorblind society in the future, then we need to get rid of that gap caused by actions in the past.
This was put in a much better way hedge, thanks.
The only way to achieve fairness is to do it fairly, and not at the expense of anybody. Can you think of a way to do this? I sure as hell can't.
On that note:
and
Thems sure are pretty comics that illustrate a very small portion of the white population.
No, not really. Racism is still racism no matter how you slice it, in reverse or diagonal. Just because it's at the expense of a majority (I don't care if you think affirmative action is anti-racist, it's policies are still a type of racism) doesn't make it okay in any shape or form. Just because you allow racism towards people who haven't typically been subject to it or shouldn't benefit from it, or even because you think they need to have a portion of their job because those (insert minority here) need jobs too, it's still racism.
I would feel exactly the same way if it were in inverted. And yes, racism is terrible and awful if anyone benefits from it. Black or white, red or yellow. Period.
So why is racism OK when private entities do it? And why shouldn't PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES be allowed to implement anti-White racist policies (Affirmative Action) in the same way business are? You don't see the conflict between saying that private entities can be racist and that's OK and in the same breath saying that its not OK for private universities to be racist?
If you believe that racism is reprehensible, but that in order to protect freedom of association we must allow private organizations to be racist, then how do you propose fighting Affirmative Action, which is also racism enacted by a private institution?
I'm perfectly okay with any private entity, university or employment, to be racist against whites, blacks, or even Vulcans.
So why all the boohooing about Affirmative Action?
Because affirmative action is not a solution to a problem. At the best it's going to maintain racial tensions.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Completely invalidates? Certainly not. But you can find some validation for just about anything.
The question is does Affirmative Action make things BETTER?
I don't believe it does, certainly not in the areas I've lived. In the Deep South, perhaps.
Seperate AND Inequal is good fun tiems no.
Obviously there is still some cultural friction that has to be overcome, but you'd do better spending your time trying to eliminate poverty-ensuring culture at this point.
If you were joking, what's the whole purpose of affirmative action?
If you haven't grasped it yet, then you're probably not going to. Look, we've explained it in detail Go back and read.
[strike]And I'm looking for his specific answer, don't be pedantic.[/strike] I don't think it's necessarily solving anything.
Edit: I was under the understanding that AA meant a quota system (which I had been trying to find a definite answer on all day, I found it). I retract my statement on it.
I still do not think it's going to solve any problems though.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Completely invalidates? Certainly not. But you can find some validation for just about anything.
The question is does Affirmative Action make things BETTER?
I don't believe it does, certainly not in the areas I've lived. In the Deep South, perhaps.
Seperate AND Inequal is good fun tiems no.
Obviously there is still some cultural friction that has to be overcome, but you'd do better spending your time trying to eliminate poverty-ensuring culture at this point.
Actually, the most segregated cities in America are major northern cities. Macon, GA, had that title until the population declined to the point that it no longer qualified as a city, and the crown was passed to the north somewhere. And that's where AA has done most of its good, because down here people have been forced to deal with the overt racism and prejudice in a much more confrontational way than the rest of the country.
But that's exactly what AA does. It forces the issue right out into everybody's field of view. It's done good if not purely by making people talk about this shit and realize that, statistically, there are still some very real problems that transcend the general conservative "we hate poor people" rhetoric and come right down to the issues of racism and intolerance.
Hell, New York was the most openly racist city I've ever been to, and you all know my pedigree around here. Down here it's just ignorance because of the general lack of intermingling, but up there it's ignorance and jaded angst.
If you were joking, what's the whole purpose of affirmative action?
If you haven't grasped it yet, then you're probably not going to. Look, we've explained it in detail Go back and read.
[strike]And I'm looking for his specific answer, don't be pedantic.[/strike] I don't think it's necessarily solving anything.
Edit: I was under the understanding that AA meant a quota system (which I had been trying to find a definite answer on all day, I found it). I retract my statement on it.
I still do not think it's going to solve any problems though.
Racial quotas have technically been illegal for the past 30 years or so. It's just that most people don't realize this and thus think that racial quotas are what AA is all about.
You know, it really comes down to one thing for me. AA forcibly desegregates. I don't care how the people feel about it at the time, but I'm betting that the fastest way to close the gap in this country is to force people to deal with eachother.
Just like Zeus and John.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Thems sure are pretty comics that illustrate a very small portion of the white population.
The linked studies suggest otherwise, but you keep running and cringing from it. Why?
Because if you're talking negatively about AA, you're basically forced to keep reverting to the "white people have it bad, too!" argument.
Or the "racism ended when Martin Luther King fought Hitler in space" argument. I get so tired of people who apparently think that because they watched a Rosa Parks documentary on the History channel that all that must somehow be safely in the past.
If you were joking, what's the whole purpose of affirmative action?
If you haven't grasped it yet, then you're probably not going to. Look, we've explained it in detail Go back and read.
[strike]And I'm looking for his specific answer, don't be pedantic.[/strike] I don't think it's necessarily solving anything.
Edit: I was under the understanding that AA meant a quota system (which I had been trying to find a definite answer on all day, I found it). I retract my statement on it.
I still do not think it's going to solve any problems though.
Racial quotas have technically been illegal for the past 30 years or so. It's just that most people don't realize this and thus think that racial quotas are what AA is all about.
Yeah I was trying to find that answer for myself because I was honestly under the assumption that that's the way it was designed. However I also turned up a few that said a judge can still force a company to have a quota if they don't feel they're being fair enough.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
If you were joking, what's the whole purpose of affirmative action?
If you haven't grasped it yet, then you're probably not going to. Look, we've explained it in detail Go back and read.
[strike]And I'm looking for his specific answer, don't be pedantic.[/strike] I don't think it's necessarily solving anything.
Edit: I was under the understanding that AA meant a quota system (which I had been trying to find a definite answer on all day, I found it). I retract my statement on it.
I still do not think it's going to solve any problems though.
Racial quotas have technically been illegal for the past 30 years or so. It's just that most people don't realize this and thus think that racial quotas are what AA is all about.
Yeah I was trying to find that answer for myself because I was honestly under the assumption that that's the way it was designed. However I also turned up a few that said a judge can still force a company to have a quota if they don't feel they're being fair enough.
If you were joking, what's the whole purpose of affirmative action?
If you haven't grasped it yet, then you're probably not going to. Look, we've explained it in detail Go back and read.
[strike]And I'm looking for his specific answer, don't be pedantic.[/strike] I don't think it's necessarily solving anything.
Edit: I was under the understanding that AA meant a quota system (which I had been trying to find a definite answer on all day, I found it). I retract my statement on it.
I still do not think it's going to solve any problems though.
Racial quotas have technically been illegal for the past 30 years or so. It's just that most people don't realize this and thus think that racial quotas are what AA is all about.
Yeah I was trying to find that answer for myself because I was honestly under the assumption that that's the way it was designed. However I also turned up a few that said a judge can still force a company to have a quota if they don't feel they're being fair enough.
This has been decided similarly in cases of gender-based affirmative action. A friend of my father's successfully sued a law school he was rejected from because they were operating in a similar way.
Basically, the only way AA exists in the world today is A: at a private institution with no federal or state funding that can do whatever it likes, and B: at a public institution or a private institution instructed by law to make otherwise tied decisions over hiring or acceptance into a school based on race or gender, on the rationale that when two candidates are equally capable, the institution will be better off if its ranks more accurately reflect the demographics of the larger population.
Look, private businesses can do whatever the fuck they want to do, because it's a private entity. We don't live in a socialist government, so that means the government can't really make policies in relation to business entities.
Since when?
You keep making these arguments based on the assumptions that everyone agrees with a staunchly libertarian and laissez-faire point of view, where "appeal to free market" is a valid argument. Unfortunately for you, not everyone does. Saying "we don't live in a country that regulates" isn't much of an argument when we do, in fact, live in such a country. And attempting to label such regulation as "socialism" doesn't do much other than to dilute the meaning of the word.
Just like the company can refuse service to anyone they want to based on whatever they want to.
Only to a certain point. For instance, they can't put up a sign refusing services to black people.
But that's when people speak with their money and don't buy shit from them. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why capitalism works.
Bare assertion. Merely stating that something works when the evidence shows otherwise is not an argument. It doesn't work, first, because violations aren't readily apparent, businesses have plausible deniability, and because the problem is so widespread that it's hard to figure out where to start. Secondly, black people have less money and account for a smaller percentage of the population, so their ability to protest is pretty limited.
We all have to work together and racist laws (yes, affirmative action laws are still fundamentally fucking racist/prejudiced) are not the way to do it.
You know, people keep saying that Affirmative Action is racist or that Affirmative Action is unjust, but they never actually explain why it's so while being consistent with the actual definition of racism. Unless they dilute the definition of racism like you dilute the definition of socialism, to the point where protesting slavery can be deemed racist because it places race into consideration.
I agree completely. The issue isn't really with race. It's with poverty. But the same can be applied to both white and black people in poverty.
You realize that it can be race and poverty, correct? And it's funny how conservatives always make this point by comparing rich black people to poor white people, but they never bother to compare rich white people to rich black people, or poor white people to poor black people.
What gets me, it really really gets me too, is that people of color think it's the white people that are to blame. But most are too proud to fucking work at Burger King.
The statistics show that a convicted white drug dealer has a better chance at finding entry level work at such places than an equally qualified and resumed black guy with a clean record. So it's not that they're "too proud" to work at Burger, it's that employers are less inclined to higher them.
Tell you what, if I was poor I'd work 4 jobs of minimum wage if I had to. And that's where the difference is.
So your argument is that racism doesn't exist, it's just that black people are lazy and don't deserve to work.
#2 - you absolutely can't refuse service to anyone you want. In many areas - lending, employment, housing- entire classes of people are protected and refusing service for discriminatory reasons is a crime. In others, discrimination leaves you open for a lawsuit. Remember Denny's getting sued for discriminating against black secret service officers?
No I don't actually. That's kind of worrisome to make laws about whom an business can choose serve. I personally don't have a problem with it, and if I did, I'd go somewhere else.
The free market in action, righting the wrongs of humanity!
So, a law or policy that defines racism and makes sure it can't happen by implementing policies and procedures to even the playing field at the cost of qualifications and skill to fill a quota isn't racist? That's sure some dumb logic.
Once again, quotas were already ruled unconstitutional. In the 1970s.
Let me ask you a question, Bowen: When were you born? Were you even alive in the 1970s? Were you of working age in the 1970s? If not, then why are you still referring to quotas in the present tense?
I'm just unconvinced that the illusory "tie" exists in the real world. Any application process worth its salt will never actually have 2 people with the exact same qualifications, because there's more to it than just numbers. How they do in interviews, essays, and other stuff is entirely based around how much the interviewer likes it, and it's really not difficult to just say "OK, I actually liked this guy's essay/interview a little bit better, so I'll go with him" rather than say "I just can't make up my mind.....Fuck it, let's just go with the black guy."
I guess my general point is that, 50 years ago, there was vigorous public debate about whether blacks actually should be treated as equals.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/0897/ijse/gallup.htm In assessing their local communities in 1997, blacks are more likely than whites to perceive unfair treatment and discrimination. Seventy-six percent of whites say that blacks are treated the same as whites, while only 49 percent of blacks perceive equal treatment. In 1968, only 26 percent of blacks (compared with 73 percent of whites) felt that both races were treated equally in their community.
In other words, the number of white people who thought that blacks were treated the same as whites is virtually the same figure that it was in the 1960s. So the debate wasn't "should blacks be treated as equals?" for the vast majority of Americans back then. The debate back then was that a lot of white people thought that black people already were being treated as equals, where as a lot of black people disagreed.
Let me ask you a question: what do you think is going through these storeowners' and detectives heads when they do these things?
• Black people are genetically inferior to whites, so I'll treat them that way!
—or—
• I don't like the look of that guy, he's probably one of those gangbangers.
I bet that in most cases, it's the second—and this is a different, less offensive position than classic racism. The second position is really just labeling a person as belonging to a certain culture based on his appearance—"judging a book by its cover," or "stereotyping." This is a sin committed against lots of people—teenagers, people who choose to wear goth clothes, women, Arabs.
Because when Danny Glover can't get a cab in NYC, it's because he looks like a total gang banger, right? The same with Danzel Washington. Anecdotal evidence aside, the studies shows that the problem goes much, much deeper than personal attire and demeanor, which can already be accounted for in controlled studies.
Why do we even need to call what's going on today racism? Why not just call it stereotyping?
No, not really. Racism is still racism no matter how you slice it, in reverse or diagonal. Just because it's at the expense of a majority (I don't care if you think affirmative action is anti-racist, it's policies are still a type of racism) doesn't make it okay in any shape or form. Just because you allow racism towards people who haven't typically been subject to it or shouldn't benefit from it, or even because you think they need to have a portion of their job because those (insert minority here) need jobs too, it's still racism.
Rhetorical device. Basically, your argument here boils down to saying "a horse is a horse, of course, of course," even though we're talking about a dog, and you haven't explained to use how a dog is a horse.
Simply saying "Racism is still racism no matter how you slice it" is not an argument, because by the same token, "Not racism is still not racism no matter how you slice it," and you haven't shown how we're dealing with the former rather than the latter.
I would feel exactly the same way if it were in inverted. And yes, racism is terrible and awful if anyone benefits from it. Black or white, red or yellow. Period.
Except that earlier, someone mentioned how Denny's had discriminated against black customers who turned out to be secret service agents, and you actually said that it didn't bother you. So I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one. You don't give a shit about racism against black people, the only thing you give a shit about is that you don't want to be called a racist against black people. That is not the same thing.
"You can explain most of the discrepancy, but you still have a gap that you can't explain," said Dr. Robert Gaston, a transplant nephrologist who is medical director of kidney and pancreas transplantation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
That gap is the issue.
Well, if it can't be explained, I guess we're all free to imagine any explanation we want that fits our own cognitive dissonance.
Also, regarding "racism" - it is generally understood that the definition of this word has progressed from "belief in the superiority of one race over another" to "failure to devote a socially expected amount of sensitivity to issues concerning racial interactions and politics."
Occam's razor. We already know that racism occurs on a broad level in society, and it explains the remaining discrepancy. If you have an additional assumption to make and evidence to support it, feel free to enlighten us.
I'm just unconvinced that the illusory "tie" exists in the real world. Any application process worth its salt will never actually have 2 people with the exact same qualifications, because there's more to it than just numbers. How they do in interviews, essays, and other stuff is entirely based around how much the interviewer likes it, and it's really not difficult to just say "OK, I actually liked this guy's essay/interview a little bit better, so I'll go with him" rather than say "I just can't make up my mind.....Fuck it, let's just go with the black guy."
Problem is, of course, it's usually the opposite thing that happens. For most people, individuals of the same race make a better impression on eachother than otherwise. All other things being equal, it's probably going to be the white guy just because of that.
In one of my undergrad sociology classes, we actually took this test that sought to measure your reaction to various faces, female and male, and various races. I came out in something like .01% of white people that actually have a better opinion of black people than of my own race. I attribute it to living in rural areas for so long, though.
Because affirmative action is not a solution to a problem. At the best it's going to maintain racial tensions.
Well, seeing as how quotas were ruled unconstitutional in the 1970s and you're still whining about them even today in the present tense, I'm guessing that we could end affirmative action tomorrow, and white people would still be whining about quotas for another 50 years. So not only do we get to maintain racial tensions, but we also get to continue denying opportunities to black people even more so then they're being denied already. It's the worst of both worlds!
Of course, the funny thing about this argument is that it seems to act as though the emancipation proclamation and the entire civil rights movement was completely tension free. For instance, there's that famous Newsweek survey that revealed that 74% of black people thought that the negroes were "moving too fast," and that was in 1963. Gee, imagine what this country would be like if we actually listened to them?
Affirmative Action was probably useful in getting us to the point of "Hey look, you can hire not-white people and your company doesn't collapse!"
But you don't just keep shoving feet in the door.
Are we shoving feet through the door? And to what extent? Because the studies show that when merits are equalized, white applicants still have a huge advantage over black applicants. And keep in mind that in the real world, black people are going to be much fewer in number, and the average black person's resume is probably going to be worse off than the average white person's resume (due to socio-economic and discriminatory factors.). Oh, and keep in mind that this only applies to advertised positions, where as 85-90% of jobs are never advertised at all, and typically exclude black people from their social networks altogether.
In other words, even in the absolute best case scenario, black people still face a huge disadvantage. Worse yet, we don't actually live in a best case scenario. Far, far from it.
Now, with that in mind... what exactly are you complaining about? The fact that black people are still being given one or two opportunities, for every 20 that they lose? Companies might know that their business won't collapse if they hire a black person, but that doesn't mean that they will act on it.
I guess my general point is that, 50 years ago, there was vigorous public debate about whether blacks actually should be treated as equals.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/0897/ijse/gallup.htm In assessing their local communities in 1997, blacks are more likely than whites to perceive unfair treatment and discrimination. Seventy-six percent of whites say that blacks are treated the same as whites, while only 49 percent of blacks perceive equal treatment. In 1968, only 26 percent of blacks (compared with 73 percent of whites) felt that both races were treated equally in their community.
In other words, the number of white people who thought that blacks were treated the same as whites is virtually the same figure that it was in the 1960s. So the debate wasn't "should blacks be treated as equals?" for the vast majority of Americans back then. The debate back then was that a lot of white people thought that black people already were being treated as equals, where as a lot of black people disagreed.
I read this a couple of times and I honestly have no idea how your point is a rebuttle to my point. Would you care to elaborate?
Because when Danny Glover can't get a cab in NYC, it's because he looks like a total gang banger, right? The same with Danzel Washington. Anecdotal evidence aside, the studies shows that the problem goes much, much deeper than personal attire and demeanor, which can already be accounted for in controlled studies.
Okay. Do you think these cab drivers passing Danny Glover by are saying to themselves "he's black, an inferior race, I don't want to dirty my cab" or "he's black and statistically black people don't give good tips"?
Again, I honestly have no idea how your point is a rebuttle to something I've said. I am saying that racism, as it is understood today, has a vastly different valence than the word had several generations ago, possibly to the point that we should start calling it something else to be more clear. I'm confused as to how Danny Glover not getting a cab in NYC has anything to do with this.
Would that be more politically correct for you?
Yes, Schrodinger. I think being politically correct is incredibly important, which is why I always try to toe the line in my posting on this forum (what the fuck are you talking about?)
If the judgment is made because of the subject's race, how is that not racism? Just because people use experience to substantiate doesn't mate it any different. I mean, hell, they were doing that when it was all about other races being genetically inferior. Like, White Man's Burden days, looking at Native Americans and Africans and other races as inferior because they saw that they lived in grass huts and hadn't conquered the entire world.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
TrueHereticXWe are the future Charles, not them. They no longer matter.Sydney, AustraliaRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
I went to a school where the student body was 75% Polynesian, 20% Black/Aboriginal and 5% White.
I was a white guy, and never said anything derogatory to either Polynesian or Black/Aboriginal students.
Yet they would get away with calling us 'crackers', 'ghosts' 'termites' and the like.
They would get preferential treatment in such things as school fairs (Example: We had a grand total of 4 Islander days in year 12, whereas my friends and I suggested we have a celebration of European Culture and the principal told us "That could be construed as racism")
I read this a couple of times and I honestly have no idea how your point is a rebuttle to my point. Would you care to elaborate?
Basically, the debate back then has more parallels to today than you acknowledge. It's wasn't just "people who think black people are inferior vs. people who think they should be treated as equal." The vast majority of white people were those who thought that blacks were already being treated as equals, and/or that they were trying to move in on them too quickly. Which has parallels to the conflict today. It's not just overt racism, it's also indifference and denial towards the sufferings of other, which we still have today.
Okay. Do you think these cab drivers passing Danny Glover by are saying to themselves "he's black, an inferior race, I don't want to dirty my cab" or "he's black and statistically black people don't give good tips"?
Honestly, I think that most people go by their gut instincts. They see a black guy, they feel uncomfortable, they drive past them. If you ask them out loud why they did that, they could try to rationalize it, but mostly it's just gut instinct.
I am saying that racism, as it is understood today, has a vastly different valence than the word had several generations ago, possibly to the point that we should start calling it something else to be more clear. I'm confused as to how Danny Glover not getting a cab in NYC has anything to do with this.
Because it tends to be based around race, hence, racism.
I went to a school where the student body was 75% Polynesian, 20% Black/Aboriginal and 5% White.
I was a white guy, and never said anything derogatory to either Polynesian or Black/Aboriginal students.
Yet they would get away with calling us 'crackers', 'ghosts' 'termites' and the like.
They would get preferential treatment in such things as school fairs (Example: We had a grand total of 4 Islander days in year 12, whereas my friends and I suggested we have a celebration of European Culture and the principal told us "That could be construed as racism")
I went to a school where the student body was 75% Polynesian, 20% Black/Aboriginal and 5% White.
I was a white guy, and never said anything derogatory to either Polynesian or Black/Aboriginal students.
Yet they would get away with calling us 'crackers', 'ghosts' 'termites' and the like.
They would get preferential treatment in such things as school fairs (Example: We had a grand total of 4 Islander days in year 12, whereas my friends and I suggested we have a celebration of European Culture and the principal told us "That could be construed as racism")
I went to an inner-city Atlanta school. My treatment was never very severe, but fairly similar to what you describe.
Somehow I made it out with the presence of mind not to be a whiny white guy.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I guess my general point is that, 50 years ago, there was vigorous public debate about whether blacks actually should be treated as equals.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/0897/ijse/gallup.htm In assessing their local communities in 1997, blacks are more likely than whites to perceive unfair treatment and discrimination. Seventy-six percent of whites say that blacks are treated the same as whites, while only 49 percent of blacks perceive equal treatment. In 1968, only 26 percent of blacks (compared with 73 percent of whites) felt that both races were treated equally in their community.
In other words, the number of white people who thought that blacks were treated the same as whites is virtually the same figure that it was in the 1960s. So the debate wasn't "should blacks be treated as equals?" for the vast majority of Americans back then. The debate back then was that a lot of white people thought that black people already were being treated as equals, where as a lot of black people disagreed.
Let me ask you a question: what do you think is going through these storeowners' and detectives heads when they do these things?
• Black people are genetically inferior to whites, so I'll treat them that way!
—or—
• I don't like the look of that guy, he's probably one of those gangbangers.
I bet that in most cases, it's the second—and this is a different, less offensive position than classic racism. The second position is really just labeling a person as belonging to a certain culture based on his appearance—"judging a book by its cover," or "stereotyping." This is a sin committed against lots of people—teenagers, people who choose to wear goth clothes, women, Arabs.
Because when Danny Glover can't get a cab in NYC, it's because he looks like a total gang banger, right? The same with Danzel Washington. Anecdotal evidence aside, the studies shows that the problem goes much, much deeper than personal attire and demeanor, which can already be accounted for in controlled studies.
Why do we even need to call what's going on today racism? Why not just call it stereotyping?
Would that be more politically correct for you?
To address Qingu's point about dress and behavior - many white people wear the same clothes and say the same stupid shit/act the same stupid way as the "black people" he's picturing. If I walk into a store in baggy jeans and an LRG hoody, and I'm all, "What up G-fresh" to the guy behind the counter, the store owner is not going to assume I'm a gang banger because of my dress and behavior. "Gang Banger" is media slang for "minority criminal" anyway. When was the last time you heard about 20 white "gang bangers" getting arrested for making meth in a trailer?
Also, many, many people are discriminated against every day while NOT wearing clothes marketed by 50-cent.
As Schrodinger pointed out, most of these "I'm a disenfranchised white guy" reverse racists don't even realize racial quotas were declared unconstitutional in the Bakke Case during the 70s.
It really doesn't help anyone when you show that you don't even understand what you're arguing against.
intercept on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
No, intercept, I was talking about the middle portion - the "I just don't like the look of this guy (for other reasons, even though he happens to be black)" part.
Since that's the part my response cleaves to
and makes context with
y'know.
Man you know I should have thought someone would take a break from his rediculous Dark Knight nitpicking to misunderstand me and included something like "To address Qingu's point on dress and behavior"
No, intercept, I was talking about the middle portion - the "I just don't like the look of this guy (for other reasons, even though he happens to be black)" part.
Since that's the part my response cleaves to
and makes context with
y'know.
Man you know I should have thought someone would take a break from his rediculous Dark Knight nitpicking to misunderstand me and included something like "To address Qingu's point on dress and behavior"
Hindsight, estas una perra.
I wasn't even referring to you, first of all.
Second, I'm sure you really think Chris Nolan is the best thing to happen to Batman since black capes, but cutting yourself in your room while being enraptured by his vision of an inconsistent Batman doesn't really have anything to do with the purpose of this thread.
I was under the understanding that AA meant a quota system
OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
I don't know how I'm still surprised when the people who argue loudest against AA inevitably turn out to have been arguing specifically against fucking quotas since the beginning of the debate.
Hell, New York was the most openly racist city I've ever been to, and you all know my pedigree around here. Down here it's just ignorance because of the general lack of intermingling, but up there it's ignorance and jaded angst.
I think the case might be less that New Yorkers are more racist than people in other cities, and more that New Yorkers rarely pass up an opportunity to let a total stranger know that they hate them for whatever reason. Elsewhere, the racists are just as populous, but they're a little stealthier about it.
No, intercept, I was talking about the middle portion - the "I just don't like the look of this guy (for other reasons, even though he happens to be black)" part.
Since that's the part my response cleaves to
and makes context with
y'know.
Man you know I should have thought someone would take a break from his rediculous Dark Knight nitpicking to misunderstand me and included something like "To address Qingu's point on dress and behavior"
Hindsight, estas una perra.
I wasn't even referring to you, first of all.
Second, I'm sure you really think Chris Nolan is the best thing to happen to Batman since black capes, but cutting yourself in your room while being enraptured by his vision of an inconsistent Batman doesn't really have anything to do with the purpose of this thread.
Most people here assume a post is directed to the post above it if the quote function isn't used. Since I was quoting the person you were talking about, it made more sense to assume you meant me then look up at the many pages above and guess who your reply was directed at.
Also, your snarky riposte both mischaracterizes me and has even less to do with the purpose of this thread.
I may be missing something but, haven't quotas been illegal for like, a long enough time that everyone should know about it?
You're assuming that Hal Turner or whoever it is that gives them their information cares about staying current. Like I said, it's not just that quotas were outlawed 30 years ago, it's that most of the people who complain about them weren't even alive at the time. Which suggests that they're relying on on extremists groups and unsourced op-ed blogs for their main source of information -- rather than mainstream news, schools, or personal experience.
It's funny how opponents blame the quota system every time they can't get a job at a place that will hire black people -- even though quotas aren't being used. Invisible boogeyman, anyone? It's sort of like watching the people who would complain that the fluoride in the water was making them sick and represented a major epidemic -- even before they actually started putting it in the water system. They confuse perception with anecdote, and anecdote with evidence, and evidence with crisis.
On another note, I find the idea of an absolute meritocracy to be silly. Basically, the idea is that the in order for a black guy to get into college or a job, he needs to be objectively more qualified than the absolute most qualified white guy who didn't get in. Of course, no one ever says that every white guy who gets in has to be more qualified than the best white reject, or even that he be more qualified than the most black reject. When a white guy gets in, the assumption is that he deserves it. When a black guy gets in, the assumption is "well, he must have gotten in due to some quota, the cheater."
The real world isn't run by absolutes and objective analysis. If you have 10,000 applicants, you can't objectively rank them from 1 to 10,000, from best to worst. What you can look at are basic probabilities. Is a white name and a black name have identical resumes, then do they have the same chance of getting in? If so, then great. If not, then there's a problem. In the context of affirmative action, you might say, "A student with a X GPA and Y SAT score has Z probability of getting in." You might night have an exact tie, but what you have is "close enough."
What affirmative action says is that when multiple people meet the same standard, you give preference to the minority. Of course, keep in mind that since there are a lot more white applicants than black applicants, you might still end up giving a lot more opportunities to the white students who meet that standard, since there are only a limited number of cases where you will need a tie breaker.
Posts
Thems sure are pretty comics that illustrate a very small portion of the white population.
Because affirmative action is not a solution to a problem. At the best it's going to maintain racial tensions.
Yes so this completely invalidates the purpose of affirmative action and means racial disparities don't exist. I've seen the light!!
If you haven't grasped it yet, then you're probably not going to. Look, we've explained it in detail Go back and read.
The question is does Affirmative Action make things BETTER?
I don't believe it does, certainly not in the areas I've lived. In the Deep South, perhaps.
Seperate AND Inequal is good fun tiems no.
Obviously there is still some cultural friction that has to be overcome, but you'd do better spending your time trying to eliminate poverty-ensuring culture at this point.
[strike]And I'm looking for his specific answer, don't be pedantic.[/strike] I don't think it's necessarily solving anything.
Edit: I was under the understanding that AA meant a quota system (which I had been trying to find a definite answer on all day, I found it). I retract my statement on it.
I still do not think it's going to solve any problems though.
But you don't just keep shoving feet in the door.
The linked studies suggest otherwise, but you keep running and cringing from it. Why?
Actually, the most segregated cities in America are major northern cities. Macon, GA, had that title until the population declined to the point that it no longer qualified as a city, and the crown was passed to the north somewhere. And that's where AA has done most of its good, because down here people have been forced to deal with the overt racism and prejudice in a much more confrontational way than the rest of the country.
But that's exactly what AA does. It forces the issue right out into everybody's field of view. It's done good if not purely by making people talk about this shit and realize that, statistically, there are still some very real problems that transcend the general conservative "we hate poor people" rhetoric and come right down to the issues of racism and intolerance.
Hell, New York was the most openly racist city I've ever been to, and you all know my pedigree around here. Down here it's just ignorance because of the general lack of intermingling, but up there it's ignorance and jaded angst.
Racial quotas have technically been illegal for the past 30 years or so. It's just that most people don't realize this and thus think that racial quotas are what AA is all about.
Because if you're talking negatively about AA, you're basically forced to keep reverting to the "white people have it bad, too!" argument.
Just like Zeus and John.
Or the "racism ended when Martin Luther King fought Hitler in space" argument. I get so tired of people who apparently think that because they watched a Rosa Parks documentary on the History channel that all that must somehow be safely in the past.
Yeah I was trying to find that answer for myself because I was honestly under the assumption that that's the way it was designed. However I also turned up a few that said a judge can still force a company to have a quota if they don't feel they're being fair enough.
SCOTUS case file for referecne:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/438/265.html
This has been decided similarly in cases of gender-based affirmative action. A friend of my father's successfully sued a law school he was rejected from because they were operating in a similar way.
Basically, the only way AA exists in the world today is A: at a private institution with no federal or state funding that can do whatever it likes, and B: at a public institution or a private institution instructed by law to make otherwise tied decisions over hiring or acceptance into a school based on race or gender, on the rationale that when two candidates are equally capable, the institution will be better off if its ranks more accurately reflect the demographics of the larger population.
Since when?
You keep making these arguments based on the assumptions that everyone agrees with a staunchly libertarian and laissez-faire point of view, where "appeal to free market" is a valid argument. Unfortunately for you, not everyone does. Saying "we don't live in a country that regulates" isn't much of an argument when we do, in fact, live in such a country. And attempting to label such regulation as "socialism" doesn't do much other than to dilute the meaning of the word.
Only to a certain point. For instance, they can't put up a sign refusing services to black people.
Bare assertion. Merely stating that something works when the evidence shows otherwise is not an argument. It doesn't work, first, because violations aren't readily apparent, businesses have plausible deniability, and because the problem is so widespread that it's hard to figure out where to start. Secondly, black people have less money and account for a smaller percentage of the population, so their ability to protest is pretty limited.
You know, people keep saying that Affirmative Action is racist or that Affirmative Action is unjust, but they never actually explain why it's so while being consistent with the actual definition of racism. Unless they dilute the definition of racism like you dilute the definition of socialism, to the point where protesting slavery can be deemed racist because it places race into consideration.
You realize that it can be race and poverty, correct? And it's funny how conservatives always make this point by comparing rich black people to poor white people, but they never bother to compare rich white people to rich black people, or poor white people to poor black people.
The statistics show that a convicted white drug dealer has a better chance at finding entry level work at such places than an equally qualified and resumed black guy with a clean record. So it's not that they're "too proud" to work at Burger, it's that employers are less inclined to higher them.
So your argument is that racism doesn't exist, it's just that black people are lazy and don't deserve to work.
The free market in action, righting the wrongs of humanity!
Once again, quotas were already ruled unconstitutional. In the 1970s.
Let me ask you a question, Bowen: When were you born? Were you even alive in the 1970s? Were you of working age in the 1970s? If not, then why are you still referring to quotas in the present tense?
Chris Rock Explains How Affirmative Action Works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuDUT5hsp6I
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/0897/ijse/gallup.htm
In assessing their local communities in 1997, blacks are more likely than whites to perceive unfair treatment and discrimination. Seventy-six percent of whites say that blacks are treated the same as whites, while only 49 percent of blacks perceive equal treatment. In 1968, only 26 percent of blacks (compared with 73 percent of whites) felt that both races were treated equally in their community.
In other words, the number of white people who thought that blacks were treated the same as whites is virtually the same figure that it was in the 1960s. So the debate wasn't "should blacks be treated as equals?" for the vast majority of Americans back then. The debate back then was that a lot of white people thought that black people already were being treated as equals, where as a lot of black people disagreed.
Because when Danny Glover can't get a cab in NYC, it's because he looks like a total gang banger, right? The same with Danzel Washington. Anecdotal evidence aside, the studies shows that the problem goes much, much deeper than personal attire and demeanor, which can already be accounted for in controlled studies.
Would that be more politically correct for you?
Rhetorical device. Basically, your argument here boils down to saying "a horse is a horse, of course, of course," even though we're talking about a dog, and you haven't explained to use how a dog is a horse.
Simply saying "Racism is still racism no matter how you slice it" is not an argument, because by the same token, "Not racism is still not racism no matter how you slice it," and you haven't shown how we're dealing with the former rather than the latter.
Except that earlier, someone mentioned how Denny's had discriminated against black customers who turned out to be secret service agents, and you actually said that it didn't bother you. So I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one. You don't give a shit about racism against black people, the only thing you give a shit about is that you don't want to be called a racist against black people. That is not the same thing.
Occam's razor. We already know that racism occurs on a broad level in society, and it explains the remaining discrepancy. If you have an additional assumption to make and evidence to support it, feel free to enlighten us.
Problem is, of course, it's usually the opposite thing that happens. For most people, individuals of the same race make a better impression on eachother than otherwise. All other things being equal, it's probably going to be the white guy just because of that.
In one of my undergrad sociology classes, we actually took this test that sought to measure your reaction to various faces, female and male, and various races. I came out in something like .01% of white people that actually have a better opinion of black people than of my own race. I attribute it to living in rural areas for so long, though.
Well, seeing as how quotas were ruled unconstitutional in the 1970s and you're still whining about them even today in the present tense, I'm guessing that we could end affirmative action tomorrow, and white people would still be whining about quotas for another 50 years. So not only do we get to maintain racial tensions, but we also get to continue denying opportunities to black people even more so then they're being denied already. It's the worst of both worlds!
Of course, the funny thing about this argument is that it seems to act as though the emancipation proclamation and the entire civil rights movement was completely tension free. For instance, there's that famous Newsweek survey that revealed that 74% of black people thought that the negroes were "moving too fast," and that was in 1963. Gee, imagine what this country would be like if we actually listened to them?
Wow, I actually did think he was joking when he wrote that.
Are we shoving feet through the door? And to what extent? Because the studies show that when merits are equalized, white applicants still have a huge advantage over black applicants. And keep in mind that in the real world, black people are going to be much fewer in number, and the average black person's resume is probably going to be worse off than the average white person's resume (due to socio-economic and discriminatory factors.). Oh, and keep in mind that this only applies to advertised positions, where as 85-90% of jobs are never advertised at all, and typically exclude black people from their social networks altogether.
In other words, even in the absolute best case scenario, black people still face a huge disadvantage. Worse yet, we don't actually live in a best case scenario. Far, far from it.
Now, with that in mind... what exactly are you complaining about? The fact that black people are still being given one or two opportunities, for every 20 that they lose? Companies might know that their business won't collapse if they hire a black person, but that doesn't mean that they will act on it.
Okay. Do you think these cab drivers passing Danny Glover by are saying to themselves "he's black, an inferior race, I don't want to dirty my cab" or "he's black and statistically black people don't give good tips"?
Again, I honestly have no idea how your point is a rebuttle to something I've said. I am saying that racism, as it is understood today, has a vastly different valence than the word had several generations ago, possibly to the point that we should start calling it something else to be more clear. I'm confused as to how Danny Glover not getting a cab in NYC has anything to do with this.
Yes, Schrodinger. I think being politically correct is incredibly important, which is why I always try to toe the line in my posting on this forum (what the fuck are you talking about?)
I was a white guy, and never said anything derogatory to either Polynesian or Black/Aboriginal students.
Yet they would get away with calling us 'crackers', 'ghosts' 'termites' and the like.
They would get preferential treatment in such things as school fairs (Example: We had a grand total of 4 Islander days in year 12, whereas my friends and I suggested we have a celebration of European Culture and the principal told us "That could be construed as racism")
Basically, the debate back then has more parallels to today than you acknowledge. It's wasn't just "people who think black people are inferior vs. people who think they should be treated as equal." The vast majority of white people were those who thought that blacks were already being treated as equals, and/or that they were trying to move in on them too quickly. Which has parallels to the conflict today. It's not just overt racism, it's also indifference and denial towards the sufferings of other, which we still have today.
Honestly, I think that most people go by their gut instincts. They see a black guy, they feel uncomfortable, they drive past them. If you ask them out loud why they did that, they could try to rationalize it, but mostly it's just gut instinct.
Because it tends to be based around race, hence, racism.
Also, Malcolm X stole your lunch money.
I went to an inner-city Atlanta school. My treatment was never very severe, but fairly similar to what you describe.
Somehow I made it out with the presence of mind not to be a whiny white guy.
To address Qingu's point about dress and behavior - many white people wear the same clothes and say the same stupid shit/act the same stupid way as the "black people" he's picturing. If I walk into a store in baggy jeans and an LRG hoody, and I'm all, "What up G-fresh" to the guy behind the counter, the store owner is not going to assume I'm a gang banger because of my dress and behavior. "Gang Banger" is media slang for "minority criminal" anyway. When was the last time you heard about 20 white "gang bangers" getting arrested for making meth in a trailer?
Also, many, many people are discriminated against every day while NOT wearing clothes marketed by 50-cent.
I host a podcast about movies.
It really doesn't help anyone when you show that you don't even understand what you're arguing against.
Since that's the part my response cleaves to
and makes context with
y'know.
Man you know I should have thought someone would take a break from his rediculous Dark Knight nitpicking to misunderstand me and included something like "To address Qingu's point on dress and behavior"
Hindsight, estas una perra.
I host a podcast about movies.
I wasn't even referring to you, first of all.
Second, I'm sure you really think Chris Nolan is the best thing to happen to Batman since black capes, but cutting yourself in your room while being enraptured by his vision of an inconsistent Batman doesn't really have anything to do with the purpose of this thread.
OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
I don't know how I'm still surprised when the people who argue loudest against AA inevitably turn out to have been arguing specifically against fucking quotas since the beginning of the debate.
I think the case might be less that New Yorkers are more racist than people in other cities, and more that New Yorkers rarely pass up an opportunity to let a total stranger know that they hate them for whatever reason. Elsewhere, the racists are just as populous, but they're a little stealthier about it.
Most people here assume a post is directed to the post above it if the quote function isn't used. Since I was quoting the person you were talking about, it made more sense to assume you meant me then look up at the many pages above and guess who your reply was directed at.
Also, your snarky riposte both mischaracterizes me and has even less to do with the purpose of this thread.
I host a podcast about movies.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You're assuming that Hal Turner or whoever it is that gives them their information cares about staying current. Like I said, it's not just that quotas were outlawed 30 years ago, it's that most of the people who complain about them weren't even alive at the time. Which suggests that they're relying on on extremists groups and unsourced op-ed blogs for their main source of information -- rather than mainstream news, schools, or personal experience.
It's funny how opponents blame the quota system every time they can't get a job at a place that will hire black people -- even though quotas aren't being used. Invisible boogeyman, anyone? It's sort of like watching the people who would complain that the fluoride in the water was making them sick and represented a major epidemic -- even before they actually started putting it in the water system. They confuse perception with anecdote, and anecdote with evidence, and evidence with crisis.
On another note, I find the idea of an absolute meritocracy to be silly. Basically, the idea is that the in order for a black guy to get into college or a job, he needs to be objectively more qualified than the absolute most qualified white guy who didn't get in. Of course, no one ever says that every white guy who gets in has to be more qualified than the best white reject, or even that he be more qualified than the most black reject. When a white guy gets in, the assumption is that he deserves it. When a black guy gets in, the assumption is "well, he must have gotten in due to some quota, the cheater."
The real world isn't run by absolutes and objective analysis. If you have 10,000 applicants, you can't objectively rank them from 1 to 10,000, from best to worst. What you can look at are basic probabilities. Is a white name and a black name have identical resumes, then do they have the same chance of getting in? If so, then great. If not, then there's a problem. In the context of affirmative action, you might say, "A student with a X GPA and Y SAT score has Z probability of getting in." You might night have an exact tie, but what you have is "close enough."
What affirmative action says is that when multiple people meet the same standard, you give preference to the minority. Of course, keep in mind that since there are a lot more white applicants than black applicants, you might still end up giving a lot more opportunities to the white students who meet that standard, since there are only a limited number of cases where you will need a tie breaker.