Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Affirmative Action] Perspectives and solutions

11516171921

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I hate to point this out, but look at the language/conspiracies about the President. Who is you know, the most successful black man in the history of the country. And yet there's a fair amount (not all or even most, but some) of opposition to him that's purely based on his race.

    Now of course, we have to decouple that from the same things that happen because he's a Democrat. But the Muslim stuff and the so very many photoshops (witch doctor, he and Michelle attending White House ball as pimp and ho, etc) strike me as pretty obviously racist. And a lot of these kinds of things are coming from business leaders (Paladino, for one).

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • wwtMaskwwtMask regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    IIRC, on all levels of society black people still make less on average than their white counterparts. We also are less represented in executive and managerial positions relative to our percentage of the population.

    I'm in favor of policies to help the economically disadvantaged, but I really dislike it when people try to make it out that economic disadvantage = racial disadvantage, therefore addressing the former addresses the latter. It's just not true.

    Re: making less - I seem to recall a similar problem coming up in discussions regarding women. It seems they are as a group less aggressive in asking for raises. Which is not to say that is exactly what is going on, but rather that it's a simple statistic to be drawing a broad causal inference from.

    It's still relevant because there's clearly disparity there.
    Re: lower managerial representation - seems like it would be a direct correlation with attending college in lower percetages.

    I don't think it's as clear cut as that, but I really don't have any numbers to back me up.
    It's not that I think there isn't systemic racism in some situations, but I'm not sure that it is as blunt a problem as you make out, or that as blunt a thing as AA is really the most helpful approach.

    Maybe not, but given that there are no serious alternatives that can do a better job, and given that doing nothing is worse, AA is what we should have.

    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
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    I hate to point this out, but look at the language/conspiracies about the President. Who is you know, the most successful black man in the history of the country. And yet there's a fair amount (not all or even most, but some) of opposition to him that's purely based on his race.

    Now of course, we have to decouple that from the same things that happen because he's a Democrat. But the Muslim stuff and the so very many photoshops (witch doctor, he and Michelle attending White House ball as pimp and ho, etc) strike me as pretty obviously racist. And a lot of these kinds of things are coming from business leaders (Paladino, for one).

    the same people don't pass around emails with alan keyes or clarence thomas in loincloths. most of it is just something to sieze on because he's a democratic president, in the same way that every left-wing caricature of bush featured a giant cowboy hat and oversized boots. it didn't mean that the left is anti-rancher

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    That's because they are "some of the good ones" and because black republicans are the biggest apologists of racism on the right. The anti-Obama stuff is largely couched in dog-whistle or just outright racist ways.

    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
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm consistently amazed (and chagrined) that people keep seriously arguing that AA should be race neutral, when it's pretty goddamned clear that being non-white is it's own burden independent of economic status. Implementing AA for economic status alone doesn't fix the problem of systemic racism, and arguing for it to replace traditional AA calls into question your desire to mitigate the effects of systemic racism.

    I'm a little unclear on the extent of systemic racism when it is uncoupled from economic background.

    To what extent do the members of black households wherein both parents have masters degrees experience systemic racism in admission to jobs and schools?

    I mean, schrodinger's defense of AA a few pages back leaned heavily on the idea of a gap in wealth, as opposed to income, being the problem that AA is meant to address. Well, what of it? An AA of wealth would also be race neutral.

    That's more just to address the pro-AA side than you in particular wtm. You don't have to argue Shrodinger's part.

    That's a good question, and I can't say that I have data on it. The studies so far seem to focus on black people in general without respect to their economic and social class. The point I was trying to make, though, was that systemic racism doesn't necessarily disappear when you get money and an education. IIRC, on all levels of society black people still make less on average than their white counterparts. We also are less represented in executive and managerial positions relative to our percentage of the population.

    I'm in favor of policies to help the economically disadvantaged, but I really dislike it when people try to make it out that economic disadvantage = racial disadvantage, therefore addressing the former addresses the latter. It's just not true.

    my experience has largely been that the economic has enormous priority over the racial. we tend not to think of the US as a classist country because we kind of culturally lionize the working class and because we have this myth of social mobility. but in the end, the negative stereotypes of poor blacks are functionally identical to the negative stereotypes of low-income "white trash" and the negative stereotypes of middle-class blacks, to the extent that they even exist, are functionally identical to the negative stereotypes of "new money" whites.

    this isn't to say that there isn't attitudinal or social racism, because i know that there is. it just strikes me that it's a second-order effect.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    That's because they are "some of the good ones" and because black republicans are the biggest apologists of racism on the right. The anti-Obama stuff is largely couched in dog-whistle or just outright racist ways.

    i know it exists. it just mostly feels like that it's informed by "i would like to say something bad about this president i dislike" rather than "i refuse to be governed by a black man"

    then again, maybe it's geography. my state has a fairly low black population, but we also have a black governor.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • valiancevaliance regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I hate to point this out, but look at the language/conspiracies about the President. Who is you know, the most successful black man in the history of the country. And yet there's a fair amount (not all or even most, but some) of opposition to him that's purely based on his race.

    Now of course, we have to decouple that from the same things that happen because he's a Democrat. But the Muslim stuff and the so very many photoshops (witch doctor, he and Michelle attending White House ball as pimp and ho, etc) strike me as pretty obviously racist. And a lot of these kinds of things are coming from business leaders (Paladino, for one).

    the same people don't pass around emails with alan keyes or clarence thomas in loincloths. most of it is just something to sieze on because he's a democratic president, in the same way that every left-wing caricature of bush featured a giant cowboy hat and oversized boots. it didn't mean that the left is anti-rancher

    this is silly in a number of ways

    1. bush and his publicity people intentionally played up the rancher image
    Obama doesn't tell Robert Gibbs to play up his witch doctor image...

    2. anti-rancher and anti-black person have very different histories in this country. one is a thing you just made up in your last post, and the other is a form of discrimination as old as this country. I think you can figure out which is which.

    and here's the telling thing: DEMOCRATS don't pass around emails with alan keyes or clarence thomas in loincloths. Dems don't treat opposing minorities with the same vitriol as Republicans do. (or at least its a different kind of vitriol--you get Uncle Tom instead of Witch Doctor Obama)

    a lot of the anti-obama vitriol is because he's a democrat, but it definitely has a hugely racial slant in a way anti-clinton criticism didn't. Clinton was criticized on his personal flaws--his mendacity, his philandering. Obama is criticized on his race.

    valiance on
  • FroThulhuFroThulhu regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Man, all I know is that there was a Cross-burning in the next county over a couple days after Obama was elected.

    FroThulhu on
    Nova_C wrote: »
    "I'm arresting you for failing to check yourself. You have the right to wreck yourself."
  • emnmnmeemnmnme regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4v_yRFf4-Y

    If we start treating the black man as equal to the white man, the black man will infiltrate our legislative branch and create laws designed to steal our white women!

    EDIT:
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Man, all I know is that there was a Cross-burning in the next county over a couple days after Obama was elected.

    D:

    emnmnme on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    valiance wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I hate to point this out, but look at the language/conspiracies about the President. Who is you know, the most successful black man in the history of the country. And yet there's a fair amount (not all or even most, but some) of opposition to him that's purely based on his race.

    Now of course, we have to decouple that from the same things that happen because he's a Democrat. But the Muslim stuff and the so very many photoshops (witch doctor, he and Michelle attending White House ball as pimp and ho, etc) strike me as pretty obviously racist. And a lot of these kinds of things are coming from business leaders (Paladino, for one).

    the same people don't pass around emails with alan keyes or clarence thomas in loincloths. most of it is just something to sieze on because he's a democratic president, in the same way that every left-wing caricature of bush featured a giant cowboy hat and oversized boots. it didn't mean that the left is anti-rancher

    this is silly in a number of ways

    1. bush and his publicity people intentionally played up the rancher image
    Obama doesn't tell Robert Gibbs to play up his witch doctor image...

    2. anti-rancher and anti-black person have very different histories in this country. one is a thing you just made up in your last post, and the other is a form of discrimination as old as this country. I think you can figure out which is which.

    and here's the telling thing: DEMOCRATS don't pass around emails with alan keyes or clarence thomas in loincloths. Dems don't treat opposing minorities with the same vitriol as Republicans do. (or at least its a different kind of vitriol--you get Uncle Tom instead of Witch Doctor Obama)

    a lot of the anti-obama vitriol is because he's a democrat, but it definitely has a hugely racial slant in a way anti-clinton criticism didn't. Clinton was criticized on his personal flaws--his mendacity, his philandering. Obama is criticized on his race.

    i don't think that either of your points really demonstrate that the racially-based ridicule is centrally motivated by racial antipathy.

    i mean - don't get me wrong - pulling out ethnic stereotypes as a vehicle to attack someone isn't a nice thing to do. it's low-class and bad. but it doesn't necessarily imply racial animosity.

    i dunno. it's hard for me to think well of paladino, becuase the guy seems to be an unbalanced douche in the first place, and may well be racist to his core and motivated by a belief in the inferiority of black folks.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I doubt it's racial animosity on the part of the people who originate the attacks. They're probably doing it to play on racist sentiments to drum up support for their side. The people that applaud and forward that stuff, though, are probably racists.

    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
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I doubt it's racial animosity on the part of the people who originate the attacks. They're probably doing it to play on racist sentiments to drum up support for their side. The people that applaud and forward that stuff, though, are probably racists.

    yeah i guess i'd agree with that.

    the "witch doctor obama" isn't really gonna resonate with anyone who doesn't have some kind of racial resentment going on.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • valiancevaliance regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    valiance wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I hate to point this out, but look at the language/conspiracies about the President. Who is you know, the most successful black man in the history of the country. And yet there's a fair amount (not all or even most, but some) of opposition to him that's purely based on his race.

    Now of course, we have to decouple that from the same things that happen because he's a Democrat. But the Muslim stuff and the so very many photoshops (witch doctor, he and Michelle attending White House ball as pimp and ho, etc) strike me as pretty obviously racist. And a lot of these kinds of things are coming from business leaders (Paladino, for one).

    the same people don't pass around emails with alan keyes or clarence thomas in loincloths. most of it is just something to sieze on because he's a democratic president, in the same way that every left-wing caricature of bush featured a giant cowboy hat and oversized boots. it didn't mean that the left is anti-rancher

    this is silly in a number of ways

    1. bush and his publicity people intentionally played up the rancher image
    Obama doesn't tell Robert Gibbs to play up his witch doctor image...

    2. anti-rancher and anti-black person have very different histories in this country. one is a thing you just made up in your last post, and the other is a form of discrimination as old as this country. I think you can figure out which is which.

    and here's the telling thing: DEMOCRATS don't pass around emails with alan keyes or clarence thomas in loincloths. Dems don't treat opposing minorities with the same vitriol as Republicans do. (or at least its a different kind of vitriol--you get Uncle Tom instead of Witch Doctor Obama)

    a lot of the anti-obama vitriol is because he's a democrat, but it definitely has a hugely racial slant in a way anti-clinton criticism didn't. Clinton was criticized on his personal flaws--his mendacity, his philandering. Obama is criticized on his race.

    i don't think that either of your points really demonstrate that the racially-based ridicule is centrally motivated by racial antipathy.

    i mean - don't get me wrong - pulling out ethnic stereotypes as a vehicle to attack someone isn't a nice thing to do. it's low-class and bad. but it doesn't necessarily imply racial animosity.

    i dunno. it's hard for me to think well of paladino, becuase the guy seems to be an unbalanced douche in the first place, and may well be racist to his core and motivated by a belief in the inferiority of black folks.

    If racially-based ridicule doesn't imply racial animosity what would? If only lynchings, cross burnings and the n-word can be racist the word loses any applicability. just because someone's racist presumptions are unconscious doesn't make them nonexistent. whether you actually hold racist beliefs or not, playing on them for political purposes is still racist--since you're still appealing to the racism of others.

    valiance on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    valiance wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    i don't think that either of your points really demonstrate that the racially-based ridicule is centrally motivated by racial antipathy.

    i mean - don't get me wrong - pulling out ethnic stereotypes as a vehicle to attack someone isn't a nice thing to do. it's low-class and bad. but it doesn't necessarily imply racial animosity.

    i dunno. it's hard for me to think well of paladino, becuase the guy seems to be an unbalanced douche in the first place, and may well be racist to his core and motivated by a belief in the inferiority of black folks.

    If racially-based ridicule doesn't imply racial animosity what would? If only lynchings, cross burnings and the n-word can be racist the word loses any applicability. just because someone's racist presumptions are unconscious doesn't make them nonexistent. whether you actually hold racist beliefs or not, playing on them for political purposes is still racist--since you're still appealing to the racism of others.

    are racial presumptions inherently racist?

    does all referencing of racial ridicule necessarily imply racism?

    are we working with the definition of "racism" being the belief in racial superiority/ inferiority?

    i'm not really trying to raise the bar to impossible levels here. i just think that the word "racism" is getting thrown around sloppily and is at this point kind of devoid of meaning. MM is claiming that AA is "racist" and schrodinger is claiming that not supporting AA is "racist"

    so i'm just looking for a little more solid ground than "X is racist. boo X"

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SpeakerSpeaker regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It's still relevant because there's clearly disparity there.

    There's clearly a desparity. You and I can't really say why for sure. I don't see how we can confidently say AA is helping at all.
    I don't think it's as clear cut as that, but I really don't have any numbers to back me up.

    Yeah. We're kind of just spitballing here. There's a pretty small chance either one of the statistics accurately and fully describes the situation.
    Maybe not, but given that there are no serious alternatives that can do a better job, and given that doing nothing is worse, AA is what we should have.

    You don't seem all that clear on the cause of either of the disparities you cited. Where is this confidence that AA policies are constructive coming from?

    Speaker on
    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm consistently amazed (and chagrined) that people keep seriously arguing that AA should be race neutral, when it's pretty goddamned clear that being non-white is it's own burden independent of economic status. Implementing AA for economic status alone doesn't fix the problem of systemic racism, and arguing for it to replace traditional AA calls into question your desire to mitigate the effects of systemic racism.

    Here's the thing. If I decide that cancer is a problem and demand that we invest in cancer research, I wouldn't say, "Let's shut down AIDS research and focus entirely on cancer." I would say, "Let's focus on cancer research, on top of all of the things we do already."

    If I decide that economic status is an obstacle to college admission, then the first thought should be, "Let's factor this in on top of all of the other things we factor in." Not, "Let's get rid of the race consideration, and consider this alone."

    People who push the income-only consideration do so because they know that it will hurt black people. That's the point. To deny black people of their current opportunities, and create more opportunities for white. If the goal was, "Let's help out black people as much as we do already, but let's help out poor white people as well," then that's what they would do.

    Now, a lot of the people proposing income only AA might be well meaning. But I think that they're parroting an idea that sounds good on principle, even though the original source of this idea might have an ulterior motive.

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    I'm a little unclear on the extent of systemic racism when it is uncoupled from economic background.

    To what extent do the members of black households wherein both parents have masters degrees experience systemic racism in admission to jobs and schools?

    I mean, schrodinger's defense of AA a few pages back leaned heavily on the idea of a gap in wealth, as opposed to income, being the problem that AA is meant to address. Well, what of it? An AA of wealth would also be race neutral.

    That's more just to address the pro-AA side than you in particular wtm. You don't have to argue Shrodinger's part.

    Wealth is a physical manifestation of a larger problem.

    If I point to the moon with my finger and tell you to look, it's not because I want you to fixate on my finger.

    Wealth is an indicator of how the deck is stacked against black people, even when income is accounted for. But the deck goes a lot deeper than just that.

    Schrodinger on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It's still relevant because there's clearly disparity there.

    There's clearly a desparity. You and I can't really say why for sure. I don't see how we can confidently say AA is helping at all.
    I don't think it's as clear cut as that, but I really don't have any numbers to back me up.

    Yeah. We're kind of just spitballing here. There's a pretty small chance either one of the statistics accurately and fully describes the situation.
    Maybe not, but given that there are no serious alternatives that can do a better job, and given that doing nothing is worse, AA is what we should have.

    You don't seem all that clear on the cause of either of the disparities you cited. Where is this confidence that AA policies are constructive coming from?

    Not really. I'm pretty sure that racial bias is a part of both situations, but I have no numbers to really gauge the extent of its impact. I mean, if I wanted to get really into it, I could argue that your reference to low college participation leads back to crappy schools that a lot of black students are forced to attend. The thing is, I see no reason to expect things to be better without AA. At least with AA you have a little correction for bias that we're reasonably sure exists, even if the examples I cited aren't the source of the date for this assertion. I think that increasing opportunity for minorities in situations where some bias may be in play is constructive.

    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
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    People who push the income-only consideration do so because they know that it will hurt black people. That's the point. To deny black people of their current opportunities, and create more opportunities for white. If the goal was, "Let's help out black people as much as we do already, but let's help out poor white people as well," then that's what they would do.

    Now, a lot of the people proposing income only AA might be well meaning. But I think that they're parroting an idea that sounds good on principle, even though the original source of this idea might have an ulterior motive.

    you are imputing bad faith on the part of anyone who holds a different view from yours. don't do that.

    some people push the income-only consideration because any of:

    1) it's more politically saleable and more likely to be retained through various political climates

    2) it more directly addresses what they see as the root problem

    3) they see it as more fair and less like "racial discrimination, only the other way this time"

    4) they think it will engender less of a social backlash

    5) they think it might alleviate some of the assumptions of "black folks only got this job because of AA and is therefore probably unqualified"

    there are reasonable arguments for opposing AA that have nothing to do with "racism" or "hurting black people." Gene Robinson's new book somewhat endorses economic class-based systems.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • JuliusJulius regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I doubt it's racial animosity on the part of the people who originate the attacks. They're probably doing it to play on racist sentiments to drum up support for their side. The people that applaud and forward that stuff, though, are probably racists.

    yeah i guess i'd agree with that.

    the "witch doctor obama" isn't really gonna resonate with anyone who doesn't have some kind of racial resentment going on.

    Exactly.

    I mean, these guys probably aren't all white supremacists but there certainly is some racism going on.

    Julius on
  • JuliusJulius regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    People who push the income-only consideration do so because they know that it will hurt black people. That's the point. To deny black people of their current opportunities, and create more opportunities for white. If the goal was, "Let's help out black people as much as we do already, but let's help out poor white people as well," then that's what they would do.

    Now, a lot of the people proposing income only AA might be well meaning. But I think that they're parroting an idea that sounds good on principle, even though the original source of this idea might have an ulterior motive.

    you are imputing bad faith on the part of anyone who holds a different view from yours. don't do that.

    I think the second paragraph you quoted sort of...explicitly says he isn't doing that.

    Julius on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    People who push the income-only consideration do so because they know that it will hurt black people. That's the point. To deny black people of their current opportunities, and create more opportunities for white. If the goal was, "Let's help out black people as much as we do already, but let's help out poor white people as well," then that's what they would do.

    Now, a lot of the people proposing income only AA might be well meaning. But I think that they're parroting an idea that sounds good on principle, even though the original source of this idea might have an ulterior motive.

    you are imputing bad faith on the part of anyone who holds a different view from yours. don't do that.

    I think the second paragraph you quoted sort of...explicitly says he isn't doing that.

    okay, he's fundamentally imputing bad faith on the part of the "originators" of the arguments, which is nearly as bad

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    The argument invariably leads to "well I'm white and I'm poor and I don't get any help!". So, and this is just a wild suggestion, implement economic AA too. But I bet that the same people who whined before will whine even if they got economic AA because poor minorities would be helped by economic AA.

    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
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The argument invariably leads to "well I'm white and I'm poor and I don't get any help!". So, and this is just a wild suggestion, implement economic AA too. But I bet that the same people who whined before will whine even if they got economic AA because poor minorities would be helped by economic AA.

    i think there would be a lot less of it. the fundamental gripe of poor whites these days isn't that black folks are getting help, but that black folks are getting help that white folks aren't.

    and i think it would be far more saleable with white conservatives and moderates.

    though, admittedly, it would be more of a "damn welfare" kind of class resentment than a specific racial resentment

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SpeakerSpeaker regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Wealth is an indicator of how the deck is stacked against black people, even when income is accounted for. But the deck goes a lot deeper than just that.

    Not all black people uniformly though.

    I guess to answer your question of "why not this and this, rather than this but not that" - policies of racial preference are obnoxious and antithetical to American ideals.

    AA is something we instituted because we don't live in an ideal world. The argument is similar for military tribunals rather than criminal trials for enemy combatants. Each is an exception to the way we would prefer to handle things, that their proponents argue is not ideal but necessary.

    AA is a pretty blunt policy that aims at equalizing opportunity. If it turns out that it isn't a very good way to deal with certain disparities, it really shouldn't be applied as a remedy.

    That's why people propose other policies as a replacement that deal with people as economic rather than racial entities.

    Speaker on
    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    People who push the income-only consideration do so because they know that it will hurt black people. That's the point. To deny black people of their current opportunities, and create more opportunities for white. If the goal was, "Let's help out black people as much as we do already, but let's help out poor white people as well," then that's what they would do.

    Now, a lot of the people proposing income only AA might be well meaning. But I think that they're parroting an idea that sounds good on principle, even though the original source of this idea might have an ulterior motive.

    you are imputing bad faith on the part of anyone who holds a different view from yours. don't do that.

    I think the second paragraph you quoted sort of...explicitly says he isn't doing that.

    okay, he's fundamentally imputing bad faith on the part of the "originators" of the arguments, which is nearly as bad

    Similar things can be said about the Tea Party. I doubt that actual members of the Tea Party are t motivated by the idea of corporate fascism where workers and consumers have no rights and multi-billionaires control everything. However, that seems to be the end result of a lot of their advocacy, and it appears to be entirely by design by the billionaires who are funding the movement.

    For some reason, the idea of middle class black people seems to really piss a lot of AA opponents off, probably for the same reason that Obama was frequently criticized by the right as being "elitist" and "uppity." Oh no, he eats arugula and dijon mustard! Why is it that every time the subject of AA comes up, opponents always have to bring up successful minorities as if it's a bad thing?

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    my experience has largely been that the economic has enormous priority over the racial. we tend not to think of the US as a classist country because we kind of culturally lionize the working class and because we have this myth of social mobility. but in the end, the negative stereotypes of poor blacks are functionally identical to the negative stereotypes of low-income "white trash" and the negative stereotypes of middle-class blacks, to the extent that they even exist, are functionally identical to the negative stereotypes of "new money" whites.

    this isn't to say that there isn't attitudinal or social racism, because i know that there is. it just strikes me that it's a second-order effect.

    Do you know how many AA supporters in this thread would object if you said that you wanted to find a way to help out poor people?

    Zero.

    The problem is when people try to make it one or the other. When people say, "In order to help out poor people, we have to create a system that gives minorities less opportunities then they have already." Why do that?

    Schrodinger on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The argument invariably leads to "well I'm white and I'm poor and I don't get any help!". So, and this is just a wild suggestion, implement economic AA too. But I bet that the same people who whined before will whine even if they got economic AA because poor minorities would be helped by economic AA.

    The argument is actually that in the year 2010 AA is more feel good policy that doesn't really do much to help people and is becoming archaic. I don't much mind AA, and it's has never affected my white ass adversely, but looking up the AA regulations for government contractors with over 50 employees, it does seem a little silly.

    Honestly, I think it's all well and fair to give all Black Americans +1 to any merit test in government or university admissions for the next 200 years, but requiring entities that want to do business with the government to create an affirmative action plan that is updated and collect and compile racial demographic information on their employees to assess their compliance and eligibility is something that made a great deal of sense in 1965 and even in 1985, but now it just seems like a dinosaur that no one wants to touch lest they be labeled a racist.

    A few pages ago you posted this:
    IIRC, on all levels of society black people still make less on average than their white counterparts. We also are less represented in executive and managerial positions relative to our percentage of the population.

    I would posit that these stats you're remembering are missing the crucial context that blacks have an average household wealth that is a fraction of the average white family. Affirmative Action really doesn't do dick for the kids that are poor and don't have access to quality education. Despite all the Horatio Alger bullshit we're sold, moving beyond your class is ridiculously hard in the USA and the resources we allocate towards making sure the pentagon's paperclip supplier has the statistically appropriate amount of minority employees, would be much better spent improving actual educational opportunities for our youth.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010

    For some reason, the idea of middle class black people seems to really piss a lot of AA opponents off, probably for the same reason that Obama was frequently criticized by the right as being "elitist" and "uppity." Oh no, he eats arugula and dijon mustard! Why is it that every time the subject of AA comes up, opponents always have to bring up successful minorities as if it's a bad thing?

    Yeah...take that, fictitious-people-you-imagine-are-making-this-argument. When you're done you wanna go wind surfing with John Kerry?

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »

    For some reason, the idea of middle class black people seems to really piss a lot of AA opponents off, probably for the same reason that Obama was frequently criticized by the right as being "elitist" and "uppity." Oh no, he eats arugula and dijon mustard! Why is it that every time the subject of AA comes up, opponents always have to bring up successful minorities as if it's a bad thing?

    Yeah...take that, fictitious-people-you-imagine-are-making-this-argument. When you're done you wanna go wind surfing with John Kerry?

    Were you not paying attention during the 08 election?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »

    For some reason, the idea of middle class black people seems to really piss a lot of AA opponents off, probably for the same reason that Obama was frequently criticized by the right as being "elitist" and "uppity." Oh no, he eats arugula and dijon mustard! Why is it that every time the subject of AA comes up, opponents always have to bring up successful minorities as if it's a bad thing?

    Yeah...take that, fictitious-people-you-imagine-are-making-this-argument. When you're done you wanna go wind surfing with John Kerry?

    You realize that the attacks on Obama for eating arugula and dijon mustard are pretty infamous, right?

    The people advocating an income only system criticize AA because it helps out middle and upper class black people. The fact that it helps out successful black people is what makes it bad. Ergo, the fact that these black people who are helped out by AA come from successful families is presented as a bad thing.

    If the argument is, "It's unfair that a successful black family is given an edge, but a poor white family isn't," then that would be an argument to have a system that considers income in addition to race.

    Schrodinger on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Yes, I was. Were you paying attention to the 2004?

    2008 wasn't the first time the red team defined the blue team's guy as elitist and out of touch. "Uppity" was used by Limbaugh and maybe one or two other dumbshits and it was greated with appropriately with considerable amount of "WTF, dude! Not cool!"

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »

    For some reason, the idea of middle class black people seems to really piss a lot of AA opponents off, probably for the same reason that Obama was frequently criticized by the right as being "elitist" and "uppity." Oh no, he eats arugula and dijon mustard! Why is it that every time the subject of AA comes up, opponents always have to bring up successful minorities as if it's a bad thing?

    Yeah...take that, fictitious-people-you-imagine-are-making-this-argument. When you're done you wanna go wind surfing with John Kerry?

    You realize that the attacks on Obama for eating arugula and dijon mustard are pretty infamous, right?

    Yeah, because he was a Democrat. That's how this works. They did the same thing to John Kerry and Al Gore before him. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that "OMG Obama likes fancy mustard, and gourmet salad greens" was racial, but it wasn't.


    The people advocating an income only system criticize AA because it helps out middle and upper class black people. The fact that it helps out successful black people is what makes it. Ergo, the fact that these black people who are helped out by AA come from successful families is presented as a bad thing.

    If the argument is, "It's unfair that a successful black family is given an edge, but a poor white family isn't," then that would be an argument to have a system that considers income in addition to race.

    Or you could just phase out the system that's outlived it's usefulness and is no longer producing the originally intended effect.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    2008 wasn't the first time the red team defined the blue team's guy as elitist and out of touch. "Uppity" was used by Limbaugh and maybe one or two other dumbshits and it was greated with appropriately with considerable amount of "WTF, dude! Not cool!"

    Calling a black man uppity is pretty different than when you call Kerry that. Of course they paint Dems as elitist, that's their thing, but there was a massive racial bent in their mockery of Obama.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • Xenogear_0001Xenogear_0001 regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »

    For some reason, the idea of middle class black people seems to really piss a lot of AA opponents off, probably for the same reason that Obama was frequently criticized by the right as being "elitist" and "uppity." Oh no, he eats arugula and dijon mustard! Why is it that every time the subject of AA comes up, opponents always have to bring up successful minorities as if it's a bad thing?

    Yeah...take that, fictitious-people-you-imagine-are-making-this-argument. When you're done you wanna go wind surfing with John Kerry?

    You realize that the attacks on Obama for eating arugula and dijon mustard are pretty infamous, right?

    Yeah, because he was a Democrat. That's how this works. They did the same thing to John Kerry and Al Gore before him. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that "OMG Obama likes fancy mustard, and gourmet salad greens" was racial, but it wasn't.


    The people advocating an income only system criticize AA because it helps out middle and upper class black people. The fact that it helps out successful black people is what makes it. Ergo, the fact that these black people who are helped out by AA come from successful families is presented as a bad thing.

    If the argument is, "It's unfair that a successful black family is given an edge, but a poor white family isn't," then that would be an argument to have a system that considers income in addition to race.

    Or you could just phase out the system that's outlived it's usefulness and is no longer producing the originally intended effect.

    Seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me.

    Xenogear_0001 on
    steam_sig.png
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I wasn't trying to impy that anyone called Kerry "uppity". I was speaking directly to Schrod trying to make a point over mustard and arugala like it was some unique thing that no one would ever critique a white guy for.

    And only a handful of public douchenozzles called Obama "uppity" and they were all called out as race-baiting fucksticks by polite society. It's dishonest to suggest the president was referred to as "uppity" frequently by anyone of any significance on the right.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • jothkijothki regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The people advocating an income only system criticize AA because it helps out middle and upper class black people. The fact that it helps out successful black people is what makes it. Ergo, the fact that these black people who are helped out by AA come from successful families is presented as a bad thing.

    If the argument is, "It's unfair that a successful black family is given an edge, but a poor white family isn't," then that would be an argument to have a system that considers income in addition to race.

    Or you could just phase out the system that's outlived it's usefulness and is no longer producing the originally intended effect.

    That's the idea, yes. When it's outlived it's usefulness, we'll get rid of it.

    jothki on
  • HeartlashHeartlash regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »

    For some reason, the idea of middle class black people seems to really piss a lot of AA opponents off, probably for the same reason that Obama was frequently criticized by the right as being "elitist" and "uppity." Oh no, he eats arugula and dijon mustard! Why is it that every time the subject of AA comes up, opponents always have to bring up successful minorities as if it's a bad thing?

    Yeah...take that, fictitious-people-you-imagine-are-making-this-argument. When you're done you wanna go wind surfing with John Kerry?

    You realize that the attacks on Obama for eating arugula and dijon mustard are pretty infamous, right?

    The people advocating an income only system criticize AA because it helps out middle and upper class black people. The fact that it helps out successful black people is what makes it bad. Ergo, the fact that these black people who are helped out by AA come from successful families is presented as a bad thing.

    If the argument is, "It's unfair that a successful black family is given an edge, but a poor white family isn't," then that would be an argument to have a system that considers income in addition to race.

    While my position has changed, I was advocating income-only AA because I thought races were too hard to systemically define with regards to AA.

    A point which I believe you conceded was the case when you admitted it would be next to impossible to really define "black" in all ways relevant to AA.

    I think you just prefer to assume people advocating income-only AA are afraid or prejudiced against black people. While that may be true in many cases, it's still a blanket assertion.

    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
  • valiancevaliance regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    Wealth is an indicator of how the deck is stacked against black people, even when income is accounted for. But the deck goes a lot deeper than just that.

    Not all black people uniformly though.

    I guess to answer your question of "why not this and this, rather than this but not that" - policies of racial preference are obnoxious and antithetical to American ideals.

    AA is something we instituted because we don't live in an ideal world. The argument is similar for military tribunals rather than criminal trials for enemy combatants. Each is an exception to the way we would prefer to handle things, that their proponents argue is not ideal but necessary.

    AA is a pretty blunt policy that aims at equalizing opportunity. If it turns out that it isn't a very good way to deal with certain disparities, it really shouldn't be applied as a remedy.

    That's why people propose other policies as a replacement that deal with people as economic rather than racial entities.

    Except we know economic AA will not be a replacement for racial AA. It will--by the mere fact that its a distinct entity--accomplish different goals. If you think economic AA can replace racial AA I would like to hear how it will deal with the effects of race base discrimination that racial AA is meant to counter.

    Ex: a black guy and a white guy with identical credentials SANS affirmative action the white guy always gets the nod. its not even close. a white felon has about an equal chance of getting a job as a black noncriminal with the same credentials. and yet affirmative action is unfair? one is more unfair than the other because its the government and not private racism or private businesses? thats bullshit

    economic AA is shifting the goalposts. the target has changed from correcting racial discrimination to correcting economic inequality. the fact remains that even controlling for income and socioeconomic class, blacks suffer discrimination in the USA that affects their job prospects, college prospects, home loan prospects, and many other aspects of life. how can economic affirmative action help these people?

    if AA's only purpose was to redress past inequalities, then economic AA would act as racial AA, since it would disproportionately help the poor--who are disproportionately black due to historical factors. but redressing historically caused inequality is not racial AA's only purpose. it also serves to correct for current say inequality and racial discrimination that goes on over and beyond the economic inequalities that already exist.

    reading on AA: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/#1 (a long read, and a bit turgid--its legal history after all--but quite informative and detailed.)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/03highlts.html#2 (2 important cases in '03 on AA)

    valiance on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    I wasn't trying to impy that anyone called Kerry "uppity". I was speaking directly to Schrod trying to make a point over mustard and arugala like it was some unique thing that no one would ever critique a white guy for.

    People called Kerry an elitist because he was the husband of a multi-millionaire heiress.

    They didn't call him an elitist because he once ordered lobster at a hotel, or because his wife had the audacity to go on a vacation for their anniversary.
    And only a handful of public douchenozzles called Obama "uppity" and they were all called out as race-baiting fucksticks by polite society. It's dishonest to suggest the president was referred to as "uppity" frequently by anyone of any significance on the right.

    Actually, he insisted that even though he was raised in GA, he had absolutely no idea that there was a racial connotation to the phrase. The media never followed up on it or challenged him on it afterward. Even though he was running for election that year, so you would think that someone would bring it up for that reason alone.

    So a Southern boy can call Obama uppity, insist that he had absolutely no clue that it was racist, and get away with it scot free.

    Schrodinger on
Sign In or Register to comment.