[Affirmative Action] Perspectives and solutions

191012141521

Posts

  • DrukDruk Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Setting up shelters for battered women is wrong and detrimental to equality, because these shelters discriminate against men.

    Hey, you know what they say..."If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex,...you have legislatures."
    -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

    Druk on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    i think it's generally instructive to broadly separate the scenarios here, like you've done here shrodinger

    working-class jobs are less likely to have socioeconomic barriers to entry that many black folks can't meet due to education, family life, culture, familiarity with accepted social rituals, etc. it doesn't take years of expensive schooling and breeding to drive a forklift. however, black people applying for jobs at this level are much more likely to fall prey to behavioral racism in which the hiring director, manager, etc, would just rather hire a white guy. this is the arena where the white cocaine dealer would be preferred over the black non-felon.

    on the other end of the scale, qualified black applicants may have an advantage in being hired over similarly-qualified white applicants in a professional environment (whatever issues they might face in the company once hired). however, due to the levels of poverty in black america, there are far fewer of these applicants than there are white applicants. in modern america, professional firms are highly likely to seek to prefer hiring minority applicants and, contrary to some claims, my experience has been that they take this very seriously.

    which is not to say that there aren't white racists in professional organizations. there are! but being caught expressing a racist sentiment is always grounds for reprimand and quite often grounds for dismissal.

    the "hiring" part of AA laws are really more to remedy the first situation. the "leveling schemes" more the latter. one problem is that leveling schemes take a really long time, and it's really difficult to implement. you can't just give a poor family a block of money and a house in a respectable suburb and expect them to suddenly be middle-class. minority scholarships and preferential university admissions are probably one of the more effective programs that i can think of in achieving the goal of achieving a broader black middle-class.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    So, I really dislike affirmative action, but not because I'm some whiny white boy.

    The real problem for underprivileged minority communities is not racial bias in the hiring process (which is not to say it's never an issue), but poverty and lack of access to quality education.

    I see affirmative action as a sort of half measure. Rather than address the real problems, which affect people early on in life, it's much less work to just give them some advantage later on. The problem with half measures is it allows people to say (and believe) they've done something meaningful when they really haven't. "Look, we gave the black people affirmative action. It's not our fault they're still poor."

    What say you on the linked findings (try here for starters) that men with "identifiably black" names are more disadvantaged in hiring than white felons? I realize you say it's not never an issue, but it IS an issue and many AA policies are an attempt to remedy that inherent disadvantage.

    More to the point, what specific AA practices that are currently in existence are you saying you dislike? Because as discussed previously in this thread, even the act of stripping names from a resume in order to prevent employers from knowing they are hiring a woman or visible minority falls under the umbrella of AA.

    Has the study which included "obviously" poor/trailer trash names been discredited yet? Used to get brought up a lot in these conversations. Wouldn't be surprised either way to be honest, either that it was a answer to this sort of thing and hideously biased, or something pointing to the true route of the problem (that someone is associated with being poorly educated and a very different class than the employer)

    Tastyfish on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Does anyone else notice how Tin responds to several pages worth of analysis by posting the same meaningless statement over and over again, without actually bothering to defend or explain said sentence when he is challenged on it?

    Tin, you never answered the question.

    White people, in general, benefit from a racial bonus. How do you plan to correct for this advantage that white people receive in general without actually targeting the problem in general? How do you address a problem that affects the entire white population without affecting the entire white population?

    Your comparison to water boarding and racial profiling fails, because there is nothing inherent about being middle eastern and being a terrorist. However, there is something inherent about being white and benefiting from white privilege. There is no comparison. A Middle Eastern has to make a conscious effort to commit an act of terrorism. A white person applying for a job doesn't have to do anything to benefit from his whiteness. Benefiting from whiteness is inherent to being white.

    So your comparison fails. Your attempt to insist that this is discrimination fails.

    Moreover, your solution of ignoring the problem on a general scale and suing businesses that discriminate fails, because you haven't given us a method for identifying such businesses in the first place. It is logically equivalent to saying, "We should not have laws against pollution, we should merely allow for sick people to sue offenders for damages." The problem being that this is completely inefficient and impossible to prove. How do you definitively establish that it was their pollution specifically caused your illness? All they would have to say is, "You got sick because of someone else's pollutions, not ours."

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Has the study which included "obviously" poor/trailer trash names been discredited yet? Used to get brought up a lot in these conversations. Wouldn't be surprised either way to be honest, either that it was a answer to this sort of thing and hideously biased, or something pointing to the true route of the problem (that someone is associated with being poorly educated and a very different class than the employer)

    Hey, you know who gets associated with being poorly educated and a very different class by employers?

    Black people in general.

    So you're willing to believe that the employers discriminates against "DeShawn," because the employer associates "DeShawn" with being poor. But you're not willing to believe that the employer discriminates against "DeShawn" because he associates "DeShawn" with "Negro" and "Negro" with "Poor."

    Why is that? Why is it so easy to believe one, but not the other? Is it because there is a logical reason why the employer would make such a distinction, or are you simply acting on wishful thinking that there is no racism at play?

    Because you could just as easily say, "Oh, the employer isn't discriminating against the guy because he's black. He's discriminating against the guy because he has excess melanin in his skin, and there's a statistical correlation with having excess melanin and being poor and uneducated. But I would react the same way if it was a white guy with excess melanin, so no racism at play!"

    This is what we refer to as aversive racism. Attempting to excuse racism with a non-racial excuse, when it amounts to the same thing. "Oh, I'm not discriminating against the guy because he's black. I'm discriminating against him because he has a black sounding name! That's completely different!"

    Here's the question: Why are you so quick to assume that the names on the black names list are also uneducated? Do you have any evidence that the names on the black names list are any less educated than the rest of the black population? Or are you making the assumption that black people are uneducated in general, and using that to justify discriminatory hiring practices? Because it sounds like that's what you're doing. You can insist that a traditional African sounding name is equivalent to "Bubba," but you have absolutely no reason to draw that comparison, except for the sake of looking down on black people as an entire race.

    Schrodinger on
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Has the study which included "obviously" poor/trailer trash names been discredited yet? Used to get brought up a lot in these conversations. Wouldn't be surprised either way to be honest, either that it was a answer to this sort of thing and hideously biased, or something pointing to the true route of the problem (that someone is associated with being poorly educated and a very different class than the employer)

    Hey, you know who gets associated with being poorly educated and a very different class by employers?

    Black people in general.

    So you're willing to believe that the employers discriminates against "DeShawn," because the employer associates "DeShawn" with being poor. But you're not willing to believe that the employer discriminates against "DeShawn" because he associates "DeShawn" with "Negro" and "Negro" with "Poor."

    Why is that? Why is it so easy to believe one, but not the other? Is it because there is a logical reason why the employer would make such a distinction, or are you simply acting on wishful thinking that there is no racism at play?

    Because you could just as easily say, "Oh, the employer isn't discriminating against the guy because he's black. He's discriminating against the guy because he has excess melanin in his skin, and there's a statistical correlation with having excess melanin and being poor and uneducated. But I would react the same way if it was a white guy with excess melanin, so no racism at play!"

    This is what we refer to as aversive racism. Attempting to excuse racism with a non-racial excuse, when it amounts to the same thing. "Oh, I'm not discriminating against the guy because he's black. I'm discriminating against him because he has a black sounding name! That's completely different!"

    Here's the question: Why are you so quick to assume that the names on the black names list are also uneducated? Do you have any evidence that the names on the black names list are any less educated than the rest of the black population? Or are you making the assumption that black people are uneducated in general, and using that to justify discriminatory hiring practices? Because it sounds like that's what you're doing. You can insist that a traditional African sounding name is equivalent to "Bubba," but you have absolutely no reason to draw that comparison, except for the sake of looking down on black people as an entire race.

    I was genuinely curious, last time we had a thread like this the study with the black names and interviews came up, and there was another study done that compared 'normal' white names to those particularly associated with poor backgrounds (The Shanes, Krystals, Brittneys, Billys, Bubbas etc - can't remember which ones they picked off hand) and found they got the same results as with black names.

    All the applicants had the same (or similar - they were fictional) background on the CVs, with just the names separating them. I'd say it shows that class is a bigger issue than race (with race being tired into it with blacks being associated with a lower class) as far as hiring goes, to isolate the impact of race alone I'd have thought you'd then have to see what happened after the interviews. Doesn't mean there isn't a need for affirmative action (since its one way of breaking the connection between blacks and associating them with being poor), I was just surprised to see that this follow up study hadn't been brought up before since the initial one with the black names was mentioned.

    Or was there some reason this second study should be discounted (i.e. it was rigged to give this result rather than actually showing that class is as much an issue as race when it comes to hearing back from job applications).

    Tastyfish on
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Has the study which included "obviously" poor/trailer trash names been discredited yet? Used to get brought up a lot in these conversations. Wouldn't be surprised either way to be honest, either that it was a answer to this sort of thing and hideously biased, or something pointing to the true route of the problem (that someone is associated with being poorly educated and a very different class than the employer)

    Hey, you know who gets associated with being poorly educated and a very different class by employers?

    Black people in general.

    So you're willing to believe that the employers discriminates against "DeShawn," because the employer associates "DeShawn" with being poor. But you're not willing to believe that the employer discriminates against "DeShawn" because he associates "DeShawn" with "Negro" and "Negro" with "Poor."

    Why is that? Why is it so easy to believe one, but not the other? Is it because there is a logical reason why the employer would make such a distinction, or are you simply acting on wishful thinking that there is no racism at play?

    Because you could just as easily say, "Oh, the employer isn't discriminating against the guy because he's black. He's discriminating against the guy because he has excess melanin in his skin, and there's a statistical correlation with having excess melanin and being poor and uneducated. But I would react the same way if it was a white guy with excess melanin, so no racism at play!"

    This is what we refer to as aversive racism. Attempting to excuse racism with a non-racial excuse, when it amounts to the same thing. "Oh, I'm not discriminating against the guy because he's black. I'm discriminating against him because he has a black sounding name! That's completely different!"

    Here's the question: Why are you so quick to assume that the names on the black names list are also uneducated? Do you have any evidence that the names on the black names list are any less educated than the rest of the black population? Or are you making the assumption that black people are uneducated in general, and using that to justify discriminatory hiring practices? Because it sounds like that's what you're doing. You can insist that a traditional African sounding name is equivalent to "Bubba," but you have absolutely no reason to draw that comparison, except for the sake of looking down on black people as an entire race.

    I was genuinely curious, last time we had a thread like this the study with the black names and interviews came up, and there was another study done that compared 'normal' white names to those particularly associated with poor backgrounds (The Shanes, Krystals, Brittneys, Billys, Bubbas etc - can't remember which ones they picked off hand) and found they got the same results as with black names.

    All the applicants had the same (or similar - they were fictional) background on the CVs, with just the names separating them. I'd say it shows that class is a bigger issue than race (with race being tired into it with blacks being associated with a lower class) as far as hiring goes, to isolate the impact of race alone I'd have thought you'd then have to see what happened after the interviews. Doesn't mean there isn't a need for affirmative action (since its one way of breaking the connection between blacks and associating them with being poor), I was just surprised to see that this follow up study hadn't been brought up before since the initial one with the black names was mentioned.

    Or was there some reason this second study should be discounted (i.e. it was rigged to give this result rather than actually showing that class is as much an issue as race when it comes to hearing back from job applications).

    As was pointed out earlier, Bubba and the like are not common actual names. So it's probably not an important issue.



    Aside from that, just because employers also dislike hiring poor white people doesn't mean they're not being racist. "black-sounding" names are not related to being poor aside from the fact that black people are generally poorer. Saying that they dismiss those resumes because they don't want poor people means they already have to think that blackness is an indicator of poorness and that making such an assumption is okay.


    Basically, you can be biased against black people and biased against poor people. You don't have to pick one.

    Julius on
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    As was pointed out earlier, Bubba and the like are not common actual names. So it's probably not an important issue.



    Aside from that, just because employers also dislike hiring poor white people doesn't mean they're not being racist. "black-sounding" names are not related to being poor aside from the fact that black people are generally poorer. Saying that they dismiss those resumes because they don't want poor people means they already have to think that blackness is an indicator of poorness and that making such an assumption is okay.


    Basically, you can be biased against black people and biased against poor people. You don't have to pick one.

    Bubba is an extreme example, I'm pretty sure it was any non-conventional spelling of names. However if the study did pick exceptional examples to try and prove a point then fair enough, however I've not seen anyone say that yet.

    Unusual names aren't related to being poor either, any more than a black sounding name is. I also don't think it's racism (or if it is, it's incidental racism) more just these are names associated with people of a different class. They aren't being racist because they don't like black people, turns out people don't like anyone who is in a different class than them and tend to assume that people with unusual names will fall into 'another class'. I also don't think they are doing it intentionally, more subconcious predjudice that'll predispose them to look at similarities on CVs with familiar names and pick up on the less favourable or suspecious details of familiar names. They are biased against blacks and poor people for the same reason, because they themselves are not black or poor.

    The important point here is that we've now got another hurdle for a minority, and without addressing this affirmative action alone isn't going to get you to the point where they are represented throughout the workforce proportionally to their population. Also, without addressing this issue you're not going to be in a position where it can actually come into play (if you get rejected before the interview stage, then you're not going to be at the tie breaker stage where it can come into play).

    That said, the US is apparently a lot more diverse than Europe (though whether that's taking the whole country into account rather than an average across the various regions), so perhaps its not as big a deal. The whole name thing is very different different over here, we have a lot less variety I'd say.

    Tastyfish on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    I was genuinely curious, last time we had a thread like this the study with the black names and interviews came up, and there was another study done that compared 'normal' white names to those particularly associated with poor backgrounds (The Shanes, Krystals, Brittneys, Billys, Bubbas etc - can't remember which ones they picked off hand) and found they got the same results as with black names.

    Considering the fact that white people are far more represented in the US census and names like "Bubba" doesn't appear anywhere in the database, I'm wondering how such a study was even conducted.

    The names study you're referring to deals with misspelled names, not with foreign names in general. Moreover, the names study you're referring to reveals the opposite conclusion from the one you're bringing up. In general, people with misspelled names have a disadvantage, not because their names are misspelled, but because their parents were morons who raised them incorrectly.

    None of this applies to the black/white study. First, because all the names were spelled correctly, implying that the parents of the applicants weren't morons. Second, because the resumes were identical, which meant that the applicants didn't seem to suffer from any of the short comings that having moronic parents would bring them (at least no more so than the white applicant with the identical resume).

    You are misrepresenting the data.

    Taken together, these studies reveal to things:

    1) Having a stupid sounding name doesn't really affect you, once everything else (like whether or not your parents were morons) is accounted for.

    2) Having a black sounding name does affect you. Significantly. Even when everything else is factored out.

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Unusual names aren't related to being poor either, any more than a black sounding name is. I also don't think it's racism (or if it is, it's incidental racism) more just these are names associated with people of a different class. They aren't being racist because they don't like black people, turns out people don't like anyone who is in a different class than them and tend to assume that people with unusual names will fall into 'another class'.

    You realize that you can still be racist against black people without outright hating them, right?

    Schrodinger on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    In general, people with misspelled names have a disadvantage, not because their names are misspelled, but because their parents were morons who raised them incorrectly.

    Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? Do you mean that alternative-spelling means the parents were obviously bad parents (and if so, could you explain why?)

    Ego on
    Erik
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    In general, people with misspelled names have a disadvantage, not because their names are misspelled, but because their parents were morons who raised them incorrectly.

    Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? Do you mean that alternative-spelling means the parents were obviously bad parents (and if so, could you explain why?)

    Been a while since I read "Freakonomics," but I think that the point was that if your mom accidentally named you "Temptress" instead of "Tempestt" because she admired one of the actresses on the Cosby show, then that indicates that your mom was an idiot. And if your mom is an idiot, then that has a bigger impact on you than the name itself does. Correlation does not equal causation, and all that.

    For the counter example, he presented a father who named one kid "Loser" and one kid "Winner." Loser ended up being pretty successful in life, and Winner ended up the exact opposite.

    The problem with the black/white study is that the resumes is equal. So even though the black person might have an unusual name, there was no indication that the name was the result of an idiotic mother (or else it would have affected other areas of your life as well.). What it does indicate, however, is that your mother was probably black.

    Schrodinger on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Hmmm. Most of my family (and several friends) are teachers. The majority of all children in school today (edit: at least in Canada) are children with 'alternatively' spelled names. I'd say the practice has a lot more to do with liberalism than it does with cognitive level of the parents involved --parents want their kids to be unique.

    So were the resumes not equal in the properly-spelled vs alternatively-spelled name study? I'd find that surprising in a scientific study. And if resumes are equal, there's no reason to make any assumption about parenting (since you're supposed to be basing the hire off the resume.)

    So, just to be clear, you think people read a resume and see 'Megyn' or 'Jennifer' or 'Eric' and assume the children aren't worth hiring because the parents used alternative spelling for names and therefore are dumb and raised the kids incorrectly despite resume content?

    Ego on
    Erik
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    No, he says that people named Megyn tend to have worse resumes than people named Megan because people who have the name Megan have smarter/more capable/more intelligent parents

    Rather the study with regards to racism used identical resumes, so problems resulting from "dumb name correlation with dumb parents" are removed and all you have is racism.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    So, again, the study about alternately-spelled names didn't standardize the levels of the resumes involved? That's what I'm trying to figure out, here.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    So, again, the study about alternately-spelled names didn't standardize the levels of the resumes involved? That's what I'm trying to figure out, here.

    There were two studies.

    One using identical resumes of fictional people with different names, and sending those resumes out. The other did a regressive data analysis after the fact to check up on real world people with certain names and see how they did in life.

    Think of it this way. Suppose I want to conduct a study on the correlation of ice cream in crime. In one study, I check to see if there is a pattern connecting ice cream sales and crime rates. In the other study, I give 50% of test subjects a gift certificate to Baskin Robins, and check back in a year to see if the gift certificate had any effect on their crime patterns.

    There is a correlation between having a misspelled name and being less successful. However, there is not a causality. The name itself doesn't cause the kid to be less successful. Both the misspelled name and the lack of success are both caused by poor parenting.

    In the case of the black/white study, the parents can't be the cause, because parents don't exist. The subject matter is fictional. There is a causal relation between the name presented and the success rate, and that causal relation appears to be racial by nature.

    Schrodinger on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Ahhh, ok, makes sense. So a study of equally qualified resumes of Megans vs Megyns probably wouldn't show a discrepancy in hiring choices.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • AtomikaAtomika Nurse Amy says: “Wear the damn mask.”Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I suppose there has to be some subjective distinction for the various ways names can deviate from the cultural norms, right?

    Someone using a purposefully alternative spelling is different from an obvious misspelling, which is differing from an obvious mispronunciation, which is different from the use of a nickname as a proper name.

    For example, my dad goes by "Bill." His given name is "Billy Ray," and he is also a junior. However, knowing the connotations associated with both his name and the nickname, "Junior," he has no interest in attaching himself to that cultural mold. He's gone by "Bill" since he was in high school. It probably (though untestably) has helped him in his various entrepreneurial efforts, as "Bill" likely goes further in the world of medical logistics than "Billy Ray, Junior."


    Also, I know I personally have a negative reaction to people when they mispronounce their own name. Sadly, this does tend to occur more often with Black folks, most often with Black women. It makes me feel a little racist, but only because I know I would actually change my name if I thought it had been misspelled by my parents. I've personally known women who went by D'Emekkia (pronounced Demika), Taishia (Tasha), Feebee (Phoebe), and Amdrammedia (Andromeda).

    Atomika on
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    So, again, the study about alternately-spelled names didn't standardize the levels of the resumes involved? That's what I'm trying to figure out, here.

    There were two studies.

    One using identical resumes of fictional people with different names, and sending those resumes out. The other did a regressive data analysis after the fact to check up on real world people with certain names and see how they did in life.
    Ahh, see that was what I was after - I was thinking that both of the studies used the same method.

    Tastyfish on
  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    So, I really dislike affirmative action, but not because I'm some whiny white boy.

    The real problem for underprivileged minority communities is not racial bias in the hiring process (which is not to say it's never an issue), but poverty and lack of access to quality education.

    I see affirmative action as a sort of half measure. Rather than address the real problems, which affect people early on in life, it's much less work to just give them some advantage later on. The problem with half measures is it allows people to say (and believe) they've done something meaningful when they really haven't. "Look, we gave the black people affirmative action. It's not our fault they're still poor."

    tinwhiskers, you have a lot on your plate dealing with schrodinger, who has basically said all of what I wanted to say already, but let me know if you would like my rebuttal of post #425 in this thread (bottom of pg 17). I basically don't wanna dogpile on or jump in when you're already engaged in an ongoing debate with someone espousing the same point of view as I would. But if you prefer to take on all comers let me know :P

    and schrodinger you're killing shit in this thread. great work :^:

    valiance on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I just piled through about 10 back pages and see a lot of references to the same studies, but I must have missed the links. Could someone help me out? Google is failing me.

    Deebaser on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Schrodinger on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    valiance wrote: »
    and schrodinger you're killing shit in this thread. great work :^:

    The thread has been technically over for about ten pages, but schrodinger has been diligently putting it back down each time someone tries to breath new life into the same old arguments.

    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
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    You have a statistical advantage over an equally qualified black dude, based solely on being white.

    How do as a society correct that statical advantage without putting negatively impacting you? How do we correct a probability without correcting a probability?
    Not my problem. If you think there is a societal issue that needs to be addressed, the onus is on you to propose a non-discriminatory solution to the problem.

    There already exist laws that can be used to punish companies and individuals for specific instances of racial discrimination. Those laws provide a way for specific acts of discrimination to be redressed.

    If you want to go the next step and try to figure out how to fix more abstract issues of discrimination and differing levels of wealth in society, more power to you. But the solution you support (affirmative action) is a racially-discriminatory system that is no different than a system that gives white job and school applicants an advantage based on race.

    You really can't get around this fact- you whine about supposed white privilege and throw around a bunch of academic mumbo-jumbo, but at the end of the day you can't escape the fact that you are proposing racial discrimination as a solution to racial discrimination. The logical disconnect is, frankly, pathetic and sad.

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

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.

    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
  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Perfection doesn't exist. Non-minorities can shoulder a little burden to help alleviate a cycle of stagnancy in social class amongst a race.

    Unless of course you're going to non-ironically go all BOOTSTRAPS on us in that case I just don't even know what to say to you.

    Bootstraaaaps

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.
    Except, the solution you support is, on its face, racially discriminatory. I fail to see how racial discrimination is a legitimate solution to racial discrimination.

    AA supporters seem to have no problem with disadvantaging people for the sins of others.

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

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I think I'm going to end up posting this comic every time MM posts. Maybe repetition is the key to getting to him.

    denial_is_so_white.png

    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
  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.
    Except, the solution you support is, on its face, racially discriminatory. I fail to see how racial discrimination is a legitimate solution to racial discrimination.

    AA supporters seem to have no problem with disadvantaging people for the sins of others.

    AA is racially discriminatory action that constitutes not a drop in the bucket compared to the benefits offered naturally by white privilege. It's not perfect, but it helps push the playing field back towards level.

    You're doing fine by comparison.

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.
    Except, the solution you support is, on its face, racially discriminatory. I fail to see how racial discrimination is a legitimate solution to racial discrimination.

    AA supporters seem to have no problem with disadvantaging people for the sins of others.

    Welcome to the real world, where we sometimes have to make trade offs and decisions based on the least bad outcome rather than the perfect outcome. How fucked up is your world view that you think it's better to do nothing about discrimination you know is happening against minorities than to do a small bit of discrimination against white people to offset that discrimination?

    EDIT: Also, the bolded part is dishonest. Fuck the shit that happened long ago, what about the shit that's happening now? Where are your solutions for dealing with subtle racism that only real shows up in aggregate? Because you've posited not a damn thing to actually deal with that racism.

    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
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I'm honestly of the opinion that the more fair and pragmatic solution to the social and economic racial divide should involve a significantly heavier investment of local and federal money into social and educational programs and facilities in problematic areas.

    The playing field needs to be leveled at a foundational level. Schools, social programs, and public facilities need to be elevated to the level of schools and public facilities in affluent areas. This prevents the problem from being highlighted as specifically racial, while solving the racial problem inherent in our current socio-economic situation.

    We don't give someone an advantage because they're a member of a minority. We consider poorer areas the highest priority for effort and funding.

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.
    Except, the solution you support is, on its face, racially discriminatory. I fail to see how racial discrimination is a legitimate solution to racial discrimination.

    AA supporters seem to have no problem with disadvantaging people for the sins of others.

    Well what's your alternative? Or do you even believe there's a problem?

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.
    Except, the solution you support is, on its face, racially discriminatory. I fail to see how racial discrimination is a legitimate solution to racial discrimination.

    AA supporters seem to have no problem with disadvantaging people for the sins of others.

    Welcome to the real world, where we sometimes have to make trade offs and decisions based on the least bad outcome rather than the perfect outcome. How fucked up is your world view that you think it's better to do nothing about discrimination you know is happening against minorities than to do a small bit of discrimination against white people to offset that discrimination?
    My world view includes a belief that it is not just to try and balance out discrimination through more discrimination.

    You either don't get, or don't care, that AA leads to discrimination against innocent individuals for the past sins of other people, or for the sins of society in general. It is not just to demand that someone take a hit for the actions of others.

    Yes, existing discrimination sucks and we have passed laws to combat such discrimination. That's as far as we can legitimately go, since going any further by way of AA laws just adds to the amount of discrimination in society. AA should be banned, just like any other type of racial discrimination. The fact that the motivations behind AA may be noble is completely irrelevant.

    EDIT: Also, the bolded part is dishonest. Fuck the shit that happened long ago, what about the shit that's happening now? Where are your solutions for dealing with subtle racism that only real shows up in aggregate? Because you've posited not a damn thing to actually deal with that racism.
    I don't have a solution. But that doesn't mean your favored solution (AA) is right or just.

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

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.
    Except, the solution you support is, on its face, racially discriminatory. I fail to see how racial discrimination is a legitimate solution to racial discrimination.

    AA supporters seem to have no problem with disadvantaging people for the sins of others.

    Well what's your alternative? Or do you even believe there's a problem?

    Oh, I'm sure he thinks there's a problem, but he sets the bar for corrective action so high that it's almost never going to be justified, especially if, god forbid, a white person is inconvenienced.

    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
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.
    Except, the solution you support is, on its face, racially discriminatory. I fail to see how racial discrimination is a legitimate solution to racial discrimination.

    AA supporters seem to have no problem with disadvantaging people for the sins of others.

    Welcome to the real world, where we sometimes have to make trade offs and decisions based on the least bad outcome rather than the perfect outcome. How fucked up is your world view that you think it's better to do nothing about discrimination you know is happening against minorities than to do a small bit of discrimination against white people to offset that discrimination?
    My world view includes a belief that it is not just to try and balance out discrimination through more discrimination.

    You either don't get, or don't care, that AA leads to discrimination against innocent individuals for the past sins of other people, or for the sins of society in general. It is not just to demand that someone take a hit for the actions of others.

    Yes, existing discrimination sucks and we have passed laws to combat such discrimination. That's as far as we can legitimately go, since going any further by way of AA laws just adds to the amount of discrimination in society. AA should be banned, just like any other type of racial discrimination. The fact that the motivations behind AA may be noble is completely irrelevant.

    EDIT: Also, the bolded part is dishonest. Fuck the shit that happened long ago, what about the shit that's happening now? Where are your solutions for dealing with subtle racism that only real shows up in aggregate? Because you've posited not a damn thing to actually deal with that racism.
    I don't have a solution. But that doesn't mean your favored solution (AA) is right or just.

    Do you see the net benefit of AA negated completely by the potential loss of the hypothetical white person? Or do you think it possible that said white person will still be in a better position than hypothetical minority person should AA no longer exist?

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Apparently since you can't perfectly fix the situation so that everyone is happy, you shouldn't try to fix the situation at all. Retarded logic is retarded, especially coming from Modern Man.
    Except, the solution you support is, on its face, racially discriminatory. I fail to see how racial discrimination is a legitimate solution to racial discrimination.

    AA supporters seem to have no problem with disadvantaging people for the sins of others.

    Welcome to the real world, where we sometimes have to make trade offs and decisions based on the least bad outcome rather than the perfect outcome. How fucked up is your world view that you think it's better to do nothing about discrimination you know is happening against minorities than to do a small bit of discrimination against white people to offset that discrimination?
    My world view includes a belief that it is not just to try and balance out discrimination through more discrimination.

    You either don't get, or don't care, that AA leads to discrimination against innocent individuals for the past sins of other people, or for the sins of society in general. It is not just to demand that someone take a hit for the actions of others.

    Yes, existing discrimination sucks and we have passed laws to combat such discrimination. That's as far as we can legitimately go, since going any further by way of AA laws just adds to the amount of discrimination in society. AA should be banned, just like any other type of racial discrimination. The fact that the motivations behind AA may be noble is completely irrelevant.

    EDIT: Also, the bolded part is dishonest. Fuck the shit that happened long ago, what about the shit that's happening now? Where are your solutions for dealing with subtle racism that only real shows up in aggregate? Because you've posited not a damn thing to actually deal with that racism.
    I don't have a solution. But that doesn't mean your favored solution (AA) is right or just.

    So your world view amounts to acknowledging the problem but not actually doing anything meaningful to address the problem. How convenient and useless. You have no solution, but want to scrap the only solution in existence, in effect increasing discrimination, despite your insistence that you want to end discrimination.

    I see something wrong here, and it's the idea that you actually are against discrimination. You claim to desire an end to discrimination, but that is a fucking pipe dream that will never get reached, so how about we deal with the real world and try to decrease the net effects of discrimination? Or is that beyond your ability to square with your world view?

    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
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Do you see the net benefit of AA negated completely by the potential loss of the hypothetical white person? Or do you think it possible that said white person will still be in a better position than hypothetical minority person should AA no longer exist?
    The benefits of AA are wholly irrelevant. IMO, with some really minor exceptions, any racially discriminatory policy or program is unjust and illegal. Whether or not it provides a benefit to someone is not a relevant part of the analysis. It's not even worth discussing the relative benefits and harms of AA.

    Every racially discriminatory practice in the past benefitted somebody. And they were all as wrong as AA.
    wwtMask wrote: »
    So your world view amounts to acknowledging the problem but not actually doing anything meaningful to address the problem. How convenient and useless. You have no solution, but want to scrap the only solution in existence, in effect increasing discrimination, despite your insistence that you want to end discrimination.

    I see something wrong here, and it's the idea that you actually are against discrimination. You claim to desire an end to discrimination, but that is a fucking pipe dream that will never get reached, so how about we deal with the real world and try to decrease the net effects of discrimination? Or is that beyond your ability to square with your world view?
    If a good solution doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. That's unfortunately the case sometimes. But the fact that I can't come up with a better solutiuon doesn't mean that your solution is any good.

    I'm happy to support real-world solutions to discrimination, with the provisio that they cannot be discriminatory themselves.

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

  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I wish I could remember who said "Perfection is the enemy of progress" right now.

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If a good solution doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. That's unfortunately the case sometimes. But the fact that I can't come up with a better solutiuon doesn't mean that your solution is any good.

    I'm happy to support real-world solutions to discrimination, with the provisio that they cannot be discriminatory themselves.

    Names in a hat!

    emnmnme on
Sign In or Register to comment.