That....doesn't make any sense.
I mean I don't agree with what he said about governments roll...but an individual has different rights and responsibilities than the government does. Government must live by different standards.
I'm saying, your comparison to a homeowner is ridiculous, because they're not close to the same thing.
It's nice to believe things, but if you're going to try to explain your beliefs, you should back them up better :-/
Except, operating a business requires a license...from the government. To get a license, you need to meet certain requirements.
Operating a business is not the same thing as owning a house.
And to add to your post, operating a government-subsidized public school most DEFINITELY isn't the same thing as owning a house.
The fact that you are required to have a business license to own a business does not change my argument. In fact, a home must pass inspection to be deemed livable as well. You can't live in any home if it fails certain standards. I believe that you are bringing up an arbitrary difference between homes and businesses that does not really invalidate my point. If both are owned by a single person, that single person should get to decide how that business is handled.
It's not an arbitrary difference. A home's primary purpose is to provide a place to live in. A businesses primary purpose is to provide services to OTHER people. That key distinction is why they are treated differently. You can't just hand wave that and claim there's only an arbitrary difference.
I believe school segregation was 100% wrong and 100% illegal. I believe business segregation is 100% wrong, but should be legal. I don't think something simply being wrong in my moral eyes should be enough to make it illegal. School segregation was wrong because it was racism being done by the government. A government has no right to act racist.
The fact that you are required to have a business license to own a business does not change my argument. In fact, a home must pass inspection to be deemed livable as well. You can't live in any home if it fails certain standards. I believe that you are bringing up an arbitrary difference between homes and businesses that does not really invalidate my point. If both are owned by a single person, that single person should get to decide how that business is handled.
What do you mean by "ineffective"? Your initial complaints only make sense if it is affecting what it is meant to affect.
Anyway, that's great and all, but you didn't really answer my question, unless your answer is:
"I'm for getting rid of AA and not doing anything else and letting institutional racism continue"
If that isn't your answer, please give me a more concrete answer.
EDIT: Please note, I didn't ask you whether or not the government should get rid of institutional racism. I'm asking "how" it would get rid of institutional racism.
There is no 'arbitrary' difference. There's a clear difference. It's so clear, that neither of us are confused by the terms "homeowner" and "business owner."
And you still avoid the question of "why"
And you're still avoiding my other question:
Yes.
That is not always the case. I would be described as a black, male, atheist, and I have never felt my race or religion has ever really hampered my success. I'm sure it has done so for others, but it is absurd to act like it does for all. It's fixing a problem with a butcher knife when a scalpel is needed. Frankly, this idea that all minorities are intrinsically at a disadvantage will just harbor excuses for failure. Financial status is a far bigger factor. Just worry about helping kids that are in lower income homes. That should be the only thing we do.
But that's the thing. You never really know for sure. Take hiring for instance- Resumes with "black" names attached to them got 50% less responses, even when the content was exactly the same as a resume just labeled "joe smith."
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-575685.html
I worked for 2 years in corporate recruiting and saw this CONSTANTLY. And it's not even explicitly a racist thing- people tend to naturally gravitate towards those of similar background, culture, and values. My current company until VERY recently was 100% jewish, for the same reason.
This isn't something that adjusting on economic grounds can address, and if left alone will result in economic disparity as minorities find themselves shut out of positions that white americans are not.
They don't have the same rights because a home and a business are completely different things. If you actually account for all types of businesses, it doesn't even make sense that they would be governed by the same laws.The fact that we know the difference between what makes somebody a home owner and what makes somebody a business owner does not mean they should not have the same rights. You have to actually state why those rights must be different. They own two different things, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights just because those things are dictate.
That only address the economic concerns and not the race ones... I specifically asked you to address the race ones.As far as AA goes, I am saying AA is not the solution. I've said what I believe the solution is several times. I believe we need to increase funding to schools in lower income areas. We need to make sure all children have the same financial opportunities, even if that requires restructuring how we spend our budget as a whole.
It seems rather unproductive of me to constantly wonder if I have just been the victim of racism. When it happens and I can tell, I will act on it. Otherwise, I'm better off trying to do what I can to improve myself instead of playing the victim when I cannot be certain.
Sorry for this double post. I'm still rather new here, and I don't really know what is kind of conversations are accepted here. I've always heard it isn't hard to get banned here as well. I think I'm going to play it safe and try to not talk about this subject anymore for now. I may be under the wrong assumption, but I get this feeling that a moderator might take my views as offensive or trying to be offensive. I say that because whenever I try to explain the difference between being in favor of racism and being in favor of business-rights, I am often thought to be racist or tolerant of racism. So far, that hasn't happened yet, but I feel like I may come off as though I am being very insistent on tolerating racism. I'll drop it for now. If you'd like to talk to me more about it, feel free to private message me. I actually do like talking about this subject when both sides can understand each other properly.
Universities and firms have racial preferences because they value diversity and the public image it brings. Why should government get in the way of this?
I can't believe that people here are actually claiming that you must be racist if you're against affirmative action. The best that can be said of AA is that it is a necessary form of racism.
I'm against affirmative action, I get there's gender, race, height, etc, inequality in the world. People need to rise above it.
This is a distinction without a difference. If a bunch of people are qualified but because of sorting some get in that is functionally exactly the same as those who are sorted out as being not qualified.
If you are qualified to go to Harvard but someone else is accepted in your place because of their race the fact that you were qualified is functionally identical to not being qualified. There are limited spots in an institution, what matters is who gets in, period. The fact that some people would didn't get it maybe could have gotten in some alternate universe is completely irrelevant.
What I mean to tell you is that people who would otherwise not get into Harvard because on other merits they were not as good as their peers get in once their race is taken into account - that is the definition of AA in college admissions. It's not "just because" they are black but being black does push them over the threshold that they would not be pushed over were they white.
AA in college admissions accepts people who, were their race not taken into account, would not be accepted. That is THE ENTIRE POINT. Otherwise having AA would be exactly the same as not having it. (Were the sets of people accepted with and without the same)
And again, that is very different from something like NFL hiring where the pool of applicants is expanded but who is ultimately picked is done based solely on merit.
I am not opposed to AA in admissions - I just find it silly to pretend that it doesn't raise or lower the requirements threshold based on race when that is THE ENTIRE PURPOSE.
"People need to get over their racism/sexism/etc, but all the people who are fucked over by between now and the mythical day that there is pan-equality? Fuck'em."
No it isn't. Stop repeating this; you don't have a clue as to how AA actually works. The way AA generally works is that when two otherwise qualified applicants are presented, race is considered as a deciding factor. It doesn't lower requirements for applicants.
The only thing that even comes close to what you are suggesting is the quota system where a certain percentage of admits have to be minorities. And that has been declared an unconstitutional practice in certain states, if I recall correctly.
For the same reason government gets in the way when people try to deny employment, education, housing, etc. based on race, gender, etc.
Select the best candidate every time based on qualifications, not gender, race, etc.
I should clarify that I am only against government-enforced AA. I believe private businesses should be free to practice AA if they wish.
The people living today did not do the misdeeds. They do not deserve to serve the punishment. And many of the people you believe have benefited from those misdeeds have actually not benefited from it.
If that same white man owned a small business down the street, he does not have the right to refuse entry to the same black male. I believe his rights should be extended to his private business.
The people living today did not do the misdeeds. They do not deserve to serve the punishment. And many of the people you believe have benefited from those misdeeds have actually not benefited from it.
It's almost as if you didn't read the topic.
This is exactly the problem with de facto racism, though, that caused a ton of problems for civil rights advocates in the 60s and 70s. Many parroted "private businesses should do what they wish! Government should just butt out!", even though in reality this was code for "Let me be racist! No blacks allowed in my store!" This was what sparked these regulations you're decrying today. If they weren't there, de facto racism would've never subsided.
I disagree. I think the greatest contributing factor by far to reducing racism was ending school segregation. Racism is ingrained from an early age. Kids are brought up to be racist. That easily happens if you are only allowed to be around your own race. I don't think forcing racist business owners to serve minorities suddenly made them more tolerant. I do not think if business segregation was not made illegal, that we'd still have the same amount of racism as we had in the 60's. Though I can agree that forcing business segregation to end had some level of impact in reducing racism. Even still, while I may be 100% morally opposed to racism, I cannot let that alone change my views on what I believe a business owner's rights should be. I can 100% disagree with a business owner's views but still believe they have the right to those beliefs.
I completely disagree. I have no problem living in a country where laws exist that prevent the type of discrimination you're talking about and I consider myself libertarian-minded.I disagree. I think the greatest contributing factor by far to reducing racism was ending school segregation. Racism is ingrained from an early age. Kids are brought up to be racist. That easily happens if you are only allowed to be around your own race. I don't think forcing racist business owners to serve minorities suddenly made them more tolerant. I do not think if business segregation was not made illegal, that we'd still have the same amount of racism as we had in the 60's. Though I can agree that forcing business segregation to end had some level of impact in reducing racism. Even still, while I may be 100% morally opposed to racism, I cannot let that alone change my views on what I believe a business owner's rights should be. I can 100% disagree with a business owner's views but still believe they have the right to those beliefs.
The simple fact is that no one single desegregation act had a superior hand in reducing racism. The government was fighting an uphill battle in ending cultural racism, and institutionalizing desegregation practices in every facet, from business owners to education, was absolutely the only way for coming generations to stop perpetuating racism.
A business owner is not an individual, contrary to popular corporatism beliefs. A business is an entity that deals with dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands, if not dozens of thousands of people at once. Businesses in this capitalistic society undoubtedly have a significant impact on its culture. It's simply ignorant to say that a business, an institution that can come into contact with thousands of individuals, gets to have the same rights to the point where they can outright be racist toward minorities. It's as if we didn't learn a thing from 60s.
The people living today did not do the misdeeds. They do not deserve to serve the punishment. And many of the people you believe have benefited from those misdeeds have actually not benefited from it.
Wouldn't a better alternative be to find another merit-based condition to decide? Hell, flipping a coin sounds better than picking based on race.
Then we have differing views on business-rights. I think that is a fundamental gap we probably won't agree on. To me, the fact that a business owner interacts with more people should not change his or her rights. It does to you. I think this issue is quite similar to the Patriot Act. The terrorist acts on 9/11 introduced our country to new problems. We suddenly were at fear of our safety. Suddenly our rights to privacy were seen as a hinderence to keeping us safe from terrorist attacks. Some people believe we need to give up our privacy in some aspects in order to ensure terrorists cannot hide. I believe that many of the Patriot Act's practices were unconstitutional and our times of crisis did not warrant these changes. I am not confortable with allowing a government to take away individual rights in order to ensure that a terrorist cannot hide within those rights. I am also not comfortable with allowing a government to take a way a private business owner's right to serving who he wants to serve in order to stop racism. I may find business-owner rights more valuable than most in this case.
And to be honest, at some level I'd rather business owners show their true colors. As somebody who would be labeled "black", I'd rather know if the person I am doing business with is racist or not. If business racism were suddenly legalized and 10% of businesses started to refuse service to me, I'd be glad to know who the real racists are. I wouldn't want them to have my business anyways even if they were obligated to take it. And I think a majority of people would carry the same opinion and boycott those businesses. Those businesses would plummet or adapt.
Man, you seem like you aren't even trying to think critically. Multiple studies have shown that racism today is very real. These acts are not a thing of the past. They are still happening. They are still being perpetrated by people today. Someone posted a study that said that even having a black name reduces your chances by 50%. Since you can't make the connection, the reason race is a deciding factor, and not flipping a coin, is because race puts people at a disadvantage. It's a proven fact. I'm not sure how else to explain this.
The reason poor people also get their social status included as a determining factor is because them being poor is a disadvantage. Them being born into poverty is not something they could control, and so it's not fair that they don't get accepted if they are just as qualified as a rich student just because they aren't rich. Same with being a minority.
Then you're just straight up advocating de facto racism. I hope you're OK with that.
Mumei, I'm not saying we need to erase the concept of race throughout history. I simply believe that in this day, we should stop using racial groups as a means of identification.
If I tell you I am black, what does that tell you about me? What does placing myself with the "black community" actually do? I am an individual. I may share similar decentency with others, but that does not make us a group. We are all individuals and should be identified as individuals. My actions are not the black communities actions and vice versa. The concern should not be to ensure that all races are properly represented in schools or jobs. The concern should be that each individual person has the proper opportunities to better themselves.
I can't believe that people here are actually claiming that you must be racist if you're against affirmative action. The best that can be said of AA is that it is a necessary form of racism.
Despite the many rhetorical arguments used to suggest that direct racial
discrimination is no longer a major barrier to opportunity (e.g., D’Souza
1995; Steele 1991), as we can see here, employers, at least in Milwaukee,
continue to use race as a major factor in hiring decisions.
I have a book out from the library that I haven't taken the time to read yet, but I'm going to recommend that you read it sight-unseen nonetheless. The book is called When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America and it describes the intentional economic policies enacted during the Great Depression and the ensuing decades which included deals with racist Southern Democrats to give them control implementation of social programs, allowing them to administer these programs in discriminatory ways. It also describes the way in which programs underwriting home ownership and the GI Bill were systematically denied to black veterans to the extent that virtually no black veterans benefited from the GI Bill in the South. I would also recommend you read the book by the woman I quote later in this post, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, as well as Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America. I recommend these to you because you have very firmly held beliefs propped up by very little information, and I suspect that if you learned more you might have different opinions.
This is in addition to the marginalization and exploitation black people in America faced as a result of Jim Crow. For well over a century white men - women of all races were discriminated against on that front - could depend upon the fact that black men were systematically excluded from the most desirable jobs, were not competition for certain kinds of promotions, and would not be paid the same. When you compound this with deliberate government policies that helped white families to grow wealth and enter the middle class in a sustainable fashion while simultaneously denying black families access to these same resources, it is no wonder that today that the median household net worth of white families is twenty-two times that of black families - and the fact that this number has been exacerbated by the recent recession (up from twelve times as much in 2005) should suggest something to you.
We still have institutional and structural racism, as well as interpersonal racism. I think you are either ignorant of or in denial about how badly black people as a group are doing today:
"Recent data shows, though, that much of black progress is a myth. In many respects, African-Americans are doing no better than they were when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated and uprisings swept inner cities across America. Nearly a quarter of African-Americans live below the poverty line today, approximately the same percentage as in 1968. The black child poverty rate is actually higher now than it was then. Unemployment rates in black communities rival those in Third World countries. And that's with affirmative action!
When we pull back the curtain and take a look at what our "colorblind" society creates without affirmative action, we see a familiar social, political, and economic structure--the structure of racial caste. The entrance into this new caste system can be found at the prison gate."
[...]
Perhaps greater lies have been told in the past century, but they can be counted on one hand. Racial caste is alive and well in America.
Most people don't like it when I say this. It makes them angry. In the "era of colorblindness" there's a nearly fanatical desire to cling to the myth that we as a nation have "moved beyond" race. Here are a few facts that run counter to that triumphant racial narrative:
 There are more African-Americans under correctional control today--in prison or jail, on probation or parole--than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began.
 As of 2004, more African-American men were disenfranchised (due to felon disenfranchisement laws) than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race.
 A black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery. The recent disintegration of the African-American family is due in large part to the mass imprisonment of black fathers.
 If you take into account prisoners, a large majority of African-American men in some urban areas have been labeled felons for life. (In the Chicago area, the figure is nearly 80 percent.) These men are part of a growing undercaste--not class, caste--permanently relegated, by law, to a second-class status. They can be denied the right to vote, automatically excluded from juries, and legally discriminated against in employment, housing, access to education, and public benefits, much as their grandparents and great-grandparents were during the Jim Crow era.
I think that there's also white privilege in areas that are caused by cultural narratives that effect black people in particular; people in studies become more likely to identify black men as dangerous and carrying weapons and more likely to identify white men as safe - even when the white men are actually holding a weapon; people become increasingly punitive as a defendant's skin tone becomes darker; or people become increasingly negative about lyrics when told they are rap lyrics (as opposed to the lyrics of white folk singers they actually originate from); or how when asked to close their eyes and picture a drug user, ninety-five percent of respondents imagined a black man and only five percent imagined someone from another race; or how after watching a news story about a crime in which no picture was shown and the race of the accused was not stated, sixty percent claimed to have recalled seeing a picture, and seventy percent of those believed that the man they saw was black; or the inconsistent way that white and black students are treated for similar sexual or aggressive behaviors due to assigning an "intentionality" to black students' actions that weren't attributed to white students (and a good example of the way gender can be racialized). White people benefit from what is often an unconscious, sort of benefit of the doubt that is not afforded to black people.
And the sort of diffuse narratives that cause disparities in racial phenomena like these that effect all of us at a subconscious level - we begin making these judgments about race when we first see a person before we are even consciously aware of them - and manifest in the form of stories and rhetorical devices that white people use to talk about race or racial outcomes that are constructed to avoid making these issues about race.
Necessary form of discrimination, perhaps; racism, no.
I don't think I am "advocating" anything. That is not a fair use of words. That is much like how many anti-abortionists will try and term "pro-choice" people as "pro-abortion".
I have a book out from the library that I haven't taken the time to read yet, but I'm going to recommend that you read it sight-unseen nonetheless. The book is called When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America and it describes the intentional economic policies enacted during the Great Depression and the ensuing decades which included deals with racist Southern Democrats to give them control implementation of social programs, allowing them to administer these programs in discriminatory ways. It also describes the way in which programs underwriting home ownership and the GI Bill were systematically denied to black veterans to the extent that virtually no black veterans benefited from the GI Bill in the South.
Racism is not the solution to racism. It's as simple to that. If you want to combat racism, that's fine. I'm all for promoting people to not be racist. I'd rather we not even use race as an identifying term at all. But I do not believe using racism in the reverse order as a solution.
I don't think I am "advocating" anything. That is not a fair use of words. That is much like how many anti-abortionists will try and term "pro-choice" people as "pro-abortion".
I will admit I am likely ignorant or not fully informed on a lot of details revolving around this issue. I may be wrong about just how much racism exists today. I may not know just how bad our laws were during the early 1900s. I agree that it would do me good to learn more about that. Though I do not believe any of that would change my views on AA being wrong, because I find it wrong on a more fundamental level. Even if I found out I was 100% wrong about how bad racism is today, I do not believe racism should ever be used to fight racism. There has to be a better solution. And one not being found yet doesn't make AA a good one.
You do seem to support it, though, in so many words. You'd rather businesses be openly racist than be prevented by government mandate from racism because you don't want the right to be racist to be taken away. What is it, if it isn't supporting de facto racism?
Lemme ask you a question.I do not believe racism should ever be used to fight racism. There has to be a better solution. And one not being found yet doesn't make AA a good one.
I will admit I am likely ignorant or not fully informed on a lot of details revolving around this issue. I may be wrong about just how much racism exists today. I may not know just how bad our laws were during the early 1900s. I agree that it would do me good to learn more about that. Though I do not believe any of that would change my views on AA being wrong, because I find it wrong on a more fundamental level. Even if I found out I was 100% wrong about how bad racism is today, I do not believe racism should ever be used to fight racism. There has to be a better solution. And one not being found yet doesn't make AA a good one.
That book was my primary reference for a paper I wrote in high school. It was an interesting read.
What the fuck...do you even understand what racism means? Racism basically means to either hate a race, or to give preference to race because of perceived superiority. How is AA racist?
Giving an advantage to a minority because they are victims of racism in some form is NOT racist. It is not being done because minorities are thought of as better than others. It is not done out of hatred of non-minorities.
Can you please explain to me how it's racist? Or are you just waving that word around without knowing fuck-all what it means?
Lemme ask you a question.
When the Little Rock Nine desegregated that school, and the Arkansas governor put troops out there to prevent the black students from entering the school, was it wrong for Eisenhower to have US troops escort the black kids to school? He didn't escort any white kids. Was that racism fighting racism, and therefore wrong?
Racism is systemic or institutionalized and creates a racial hierarchy through its effects. Affirmative action programs are attempts at ameliorating the effects of those institutional and systemic effects, and are inherently anti-racist.
If you want to use a negative-sounding word to describe affirmative action programs, you could call them discriminatory, but they need to be discriminatory in order to achieve their mission and "discriminatory" is not the same as "racist."
It's racist to assume somebody from a minority needs more help as if they are inferior or unable to "make it" under the same rules as a white person. I am a minority. I don't need a handicap.
As I said earlier, it is racist to assume that a minority needs a handicap to succeed as if they are inferior. It is making a judgement call of a whole group when in reality it should be determined individually. You cannot argue that EVERY person in a minority group is harmed by racism in any significant way. So saying they all need a handicap is racist in it's own way. I'll admit the argument is not as strong as I'd like it to be and is kind of going for a "technicality". I'd feel fine saying that discrimination is not the answer to racism as well.
Lemme ask you a question.
When the Little Rock Nine desegregated that school, and the Arkansas governor put troops out there to prevent the black students from entering the school, was it wrong for Eisenhower to have US troops escort the black kids to school? He didn't escort any white kids. Was that racism fighting racism, and therefore wrong?
I will admit I am likely ignorant or not fully informed on a lot of details revolving around this issue. I may be wrong about just how much racism exists today. I may not know just how bad our laws were during the early 1900s. I agree that it would do me good to learn more about that. Though I do not believe any of that would change my views on AA being wrong, because I find it wrong on a more fundamental level. Even if I found out I was 100% wrong about how bad racism is today, I do not believe racism should ever be used to fight racism. There has to be a better solution. And one not being found yet doesn't make AA a good one.
I don't see how this is related to the issue at all. First, I made it clear I am against public school segregation. Second, the white kids did not need to be escorted as they were free to enter. What are you arguing here?
So it wasn't racism fighting racism because the black kids needed the extra help due to racial discrimination and the white kids didn't?
