The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Whites Only Scholarship Controversy
Posts
(I think he might be a closet racist, eh eh?)
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/penrose/cat.jpg
I cite Bill Cosby as the ultimate fount of all truth in the universe when I state that Affirmative Action at best does not help minorities. Real culprits in facilitating the victimization of minorities/non-whites include: drug prohibition laws (see state of Colombia, Afghanistan etc), minimum wage (takes away incentive for racist business owners to hire immigrants who would work for less), and multi-culturalism (slows assimilation - the only perfect method for preventing discrimination).
Oh and World Bank - they've even released a report describing how their practices have been counter-productive throughout Africa etc.
Omfg minimal government FTW.
(Sorry I couldn't let that one slide.)
1) Poor people will work in lucrative extralegal markets. The drug market provides this, but even if drugs were legal, there would be other black or grey markets, and addiction would still be a problem (see also, alcoholism).
2) Minimum wage skirting hurts minorities? Huh? Are you saying that paying immigrants under minimum wage is the solution to our problems with racism?
3) Multiculturism slows assimilation only if you have a retrenched, obstinant "majority" culture who refuses to address other people except on their own terms. Forcing everyone to "act white" is not a solution.
4) What the hell do World Bank programs have to do with American racism?
Um, tongue-in-cheek? Is that the phrase for subtle jest through verbal irony? I don't know. Who seriously describes someone as the ultimate fount of truth in the universe? Once again, I don't know.
I saw the studies about how minority-sounding people received less calls from employers. THat doesn't surprise me. But Affirmative Action doesn't fix that. If there were other studies I missed strike me in the balls with psychokinesis or something.
1) In places such as Colombia, guerillas force peasants to grow the coca plant and sometimes force them to make the free-base itself. Ofcourse, these peasants don't know how to safely manufacture it which naturally leads to safety and environmental concerns (manufacture of coke often uses hydrochloric acid, I don't know much else about it though). Those who don't comply risk being killed by guerillas or having their hard-to-grow legit crops being destroyed by air-sprays intended for coca fields. It takes a season or in some cases a few years to regrow the legit crops and these peasants don't have savings accounts, mind you.
If drug production was legal in the US. . .
Yes, there would still be addicts, but they'd be less likely to commit crimes in order to feed their addictions because their drug will be cheap. Maybe there would be slightly more use of drugs, but c'mon, do you think people would just go on huge drug binges because a substance was legal? Do you get drunk all the time because alcohol is legal? I do, but that's me.
But. . . the Colombian, Afghanistani etc peasants wouldn't have to put up with so much. Oh, and no more blood and crypts - they get their cash from drugs. Who's mostly involved in the bloods and crypts? Inter-city blacks, no longer living under the shadow of copiously funded organized crime, stand a better chance of reaching their full potential.
2) You're reading into what I said too much - Poor non-white's have more opportunity without minimum wage.
3) Where is evidence for this? Asians score the highest on standardized tests and black athletes are the role-models of many of America's children (not that this is ample evidence, but you didn't provide any).
4) World Bank, a part of the UN, which is largely funded by the US is an institution which victimizes minorities. The subject is institutionalized racism, no?
So - let's talk about illegal drugs. Your contention is that black market money from the drug trade fuels a criminal subculture that keeps the young urban poor impoverished. While I agree that this is true, I don't agree that legalizing drugs would necessarily mitigate the criminal subculutre. Young, uneducated, socailly alienated people turn to crime because it represents the most lucrative available profession. This includes the drug trade currently, but has historically included pretty much every other black market activity.
In any case, even viewing the drug market as an attractive menace and economic dead-end for young poor people, how would its removal sans any other economic avenue benefit the poor?
Minimum wage: There's a reason we have it in this country. It's because it's basically impossible for a human being to reasonably subsist on less. It is literally impossible for an American to subside off of the salaries paid to, say, a manufacturer in southeast asia. Your contention that the elimination of the minimum wage would only help the poor is extremely spotty.
Multiculturalism: I fail to even see how this is an issue outside of xenophobic white circles. What does it really mean? Accepting that American blacks have their own dialect, or that Mexican Americans eat tamales? Why, exactly, are conservatives so incredibly fearful of "Multiculturalism"?
An analogue would probably be demanding that Southern whites start speaking proper Northeast/ Midwestern English because y'all sound like ignorant pig-fuckers and who would want to employ you people?
You agree with affirmative action - as in you believe that it is morally wrong for the government do nothing to address what you deem obvious social ills, thus propagating them? But then you discount a another government action which indirectly propagates another victimization of non-whites. Is your distinction between the two that the victims of the latter aren't Americans?
American minorities may not get jobs as often because of whatever bias, but they don't starve to death, get shot or get raped at the hands of thugs.
Further racism, as bad as it might be, is a belief. There are many other beliefs that cause social problems, religion seems to be a popular one on these boards, but they're not the target of legislation.
What other black market activities? Prostitution, gambling? Those should also be legal. I mostly agree with Swedish prostitution policy.
In the book Freakonomics the affects of the drug trade on inter-city communities is explained pretty well. Most gang members live on less than minimum wage, but keep with it in hope of making it big as a boss. Other members of the community are pushed into the substance, in order to provide a market. In order to pay for their addiction the abusers steal and or just end up going crazy. How is preventing most of this not a benefit?
Oi. Ok, so there are immigrants who will work for less than MinW. There are MinW laws. If an employer had to chose between a white and a (presumably hispanic) worker, paying them both MinW, he'd chose the white. Now, if the employer didn't have to pay minimum wage, he'd chose the worker who works for less, the hispanic in most cases.
Now then, if more even distribution of wealth is your thing, minimum wage is a "blunt instrument" - most economists agree. Instead, redistribution to poor families is far more effective. People don't like it because it requires a hike in taxes though. Minimum wage is a hotly contested subject. Speaking of Doctorates and real degrees, I've seen studies which both support and disprove minimum wages supposed benefits, sometimes simultaneously.
I thought multiculturalism was the belief that many cultures was beneficial to there deserving government promotion, usually entailing government funding, as in funding schools to teach the entire curriculam in multiple languages?
We'd need a definition.
Man, this stuff takes too much time.
Seriously, the guy's doctoral thesis was on using Fat Albert to teach stuff to grade-school children. I hardly think that qualifies him as an expert on affirmative action.
Really? Care to cite the exact quotation? I would like to know his exact wording and reasoniing, rather than what rightwing sources attribute to him.
http://www.fmgondemand.com/id/4502/Black_History_Lost_Stolen_or_Strayed.htm
Wow. You know what else facilitates victimization of black people? The civil rights movement. Because if black people didn't protest, then they wouldn't get lynched, and therefore, they wouldn't be seen as victims. Also, voting rights, because if black people didn't have a reason to go to the ballot box, then there wouldn't be voting suppression efforts to keep them out. And the emancipation proclaimation. You know how libertarians insist that corporations wouldn't harm the Earth, if they saw the Earth as their own property? Well, if black people were still seen as property, then white people wouldn't have a reason to hurt them.
Yeah, that's the thing about actual analysis. It takes actual time.
But:
I don't know how you'd know. You seem to have skipped over all argumentation, refused to make any yourself and when I described Bill Cosby as "The ultimate fount of all wisdom in the universe" you thought I was serious.
Perhaps you're faith in the status quo is so strong that you refuse to even evaluate it. Schrodinger = political equivalent of creationist?
Funny, because isn't that the argument that creationists tend to make? "Oh, science is liberally biased, because they refuse to consider intelligent design?"
When exactly have I displayed a lack of evaluation? Again, be specific. The fact that I apparently came to a different conclusion than the one that you have arrived to is not sufficient.
Wasn't it something obscenely below what a burger-flipper makes, with a life expectancy of less than 2 weeks?
Your argument was a citation from Bill Cosby. I asked you where your citation came from. Rather than simply stating your citation, you decided to simply rely on red herring after red herring.
Way to go.
Let's see, your first point was about the drug market. Even if your assertion that legalization worked, it would only work for black people who were dealing drugs. For some reason, I doubt that this would apply to the types of people applying for affirmative action, unless you somehow think that all black people must be dealing drugs, including the ones who apply to an Ivy league college. Your second point is basically an argument to appeal and encourage racist behavior, by saying that we should allow racist employers to exploit black people based on the color of their skin. Way to go, that'll fix everything! And your last point is somehting taht you can't even properly define. Unfortunately, it isn't my fault that you're ignorant of your own assertions.
Yeah - it was a high-risk, low paid affair with a slight slight chance of hitting the "big time". Not really unlike professional sports and other general scams. The payback is apparently something like power and esteem in the neighborhood.
I don't think anyone could say that the drug trade does any favors to poor folks, even aside from those on the addicted end. On the other hand, it's hard to see on its own, how legalizing drugs, with its concommitant increase in availability and addiction, would do much to pull people out of poverty.
"Free market will solve all social ills" is a silly position to take, and is more a statement of faith and loyalty than it is a pragmatic approach. I've never met a free-market absolutist who, in the end, really gave a shit about all these other social ills - the most important thing was to eliminate or reduce government involvement, consequences be damned.
Pretty much its entirely bad if you consider that in a perfect system there will be a proportional representation of minorities in most systems.
For instance, in government contracted work, basically all of the minority run firms have gone out of business. This is because despite being accredited, qualified, well run businesses that have numerous awards in their fields, they cant get contracts.
Not to mention the enrollment problems they are having. I.E. much lower than expected minority enrollment[and this is AFTER figuring in economic status]
Obviously, this wouldn't be a problem if you could force minority run firms to work at $.10 cents an answer. Then everything would be equal!
Instead I found a publicity stunt.
You lied to me!
The controversy's in the thread.
Well, if Ward Connerly says that, then it must be true!
My favorite quote of his was when it was pointed out that the only group supporting Pro 2 in Michigan was the KKK, responding, “If the Ku Klux Klan thinks that equality is right, God bless them. Thank them for finally reaching the point where logic and reason are being applied, instead of hate." Yep. That's a fairly accurate assessment of the KKK, all right.
Which means that it tells us nothing. We don't have the breakdowns, we don't know the overall numbers, we don't know how much the ratio between minority and non-minority students has changed.
Just out of curiousity, has anyone ever done studies to show how AA affects the graduation rates of white students?
But....but then didn't we create controversy over a publicity stunt?
It's a trap!
No, it tells us that more minorities were enrolled in the UC system than ever before following the elimination of AA, so the argument that it diminishes minority enrollment is demonstrably false. What you can argue and what I highlighted is that this number obviously doesn't account for the overall increased enrollment in CA, so yes, in all likelihood he was skirting around the fact that actual percentages were decreasing.
STILL -- the notion that eliminating AA decreases minority enrollment is false. It may decrease diversity, but it doesn't decrease enrollment. And really besides all that the graduation number is the REAL key. Like I said, considering Ward Connerly is one of the most powerful people in the University system in all of CA, I'm going to go ahead and trust his information on these matters. While you skirt around the issue, if indeed it's a noticeable increase in minority graduation rates following the elimination of AA, I think that's something that Mr. Connerly can rightfully champion as a considerable achievement.
Does anyone know of any examples in recent times of developed countries legalizing most substances? Many of ye forumites seem to think that it will irreducibly transform a significant segment of the population into addicts, but either way, there seems to be little evidence on the subject.
But most importantly . . .
Schrodinger, you are the embodiment of justice. You know what's wrong, and you know how to lay the hammer down. I respect that. I respect you. So much so, that I now submit to you this link:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Castration#Do-it-yourself_instructions
See the "Do-It-Yourself" section and continue to bare your great burden, o Avatar o' Righteousness, for the benefit of all men (and women . . . and Women's Studies . . . and Comparative Literature)
Martin Luther King Jr. encourages you to follow the instructions:
I'm heading to bed, so I'm not going to Google a link, but the best recent example is probably the Netherlands. They did see a spike of addiction, followed by a leveling. Now, I'm fully open to the idea that this might be comparatively better for society than the alternative (billions of dollars spent on sprawling prison systems and creation of a rapidly-expanding criminal subculture).
It still doesn't really speak to the lack of upward-mobility among a ghettoized black or hispanic underclass, which is, I think, the biggest part of institutionalized American racism. And, I might add, a problem which a "truly free market" will do nothing to address.
:roll:
In which case Ward Connerly is overall, a liar. Enrollment has plumetted.
It might be possible if you add in the community college system, but the info ive seen is that since the drop off after 209, most systems have been scrambling to increase minority enrollment.
It is also possible that the stats were figuring on the actual vs the projected. Because there were a lot of people that projected huge drop off and they werent as bad as some of the really dismal projections.
Unfortounatly, when trying to find comprehensive stats most of what I have found is terrible editorials to the effect of "Ward is a black man he cant be racist, you self hating white liberal hippies just want to paint us good american folks as racist" while ignoring the fact that whether or not he is well meaning he could just be wrong.
Okay, I can clear this up.
First off, the UC system has not had race-based admissions since the 1970s. Where race came in was determining which campus you got to go to, not enrollment in the system overall.
In 1998, the UC Regents voted ended this policy. Immediately following that decision, minority enrollment at the most prestigious campuses (notably Berkeley and UCLA) plummeted - the number of blacks enrolled dropped by over half. UC Berkeley investigated this and found that their admissions policies gave an advantage to students with lots of Advanced Placement classes. Poorer high schools with more minority students often have fewer (or no) AP courses available, so this policy was unfairly disadvantaging those students. Berkeley adapted their policy to take this disadvantage into account and saw minority enrollment start to climb again.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'll buy that ending racial quotas possibly increased graduation rates (although I think Connorly is an ideologue who's a little too quick to jump to conclusions) but not overall system enrollment.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And "black" means "not white". Well, in Africa it does, sort of. Sub-Saharan Africans wouldn't consider themselves a single race. As I recall, South Africa had 4, not two as people in the US usually think.
Just a reminder that racial groups are a man-made concept.