Schordinger. Modern Man was saying "So, if the Jim Crow laws were not racist then they would have been OK?".
You are assuming that Jim Crow laws could not have been created without racist intent, because they are clearly and explicitly racist. Modern Man is not
Schordinger. Modern Man was saying "So, if the Jim Crow laws were not racist then they would have been OK?".
You are assuming that Jim Crow laws could not have been created without racist intent, because they are clearly and explicitly racist. Modern Man is not
Please explain how a non-racist Jim Crow law would work and still be a Jim Crow law.
Schrodinger on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
When a employer looks at too people with identical resumes but has a 50% of hiring the person with the white sounding name, it's not because the person with the black sounding name is poor. It's because the person with the black sounding name is black.
I don't really think you proved that
there are a class of names - the Shaneequas and the LaDontes - that indicate "black" and "poor" at the same time
as you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be an analogue on the white side really - James Robert might or might not be a "Jim-Bob"
that people in the study were reluctant to hire people with these names in the study you're waving around just shows that they're reluctant to hire the "poor black" people, not that they were necessarily reluctant to hire black people in general.
But what is a non-poor black name? I can't think of one. I don't think it's as nuanced as you're portraying it to be.
Well, the really common black last names like Washington, Johnson, Lincoln, Jackson, etc. are also white names. I guess distinctly african names - Adobonojo or Edo, etc. would qualify as "economic-class-neutral but distinctly black names"
In boston there are enough Haitians that a french last name is likely to be "black"
i guess my point is, though, that you don't have a large number of middle class LaQuandas
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
The names chosen for the study weren't chosen because of class. They were simply the names that had the highest correlation with black people and the lowest correlation with white people (or vice verse).
Now, it's possible that the wealthier you are as a black man, the more likely you are exposed to white people, the more likely you will give your kid a white sounding name. OTOH, the reverse could also be true. It could just as easily be that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to have black pride, the more likely you will give your kid a name that shows that pride off. I don't know.
But the point is, people evaluating resumes aren't thinking that deeply. They probably haven't researched the data to point them in either direction. What they do have is their gut. And what their gut tells them is, "African name, reject."
is this true of "african names" or "african-american names"?
The names chosen for the study weren't chosen because of class. They were simply the names that had the highest correlation with black people and the lowest correlation with white people (or vice verse).
Now, it's possible that the wealthier you are as a black man, the more likely you are exposed to white people, the more likely you will give your kid a white sounding name. OTOH, the reverse could also be true. It could just as easily be that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to have black pride, the more likely you will give your kid a name that shows that pride off. I don't know.
But the point is, people evaluating resumes aren't thinking that deeply. They probably haven't researched the data to point them in either direction. What they do have is their gut. And what their gut tells them is, "African name, reject."
is this true of "african names" or "african-american names"?
because there's a difference.
It's true of names with a high correlation with black people and a low correlation with white people.
Schordinger. Modern Man was saying "So, if the Jim Crow laws were not racist then they would have been OK?".
You are assuming that Jim Crow laws could not have been created without racist intent, because they are clearly and explicitly racist. Modern Man is not
Please explain how a non-racist Jim Crow law would work and still be a Jim Crow law.
Do you mean "law with an unintended racial disparate impact"? If so, there are plenty of such laws.
Schordinger. Modern Man was saying "So, if the Jim Crow laws were not racist then they would have been OK?".
You are assuming that Jim Crow laws could not have been created without racist intent, because they are clearly and explicitly racist. Modern Man is not
Please explain how a non-racist Jim Crow law would work and still be a Jim Crow law.
Do you mean "law with an unintended racial disparate impact"? If so, there are plenty of such laws.
Nope.
I'm pretty sure that the impact of Jim Crow laws were completely unintentional.
Maybe you can list some laws that do this, but they aren't Jim Crow. So why bring Jim Crow up at all?
Moreover, any policy that would seek to end affirmative action would have an "racial disparate impact," by denying black people of opportunities that black people currently have. MM is really gung ho about that, so obviously "racial disparate impact" doesn't matter to him.
Schrodinger, you assume that anyone who says AA is a bad program who doesn't immediately follow it up with some magical solution to negative racial discrimination is a white privilege card carrying racist. Since they're advocating taking something away from black people, they clearly aren't interested in equality--only advancing the interests of white people.
Have you stopped for half a second to think this might not be what people are saying? If you have, you've either been intentionally obtuse, or you've missed over the fact that someone can be against an imperfect system of "racial equality" that by its nature creates a different kind of inequality than already exists, but still want to reach some form of equality by way of a better solution. What that better solution is is up for debate, but shutting down conversation about it because you automatically assume anyone who says AA is a bad system is stupid.
Schrodinger, you assume that anyone who says AA is a bad program who doesn't immediately follow it up with some magical solution to negative racial discrimination is a white privilege card carrying racist.
Really?
Where exactly did I say this?
Have you stopped for half a second to think this might not be what people are saying?
Schrodinger, you assume that anyone who says AA is a bad program who doesn't immediately follow it up with some magical solution to negative racial discrimination is a white privilege card carrying racist.
Really?
Where exactly did I say this?
Where did you put it in those words? Nowhere. But that's what you've implied throughout this thread when dealing with opinions like those of MM and tinwhiskers.
Schrodinger, you assume that anyone who says AA is a bad program who doesn't immediately follow it up with some magical solution to negative racial discrimination is a white privilege card carrying racist.
Really?
Where exactly did I say this?
Where did you put it in those words? Nowhere. But that's what you've implied throughout this thread when dealing with opinions like those of MM and tinwhiskers.
What I said was that they were holding black people and white people to completely different standards.
Which they were.
That's not calling someone a racist because they don't have a magical counter-solution. That's calling someone out on using a double standard on account of the fact that they were using a double standard.
Schrodinger, you assume that anyone who says AA is a bad program who doesn't immediately follow it up with some magical solution to negative racial discrimination is a white privilege card carrying racist.
Really?
Where exactly did I say this?
Where did you put it in those words? Nowhere. But that's what you've implied throughout this thread when dealing with opinions like those of MM and tinwhiskers.
What I said was that they were holding black people and white people to completely different standards.
Which they were.
That's not calling someone a racist because they don't have a magical counter-solution. That's calling someone out on using a double standard on account of the fact that they were using a double standard.
Are you trying to argue that they weren't using a double standard, or are you trying to argue that using a double standard doesn't prove racism? Because either of those arguments are fine.
But what you seem to be arguing is that any evidence that suggests that someone else is racist must somehow be invalid. Which is silly.
I posted an observation. You could have responded with either "Your observation is wrong" or "Your observation doesn't prove anything." Instead, you jumped the gun and said, "How dare you accuse them of being racist!"
Your responses have consistently implied that their arguments are invalid because they are racist (both the arguments and the posters).
If you want to paint their arguments as racist as a debate tool, then whatever. But ignoring the point they were making--that AA creates a different kind of inequality--doesn't help the discussion. It takes away from addressing the issue of creating equality for everyone and brings it down to this really annoying Debate Club level that's been going back and forth for the last six or seven pages.
Your responses have consistently implied that their arguments are invalid because they are racist (both the arguments and the posters).
I pointed out a double standard.
A double standard isn't invalid because it's racist (although it very well may be). A double standard is invalid because it shows inconsistent logic.
Again, if you want to argue that they weren't using a double standard and that their logic was perfectly consistent, then fine. You make that argument.
But trying to defend inconsistent logic on the grounds it might also be seen as racist is, well, silly.
Schrodinger on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I oppose AA for the same reason that I oppose things like racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws: any law or policy that dicriminates for/against someone based on their race is unjust.
The point being, as a byproduct, AA creates a racial inequality. This was the main point of contention which you avoided by accusing MM and tinwhiskers of avoiding your questions.
According to Tim and MM, racism and society is okay, as long as it is not specifically stated/endorsed in the letter of the law. And apparently, the spirit/intention of the law also doesn't matter. i.e., it is irrelevant if a law was crafted with racist intent.
See: painting opposing views as racist. That was not their statement, that was you strawmanning and taking the conversation away from the point--creating racial equality--and turning it to Debate Club wankery.
I oppose AA for the same reason that I oppose things like racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws: any law or policy that dicriminates for/against someone based on their race is unjust.
The point being, as a byproduct, AA creates a racial inequality. This was the main point of contention which you avoided by accusing MM and tinwhiskers of avoiding your questions.
Dude, wtf?
I spent several page addressing that point directly, by pointing out that a policy can discriminate against race without being unjust or racist (i.e., casting a black woman to play Rosa Parks).
Saying I never addressed his contention is dishonest.
See: painting opposing views as racist. That was not their statement, that was you strawmanning and taking the conversation away from the point--creating racial equality--and turning it to Debate Club wankery.
So it's okay for MM to paint my views (supporting AA) as racist, but it's not okay for anyone to do the same thing to them.
The names chosen for the study weren't chosen because of class. They were simply the names that had the highest correlation with black people and the lowest correlation with white people (or vice verse).
Now, it's possible that the wealthier you are as a black man, the more likely you are exposed to white people, the more likely you will give your kid a white sounding name. OTOH, the reverse could also be true. It could just as easily be that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to have black pride, the more likely you will give your kid a name that shows that pride off. I don't know.
But the point is, people evaluating resumes aren't thinking that deeply. They probably haven't researched the data to point them in either direction. What they do have is their gut. And what their gut tells them is, "African name, reject."
is this true of "african names" or "african-american names"?
because there's a difference.
It's true of names with a high correlation with black people and a low correlation with white people.
I'm willing to bet those names also have a high correlation with economic disadvantage. Hell, the authors of the study even consider this possibility.
They didn't use African names, they used poor black names and compared them against middle class names. Look at Table 8. It basically says that mothers who name their kids 'Jermaine' are only about 53% likely to have graduated from High School... And 'Jermaine' still got 63% more call backs than Todd. No one likes Todds.
Can you define Black (in the capacity that it relates to affirmative action)?
That depends. Can you defend what low income means in a socio economic AA proposal?
Would have to do some research, but let's assume below the US poverty threshold (~ bottom 17% of households) as a start. More effort would need to be put into establishing a range where the benefit would be most observable, of course. Either way I don't think it's too complex a question to be answered.
I also wasn't being snide and was wondering if you could provide a legitimate answer to the question. One of the major points I've made is that the social impact of race on an individual is very hard to establish without going beyond skin color. I wonder what your opinion on this is.
The names chosen for the study weren't chosen because of class. They were simply the names that had the highest correlation with black people and the lowest correlation with white people (or vice verse).
Now, it's possible that the wealthier you are as a black man, the more likely you are exposed to white people, the more likely you will give your kid a white sounding name. OTOH, the reverse could also be true. It could just as easily be that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to have black pride, the more likely you will give your kid a name that shows that pride off. I don't know.
But the point is, people evaluating resumes aren't thinking that deeply. They probably haven't researched the data to point them in either direction. What they do have is their gut. And what their gut tells them is, "African name, reject."
is this true of "african names" or "african-american names"?
because there's a difference.
It's true of names with a high correlation with black people and a low correlation with white people.
I'm willing to bet those names also have a high correlation with economic disadvantage. Hell, the authors of the study even consider this possibility.
They didn't use African names, they used poor black names and compared them against middle class names. Look at Table 8. It basically says that mothers who name their kids 'Jermaine' are only about 53% likely to have graduated from High School... And 'Jermaine' still got 63% more call backs than Todd. No one likes Todds.
this was in the dark days of Todd Bridges running riot
I can't give you a legal/biological/sociological answer.
Race is like pornography. Hard to define, but we know it when we see it.
The best I can tell you is that AA is in response to the social disadvantage that comes from being black. So if a person is black enough for society to respond negatively, then they should probably be eligible for AA. Of course, if you're asking for a specific threshold, then I can't give you one.
I oppose AA for the same reason that I oppose things like racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws: any law or policy that dicriminates for/against someone based on their race is unjust.
The point being, as a byproduct, AA creates a racial inequality. This was the main point of contention which you avoided by accusing MM and tinwhiskers of avoiding your questions.
Dude, wtf?
I spent several page addressing that point directly, by pointing out that a policy can discriminate against race without being unjust or racist (i.e., casting a black woman to play Rosa Parks).
Saying I never addressed his contention is dishonest.
First, so far as I can tell you're the one who brought up the Rosa Parks actress scenario to make your own point that had nothing to do with the point MM and others were trying to make. Second--really? Casting a black actor in the part of a black character is your idea of AA in practice? So AA has eliminated black-face in Hollywood, is what you're telling me? This scenario clearly doesn't have anything to do with the practicality of choosing the most qualified person for the basic requirements of the job--it's all about evening out the racial playing field.
Looking back, Evander summed it up pretty succinctly:
AA is better than nothing, but it would be nice to find something better than AA
The net effect of AA may be reduction in racial inequality, but that doesn't magic away the fact that it CREATES racial tensions and new racial inequalities. The focus should be on finding a better system that addresses the causes of racial inequality rather than sitting on a system that treats just the inequalities. Disease not the symptoms.
Nucker, you claimed that I didn't address MM's argument that all forms of racial discrimination are unjust, and therefore, AA was unjust. The entire point of the Rosa Parks argument was to disprove his underlying premise, by showing an example of racial discrimination that was completely legitimate. Therefore, it would be up to MM to point to a different reason for it to be unjust, like the existence of actual racism as the dictionary defines it. You're trying to claim that I never responded to his argument, while also claiming that my Rosa Park's analogy was completely unrelated to anything he had to say. Sorry, but that just isn't true.
Look, I understand that trying to follow what other people have to say to each other might get confusing. However, if you can't follow the discussion and hand, then you obviously aren't qualified to critique it. Period. It's one thing to disagree with my response, or to demand clarification. But outright denying that I had any response at all is completely dishonest.
Second, you're also being hypocrite.
In one paragraph, you whine about how I never responded to MM's attempts to paint AA as racist. But in the very next paragraph, you whine about I'm a terrible person because any attempt to paint the other side as racist is wrong. How can you criticize me for doing the exact same thing that you praise MM for, one paragraph earlier? Why do you whine in one post about how AA creates "racial inequality," and then whine in the very next post about how I accused MM of employing a double standard?
It's apparently okay for AA opponents to accuse AA supporters of supporting racism. But it is ungodly wrong for the other side to do the same. Why? Because you're a hypocrite.
Sorry, but you are not the "fair and balanced" objective third party observer that you seem to think you are.
The net effect of AA may be reduction in racial inequality, but that doesn't magic away the fact that it CREATES racial tensions
Electing a black president creates racial tension.
Refusing to move to the back of the bus creates racial tension.
Giving black people the right to vote creates racial tension.
Free black people from slavery creates racial tension.
Allowing black people to sit at the same lunch counters creates racial tension.
Guess what? Any attempt to help improve the lives of black people will create racial tension. Does that mean that we stop doing it?
and new racial inequalities.
What the heck does that statement even mean? New inequality compared to what?
Because it looks like you're trying to accuse AA of being racist, without simply outright saying that the program is racist.
The focus should be on finding a better system that addresses the causes of racial inequality rather than sitting on a system that treats just the inequalities. Disease not the symptoms.
You're trying to make an analogy based on something that has no basis in reality.
Yes, curing the disease would be better than simply the symptoms. And a lot of the time, treating the symptom will have a lot of negative side effects. But guess what? Doctors do it anyway, because it is the best available option.
You keep saying, "Just because we don't have a cure for racism, that doesn't justify AA." Actually, it does. To borrow from your analogy, if we don't have a cure for a disease, then it is perfectly legitimate to treat the symptoms. Not just legitimate, but completely stupid not to.
Right now, we don't have a cure for lupus. But we do have medication to treat the symptoms. Should we deny these medications to patients, on the grounds that it won't cure them? Because that's what you're suggesting when it comes to AA.
You keep saying, "Just because we don't have a cure for racism, that doesn't justify AA." Actually, it does. To borrow from your analogy, if we don't have a cure for a disease, then it is perfectly legitimate to treat the symptoms. Not just legitimate, but completely stupid not to.
No. What I keep saying is, "Just because we don't have a cure for racism, that doesn't justify accepting that AA is the best possible solution and ignoring the fact that AA has negative consequences." Next time you want to quote something I've said, actually quote something I've said. Look! I even put it in quotation marks for you!
...it looks like you're trying to accuse AA of being racist, without simply outright saying that the program is racist.
It's a form of racial discrimination. A form of racial discrimination that partially corrects one kind of racial inequality while in many individual cases creating a different kind of racial inequality--the people who get doors shut in their faces because all other things being equal they were not favored by the racial discrimination of AA. You could argue that in some ways it even hinders people who have without the assistance of AA achieved in society. There will be people who look at their achievements and think, "The only reason you have done so well is because you are (x minority)."
I think we can agree on the baseline that it shouldn't matter what color your skin is, what your gender is, what your sexual orientation is, what your religious background is, or whatever the hell else you want to talk about is. What should ultimately matter is an individual's ability to perform the task and their individual worth they have earned.
Should we help people who are in bad ways socio-economically? Students who don't have the financial means to attend good schools or move to places with good school systems? Absolutely. Should we try and eliminate the actual forms of racism that exist in workplace hiring? Absolutely. But what we should not do is settle with AA because it partially corrects the symptoms of the real problem.
No. What I keep saying is, "Just because we don't have a cure for racism, that doesn't justify accepting that AA is the best possible solution and ignoring the fact that AA has negative consequences." Next time you want to quote something I've said, actually quote something I've said. Look! I even put it in quotation marks for you!
If you don't have a better solution at hand, then by definition, AA is the best solution available. The existence of negative consequences doesn't change this.
It's a form of racial discrimination. A form of racial discrimination that partially corrects one kind of racial inequality while in many individual cases creating a different kind of racial inequality--the people who get doors shut in their faces because all other things being equal they were not favored by the racial discrimination of AA.
Everything you said just now? Yeah, that could just as easily apply to casting Rosa Parks as a black woman. Which isn't to say that casting for Rosa Parks is exactly the same as AA. What it does shows is that your refutation isn't substantial on it's own. If you want to criticize AA, you have to do more than simply show that it racially discriminates. You also have to show that it does so in a way that is actually wrong.
You could argue that in some ways it even hinders people who have without the assistance of AA achieved in society. There will be people who look at their achievements and think, "The only reason you have done so well is because you are (x minority)."
The people who think that will think that regardless of whether or not AA actually exist. Most of the AA opponents I talk to oppose AA on the grounds that it gives racial quotas, even though racial quotas were ruled unconstitutional before they were born.
In short, there will always be white people who will complain no matter what. The fact that white people will be angry does not invalidate a policy. I'm sure that there were a lot of white people who didn't think that Rosa Parks deserved the right to sit in the front of the bus, or eat at the same lunch counters. I'm sure a lot of them said to themselves, "The only reason you're here is because of some political fat cat in Washington!" What does that prove? Nothing.
The assumption that the black person is undeserving is in itself a racist assumption. Because you're assuming that the black person is undeserving for no other reason than the color of their skin. It's also not based on fact, since AA only applies in cases of tie breakers, which meant that AA only applies when the black person would have been qualified to get in on their owns, but might have had difficulty due to lack of slots.
In short, you are saying that we should hinder AA based on the false assumptions of racist white people who don't think that black people are deserving. This is silly.
I think we can agree on the baseline that it shouldn't matter what color your skin is, what your gender is, what your sexual orientation is, what your religious background is, or whatever the hell else you want to talk about is. What should ultimately matter is an individual's ability to perform the task and their individual worth they have earned.
So why are you assuming that a black person didn't earn their position based on individual worth, but the equally qualified white people who got rejected did?
Again, double standard.
Should we help people who are in bad ways socio-economically? Students who don't have the financial means to attend good schools or move to places with good school systems? Absolutely. Should we try and eliminate the actual forms of racism that exist in workplace hiring? Absolutely. But what we should not do is settle with AA because it partially corrects the symptoms of the real problem.
Should we help people who don't have access to condoms? Students never took safe sex education? Absolutely. Should we try and eliminate HIV? Absolutely. But what we should not do is settle on medications for AIDS because it partially corrects the symptoms of the real problem.
BTW, you still haven't explained your blatant hypocrisy. The fact that you insist that I am a poor debater for painting opposing views as racist, when you yourself do the exact same thing. You're trying to paint yourself as a "fair and balanced" objective third party who only wants a clean and honest debate, when you are no such thing. Instead, you come across as the person who claims to be "politically independent" in online debates, but always sides with the republicans by sheer coincidence.
Schrodinger, earlier I said I didn't have interest in arguing with someone that is disingenuous. But today I'm home recovering from surgery, I need something to take my mind off things, and you've continued to make specious and sophomoric arguments that annoy me.
Your Rosa Parks example is terrible, and completely inapplicable. It is an incredibly simple thing to realize that racism does not apply to a situation in which race is an inherent factor, such as casting an actor for a biographical part. Just as the Americans with Disabilities act makes it illegal to factor in someone's disability when choosing to hire them except in cases where that disability would apply directly to that job. Just as importantly the casting of a part in a play or movie is not the same as a nationwide program which gives advantage based on race to a multitude of things which have absolutely no relationship to race, such as being accepted at a university.
The argument here is very simple. When choosing school acceptance or job hiring, to use race as a factor is prejudiced, racist, and wrong. Further a racist program which has good intentions, that of leveling the playing field, is still racist, and still wrong. The ends of leveling the playing field do not justify the means of passing racist laws. Considering race in a job applicant is of course not racist in a case where it specifically applies to job performance, such as your ability to believably portray someone in a play or movie.
Actually its incredibly relevant, because multiple people were claiming that AA was just racism as a response to racism and Schrodinger was showing that AA is in fact not racism.
People countered that by going "but its racial discrimination". While this is often used to mean the same thing as racism, it isn't. The actress playing Rosa Parks analogy pointed this out.
Actually its incredibly relevant, because multiple people were claiming that AA was just racism as a response to racism and Schrodinger was showing that AA is in fact not racism.
People countered that by going "but its racial discrimination". While this is often used to mean the same thing as racism, it isn't. The actress playing Rosa Parks analogy pointed this out.
racism does not apply to a situation in which race is an inherent factor, such as casting an actor for a biographical part
In the Rosa Parks example there is no racism. If however you were judging college applicants, taking race into account would not apply, and would be racist. Giving advantage to a group based on skin color is racist and wrong.
Schordinger. Modern Man was saying "So, if the Jim Crow laws were not racist then they would have been OK?".
You are assuming that Jim Crow laws could not have been created without racist intent, because they are clearly and explicitly racist. Modern Man is not
Please explain how a non-racist Jim Crow law would work and still be a Jim Crow law.
Do you mean "law with an unintended racial disparate impact"? If so, there are plenty of such laws.
Nope.
I'm pretty sure that the impact of Jim Crow laws were completely unintentional.
Maybe you can list some laws that do this, but they aren't Jim Crow. So why bring Jim Crow up at all?
Moreover, any policy that would seek to end affirmative action would have an "racial disparate impact," by denying black people of opportunities that black people currently have. MM is really gung ho about that, so obviously "racial disparate impact" doesn't matter to him.
Well, I'm not MM. Don't bite.
I daresay the disparate impact of most Jim Crow laws were intentional.
Actually its incredibly relevant, because multiple people were claiming that AA was just racism as a response to racism and Schrodinger was showing that AA is in fact not racism.
People countered that by going "but its racial discrimination". While this is often used to mean the same thing as racism, it isn't. The actress playing Rosa Parks analogy pointed this out.
racism does not apply to a situation in which race is an inherent factor, such as casting an actor for a biographical part
In the Rosa Parks example there is no racism. If however you were judging college applicants, taking race into account would not apply, and would be racist. Giving advantage to a group based on skin color is racist and wrong.
You just posted a distinction without a difference. You're asserting that college admissions is different from the Rosa Parks because it's racist and wrong, without telling us why it's racist and wrong.
Again, "racist" is not code word for "any policy that I don't approve of, that somehow deals with race." Racism has a specific definition that I posted earlier. Examples of racism that other people complain about (laws preventing interracial marriage, Jim Crow laws, etc) fall under this definition. AA does not. And no one has made a single example of how it does.
Mind you, there are other less used definitions of racism that would include AA. But those other less used definitions of racism would also include the Rosa Parks example. The definition of racism I posted is one that would include Jim Crow laws, but reject the Rosa Parks example. In short, it is a useful definition, because it provides clear standards for measuring policy.
You say that racism does not apply in cases where race is an inherent factor. One of the main goals of AA is to help encourage and allow for racial diversity. How is race not an inherent factor towards racial diversity? Now, you can argue with whether or not racial diversity is a worthy goal, just like you can argue whether or not we should bother staging a re-enactment of Rosa Parks. But it's hard to argue that a white person would do just as good a job at increasing diversity as a black person in a school that is already 80% white.
Schrodinger on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Actually its incredibly relevant, because multiple people were claiming that AA was just racism as a response to racism and Schrodinger was showing that AA is in fact not racism.
People countered that by going "but its racial discrimination". While this is often used to mean the same thing as racism, it isn't. The actress playing Rosa Parks analogy pointed this out.
racism does not apply to a situation in which race is an inherent factor, such as casting an actor for a biographical part
In the Rosa Parks example there is no racism. If however you were judging college applicants, taking race into account would not apply, and would be racist. Giving advantage to a group based on skin color is racist and wrong.
You just posted a distinction without a difference. You're asserting that college admissions is different from the Rosa Parks because it's racist and wrong, without telling us why it's racist and wrong.
No he didn't. The race of an actress directly impacts the quality of their portrayal of the character of Rosa Parks. The race of a medical school aplicant does not have any bearing as their ability to become a doctor.
Actually its incredibly relevant, because multiple people were claiming that AA was just racism as a response to racism and Schrodinger was showing that AA is in fact not racism.
People countered that by going "but its racial discrimination". While this is often used to mean the same thing as racism, it isn't. The actress playing Rosa Parks analogy pointed this out.
racism does not apply to a situation in which race is an inherent factor, such as casting an actor for a biographical part
In the Rosa Parks example there is no racism. If however you were judging college applicants, taking race into account would not apply, and would be racist. Giving advantage to a group based on skin color is racist and wrong.
You just posted a distinction without a difference. You're asserting that college admissions is different from the Rosa Parks because it's racist and wrong, without telling us why it's racist and wrong.
Again, "racist" is not code word for "any policy that I don't approve of, that somehow deals with race." Racism has a specific definition that I posted earlier. Examples of racism that other people complain about (laws preventing interracial marriage, Jim Crow laws, etc) fall under this definition. AA does not. And no one has made a single example of how it does.
Mind you, there are other less used definitions of racism that would include AA. But those other less used definitions of racism would also include the Rosa Parks example. The definition of racism I posted is one that would include Jim Crow laws, but reject the Rosa Parks example. In short, it is a useful definition, because it provides clear standards for measuring policy.
You say that racism does not apply in cases where race is an inherent factor. One of the main goals of AA is to help encourage and allow for racial diversity. How is race not an inherent factor towards racial diversity?
Sure I did, but if you like I can repeat this very simple concept that you refuse to acknowledge. To consider race in relation to school acceptance or hiring is racist and wrong. Affirmative Action does this. So Affirmative Action is racist and wrong.
However, in a case where race directly affects your ability to accomplish something, it is not racist to factor that in. If you want to portray a person believably, the color of your skin directly impacts your ability to do that, and should be a factor. If you want to be an accountant, your skin color has no impact on your job performance, and therefore it would be racist to use that as a factor. Really simple stuff there.
Just like the ADA says you cannot discriminate based on disability, except in those cases where that disability applies directly to the job. If a paraplegic applies to be an accountant, I am not allowed to factor that in to my decision. If the same paraplegic applies to be a helicopter pilot, I am allowed to factor that in, and I am not being prejudiced.
You say that racism does not apply in cases where race is an inherent factor. One of the main goals of AA is to help encourage and allow for racial diversity. How is race not an inherent factor towards racial diversity? Now, you can argue with whether or not racial diversity is a worthy goal, just like you can argue whether or not we should bother staging a re-enactment of Rosa Parks. But it's hard to argue that a white person would do just as good a job at increasing diversity as a black person in a school that is already 80% white.
Yes, if Affirmative Action is going to do its job it must consider race. Yet, to consider race for jobs or schools where skin color has no relationship with ability is racist. Which makes Affirmative Action racist in a really basic way.
Heck, it might be less racist if you were providing something like more teachers or extra tutoring to make the black applicants have higher test scores, but Affirmative Action takes two identical applicants, and gives the spot to one, over the other, based on the color of their skin. Which is racist.
Posts
You are assuming that Jim Crow laws could not have been created without racist intent, because they are clearly and explicitly racist. Modern Man is not
Please explain how a non-racist Jim Crow law would work and still be a Jim Crow law.
Well, the really common black last names like Washington, Johnson, Lincoln, Jackson, etc. are also white names. I guess distinctly african names - Adobonojo or Edo, etc. would qualify as "economic-class-neutral but distinctly black names"
In boston there are enough Haitians that a french last name is likely to be "black"
i guess my point is, though, that you don't have a large number of middle class LaQuandas
is this true of "african names" or "african-american names"?
because there's a difference.
It's true of names with a high correlation with black people and a low correlation with white people.
Do you mean "law with an unintended racial disparate impact"? If so, there are plenty of such laws.
Nope.
I'm pretty sure that the impact of Jim Crow laws were completely unintentional.
Maybe you can list some laws that do this, but they aren't Jim Crow. So why bring Jim Crow up at all?
Moreover, any policy that would seek to end affirmative action would have an "racial disparate impact," by denying black people of opportunities that black people currently have. MM is really gung ho about that, so obviously "racial disparate impact" doesn't matter to him.
Schrodinger, you assume that anyone who says AA is a bad program who doesn't immediately follow it up with some magical solution to negative racial discrimination is a white privilege card carrying racist. Since they're advocating taking something away from black people, they clearly aren't interested in equality--only advancing the interests of white people.
Have you stopped for half a second to think this might not be what people are saying? If you have, you've either been intentionally obtuse, or you've missed over the fact that someone can be against an imperfect system of "racial equality" that by its nature creates a different kind of inequality than already exists, but still want to reach some form of equality by way of a better solution. What that better solution is is up for debate, but shutting down conversation about it because you automatically assume anyone who says AA is a bad system is stupid.
Really?
Where exactly did I say this?
Irony.
See above.
Where did you put it in those words? Nowhere. But that's what you've implied throughout this thread when dealing with opinions like those of MM and tinwhiskers.
What I said was that they were holding black people and white people to completely different standards.
Which they were.
That's not calling someone a racist because they don't have a magical counter-solution. That's calling someone out on using a double standard on account of the fact that they were using a double standard.
So in other words...they were being racist?
I'm not sure at what you're getting at.
Are you trying to argue that they weren't using a double standard, or are you trying to argue that using a double standard doesn't prove racism? Because either of those arguments are fine.
But what you seem to be arguing is that any evidence that suggests that someone else is racist must somehow be invalid. Which is silly.
I posted an observation. You could have responded with either "Your observation is wrong" or "Your observation doesn't prove anything." Instead, you jumped the gun and said, "How dare you accuse them of being racist!"
If you want to paint their arguments as racist as a debate tool, then whatever. But ignoring the point they were making--that AA creates a different kind of inequality--doesn't help the discussion. It takes away from addressing the issue of creating equality for everyone and brings it down to this really annoying Debate Club level that's been going back and forth for the last six or seven pages.
I pointed out a double standard.
A double standard isn't invalid because it's racist (although it very well may be). A double standard is invalid because it shows inconsistent logic.
Again, if you want to argue that they weren't using a double standard and that their logic was perfectly consistent, then fine. You make that argument.
But trying to defend inconsistent logic on the grounds it might also be seen as racist is, well, silly.
Uh....
The point being, as a byproduct, AA creates a racial inequality. This was the main point of contention which you avoided by accusing MM and tinwhiskers of avoiding your questions.
One of your responses to them:
See: painting opposing views as racist. That was not their statement, that was you strawmanning and taking the conversation away from the point--creating racial equality--and turning it to Debate Club wankery.
Dude, wtf?
I spent several page addressing that point directly, by pointing out that a policy can discriminate against race without being unjust or racist (i.e., casting a black woman to play Rosa Parks).
Saying I never addressed his contention is dishonest.
So it's okay for MM to paint my views (supporting AA) as racist, but it's not okay for anyone to do the same thing to them.
Why?
You're a hypocrite.
Can you define Black (in the capacity that it relates to affirmative action)?
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I'm willing to bet those names also have a high correlation with economic disadvantage. Hell, the authors of the study even consider this possibility.
They didn't use African names, they used poor black names and compared them against middle class names. Look at Table 8. It basically says that mothers who name their kids 'Jermaine' are only about 53% likely to have graduated from High School... And 'Jermaine' still got 63% more call backs than Todd. No one likes Todds.
That depends. Can you defend what low income means in a socio economic AA proposal?
Would have to do some research, but let's assume below the US poverty threshold (~ bottom 17% of households) as a start. More effort would need to be put into establishing a range where the benefit would be most observable, of course. Either way I don't think it's too complex a question to be answered.
I also wasn't being snide and was wondering if you could provide a legitimate answer to the question. One of the major points I've made is that the social impact of race on an individual is very hard to establish without going beyond skin color. I wonder what your opinion on this is.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
this was in the dark days of Todd Bridges running riot
Race is like pornography. Hard to define, but we know it when we see it.
The best I can tell you is that AA is in response to the social disadvantage that comes from being black. So if a person is black enough for society to respond negatively, then they should probably be eligible for AA. Of course, if you're asking for a specific threshold, then I can't give you one.
With you on that one Julius.
First, so far as I can tell you're the one who brought up the Rosa Parks actress scenario to make your own point that had nothing to do with the point MM and others were trying to make. Second--really? Casting a black actor in the part of a black character is your idea of AA in practice? So AA has eliminated black-face in Hollywood, is what you're telling me? This scenario clearly doesn't have anything to do with the practicality of choosing the most qualified person for the basic requirements of the job--it's all about evening out the racial playing field.
Looking back, Evander summed it up pretty succinctly:
The net effect of AA may be reduction in racial inequality, but that doesn't magic away the fact that it CREATES racial tensions and new racial inequalities. The focus should be on finding a better system that addresses the causes of racial inequality rather than sitting on a system that treats just the inequalities. Disease not the symptoms.
Look, I understand that trying to follow what other people have to say to each other might get confusing. However, if you can't follow the discussion and hand, then you obviously aren't qualified to critique it. Period. It's one thing to disagree with my response, or to demand clarification. But outright denying that I had any response at all is completely dishonest.
Second, you're also being hypocrite.
In one paragraph, you whine about how I never responded to MM's attempts to paint AA as racist. But in the very next paragraph, you whine about I'm a terrible person because any attempt to paint the other side as racist is wrong. How can you criticize me for doing the exact same thing that you praise MM for, one paragraph earlier? Why do you whine in one post about how AA creates "racial inequality," and then whine in the very next post about how I accused MM of employing a double standard?
It's apparently okay for AA opponents to accuse AA supporters of supporting racism. But it is ungodly wrong for the other side to do the same. Why? Because you're a hypocrite.
Sorry, but you are not the "fair and balanced" objective third party observer that you seem to think you are.
Electing a black president creates racial tension.
Refusing to move to the back of the bus creates racial tension.
Giving black people the right to vote creates racial tension.
Free black people from slavery creates racial tension.
Allowing black people to sit at the same lunch counters creates racial tension.
Guess what? Any attempt to help improve the lives of black people will create racial tension. Does that mean that we stop doing it?
What the heck does that statement even mean? New inequality compared to what?
Because it looks like you're trying to accuse AA of being racist, without simply outright saying that the program is racist.
You're trying to make an analogy based on something that has no basis in reality.
Yes, curing the disease would be better than simply the symptoms. And a lot of the time, treating the symptom will have a lot of negative side effects. But guess what? Doctors do it anyway, because it is the best available option.
You keep saying, "Just because we don't have a cure for racism, that doesn't justify AA." Actually, it does. To borrow from your analogy, if we don't have a cure for a disease, then it is perfectly legitimate to treat the symptoms. Not just legitimate, but completely stupid not to.
Right now, we don't have a cure for lupus. But we do have medication to treat the symptoms. Should we deny these medications to patients, on the grounds that it won't cure them? Because that's what you're suggesting when it comes to AA.
No. What I keep saying is, "Just because we don't have a cure for racism, that doesn't justify accepting that AA is the best possible solution and ignoring the fact that AA has negative consequences." Next time you want to quote something I've said, actually quote something I've said. Look! I even put it in quotation marks for you!
It's a form of racial discrimination. A form of racial discrimination that partially corrects one kind of racial inequality while in many individual cases creating a different kind of racial inequality--the people who get doors shut in their faces because all other things being equal they were not favored by the racial discrimination of AA. You could argue that in some ways it even hinders people who have without the assistance of AA achieved in society. There will be people who look at their achievements and think, "The only reason you have done so well is because you are (x minority)."
I think we can agree on the baseline that it shouldn't matter what color your skin is, what your gender is, what your sexual orientation is, what your religious background is, or whatever the hell else you want to talk about is. What should ultimately matter is an individual's ability to perform the task and their individual worth they have earned.
Should we help people who are in bad ways socio-economically? Students who don't have the financial means to attend good schools or move to places with good school systems? Absolutely. Should we try and eliminate the actual forms of racism that exist in workplace hiring? Absolutely. But what we should not do is settle with AA because it partially corrects the symptoms of the real problem.
If you don't have a better solution at hand, then by definition, AA is the best solution available. The existence of negative consequences doesn't change this.
Everything you said just now? Yeah, that could just as easily apply to casting Rosa Parks as a black woman. Which isn't to say that casting for Rosa Parks is exactly the same as AA. What it does shows is that your refutation isn't substantial on it's own. If you want to criticize AA, you have to do more than simply show that it racially discriminates. You also have to show that it does so in a way that is actually wrong.
The people who think that will think that regardless of whether or not AA actually exist. Most of the AA opponents I talk to oppose AA on the grounds that it gives racial quotas, even though racial quotas were ruled unconstitutional before they were born.
In short, there will always be white people who will complain no matter what. The fact that white people will be angry does not invalidate a policy. I'm sure that there were a lot of white people who didn't think that Rosa Parks deserved the right to sit in the front of the bus, or eat at the same lunch counters. I'm sure a lot of them said to themselves, "The only reason you're here is because of some political fat cat in Washington!" What does that prove? Nothing.
The assumption that the black person is undeserving is in itself a racist assumption. Because you're assuming that the black person is undeserving for no other reason than the color of their skin. It's also not based on fact, since AA only applies in cases of tie breakers, which meant that AA only applies when the black person would have been qualified to get in on their owns, but might have had difficulty due to lack of slots.
In short, you are saying that we should hinder AA based on the false assumptions of racist white people who don't think that black people are deserving. This is silly.
So why are you assuming that a black person didn't earn their position based on individual worth, but the equally qualified white people who got rejected did?
Again, double standard.
Should we help people who don't have access to condoms? Students never took safe sex education? Absolutely. Should we try and eliminate HIV? Absolutely. But what we should not do is settle on medications for AIDS because it partially corrects the symptoms of the real problem.
BTW, you still haven't explained your blatant hypocrisy. The fact that you insist that I am a poor debater for painting opposing views as racist, when you yourself do the exact same thing. You're trying to paint yourself as a "fair and balanced" objective third party who only wants a clean and honest debate, when you are no such thing. Instead, you come across as the person who claims to be "politically independent" in online debates, but always sides with the republicans by sheer coincidence.
Your Rosa Parks example is terrible, and completely inapplicable. It is an incredibly simple thing to realize that racism does not apply to a situation in which race is an inherent factor, such as casting an actor for a biographical part. Just as the Americans with Disabilities act makes it illegal to factor in someone's disability when choosing to hire them except in cases where that disability would apply directly to that job. Just as importantly the casting of a part in a play or movie is not the same as a nationwide program which gives advantage based on race to a multitude of things which have absolutely no relationship to race, such as being accepted at a university.
The argument here is very simple. When choosing school acceptance or job hiring, to use race as a factor is prejudiced, racist, and wrong. Further a racist program which has good intentions, that of leveling the playing field, is still racist, and still wrong. The ends of leveling the playing field do not justify the means of passing racist laws. Considering race in a job applicant is of course not racist in a case where it specifically applies to job performance, such as your ability to believably portray someone in a play or movie.
--LeVar Burton
People countered that by going "but its racial discrimination". While this is often used to mean the same thing as racism, it isn't. The actress playing Rosa Parks analogy pointed this out.
Yeah, like I said:
In the Rosa Parks example there is no racism. If however you were judging college applicants, taking race into account would not apply, and would be racist. Giving advantage to a group based on skin color is racist and wrong.
--LeVar Burton
Well, I'm not MM. Don't bite.
I daresay the disparate impact of most Jim Crow laws were intentional.
You just posted a distinction without a difference. You're asserting that college admissions is different from the Rosa Parks because it's racist and wrong, without telling us why it's racist and wrong.
Again, "racist" is not code word for "any policy that I don't approve of, that somehow deals with race." Racism has a specific definition that I posted earlier. Examples of racism that other people complain about (laws preventing interracial marriage, Jim Crow laws, etc) fall under this definition. AA does not. And no one has made a single example of how it does.
Mind you, there are other less used definitions of racism that would include AA. But those other less used definitions of racism would also include the Rosa Parks example. The definition of racism I posted is one that would include Jim Crow laws, but reject the Rosa Parks example. In short, it is a useful definition, because it provides clear standards for measuring policy.
You say that racism does not apply in cases where race is an inherent factor. One of the main goals of AA is to help encourage and allow for racial diversity. How is race not an inherent factor towards racial diversity? Now, you can argue with whether or not racial diversity is a worthy goal, just like you can argue whether or not we should bother staging a re-enactment of Rosa Parks. But it's hard to argue that a white person would do just as good a job at increasing diversity as a black person in a school that is already 80% white.
No he didn't. The race of an actress directly impacts the quality of their portrayal of the character of Rosa Parks. The race of a medical school aplicant does not have any bearing as their ability to become a doctor.
Your Rosa Parks example is terrible, dude.
Sure I did, but if you like I can repeat this very simple concept that you refuse to acknowledge. To consider race in relation to school acceptance or hiring is racist and wrong. Affirmative Action does this. So Affirmative Action is racist and wrong.
However, in a case where race directly affects your ability to accomplish something, it is not racist to factor that in. If you want to portray a person believably, the color of your skin directly impacts your ability to do that, and should be a factor. If you want to be an accountant, your skin color has no impact on your job performance, and therefore it would be racist to use that as a factor. Really simple stuff there.
Just like the ADA says you cannot discriminate based on disability, except in those cases where that disability applies directly to the job. If a paraplegic applies to be an accountant, I am not allowed to factor that in to my decision. If the same paraplegic applies to be a helicopter pilot, I am allowed to factor that in, and I am not being prejudiced.
--LeVar Burton
Yes, if Affirmative Action is going to do its job it must consider race. Yet, to consider race for jobs or schools where skin color has no relationship with ability is racist. Which makes Affirmative Action racist in a really basic way.
Heck, it might be less racist if you were providing something like more teachers or extra tutoring to make the black applicants have higher test scores, but Affirmative Action takes two identical applicants, and gives the spot to one, over the other, based on the color of their skin. Which is racist.
--LeVar Burton