Except that the reason the assumption is being made IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE THOUGHT OF AS INFERIOR. The assumption is being made because they are VICTIMS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE INFERIOR AND ARE ACTIVELY DOING THINGS TO HINDER THEM, which has been proven by many different studies. That's why it's not racist.
Poll: 57 percent of Millennials oppose racial preferences for college, hiring
- Thread starter Antiochus
- Start date
- Status
Except that the reason the assumption is being made IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE THOUGHT OF AS INFERIOR. The assumption is being made because they are VICTIMS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE INFERIOR AND ARE ACTIVELY DOING THINGS TO HINDER THEM, which has been proven by many different studies. That's why it's not racist.
Zoramon089
Banned
How is it possible you've gone through this entire thread and still don't realize minorities AREN'T under the same rules as white people. You even said so yourself with your video game analogy! Being a minority is more difficult. There's been numerous graphics and studies shown to you and you still deny it.
I'm an upper middle class black male and even though I think I've been treated fairly, and other people who have interacted with me in both an educational and job capacity think that they have treated me fairly, as a whole that simply isn't the case. It's address SYSTEMATIC and INSTITUTIONAL injustices and inequalities. I don't know why you keep using anecdotes and personal experiences when it's not meant to be looked at on an individual basis
I'm sorry but this is just wrong - full stop.
A C applicant will be considered over a B candidate because of race. There are all sorts of studies you can find that show that for different races the average GPA, SAT, etc, required to get into a college is very different, and some of them have already been quoted in this thread.
It's nice to think that race is just some sort of tiebreak but that is not the case. In that case there would not be a GPA/SAT discrepancy. What you are describing is some sort of nice but fantasy version of college admissions.
I have been following your career with some interest, but I thought I'd note that this really isn't a response at all. Affirmative action is also a federal law, but you seem perfectly happy with advocating its revocation.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I am in favor of public school desegregation and it being enforced. I am against AA and it being enforced. I don't see what the issue is here.
Zoramon089
Banned
The problem with this is that is oversimplifies the candidates to three things
A GPA, an SAT score, and race.
And ignores all other factors in admission.
Also, if you believe the standardized testing itself is biased w.r.t. race, then the argument also doesn't make sense.
IHaveCandy
Banned
DESEGREGATION! 
EatinOlives
Member
I just don't seem to understand what the point is in specifically protecting the right of a business to be racist, other than to support a business being racist. I'm not using this as some kind of proxy for me to say that businesses should be regulated heavily in every other way, by the way. I'm strictly speaking about government regulation in businesses specifically pertaining to racist practices.
You keep on repeating this claim as it were true. It's not, and there's ample explanation as to why it's not but you keep on ignoring it.
To be honest, I'm wouldn't say that it's a perfect system. It is more realistically some combination of both practices. From what I currently understand, the quota system, which is basically what you are talking about, was declared unconstitutional in the US around 2002/2003-ish. And, especially with the talk of reforms lately, AA is moving towards more of a tiebreaker system which is a more beneficial system for minorities imo. There are a multitude of reasons as to why a candidate got accepted despite having lower scores, and multiple studies have shown that even standardized scores are biased with respect to race, so that's not really helping your argument.
IHaveCandy
Banned
"I just don't understand what the point is in specifically protecting the right of a woman to have an abortion, other than to support women to have abortions."
Don't you see the flaw here? I am in no way supporting businesses being racist. I do not find it to be morally right. I am saying that I do not believe our government's scope should cover this, regardless in how I feel about it. I believe business owners should have more rights than they currently have. This isn't limited to race. I believe a bar owner should have the right to decide whether or not the bar allows smoking or not, for example. You are unfairly coloring my views and pretending I have an agenda in promoting racism. I commonly get this response from people about this topic. What is so hard to understand that even though I am 100% opposed to racism, that does not mean I have to believe a government should be able to remove rights from businesses in that respect. I don't determine what the government should and shouldn't do solely on what I find morally right and wrong.
My claim is supported by a number of studies and papers while your claim is supported only by your endless repetition. The GPA/SAT score required to get into the same college varies widely based on race. This is well-documented. You can say "it's not true" all you want but just hoping it's not true doesn't make it false.
zoku said:
It is possible that say Hispanic students tend to look much better in terms of stuff like leadership positions, extra-curricular activities, etc. But that seems highly unlikely and I have never seen any evidence for it. GPA/SAT are the two most important factors in admissions and are much more quantifiable than something like "is in debate club." The fact that asian people need significantly higher SAT/GPA to get into a place while other minorities need significantly lower seems to discredit the idea that race is just a tiebreak. An Asian kid who has an SAT at 1450 was tied with some other kid who had an SAT of 1200? That's a very odd view of what a tie is.
Again, I'm not opposed to AA but call a horse a horse. AA is racial discrimination that alters the threshold for entry based on race - that is THE PURPOSE and if it didn't do that it would be functionally irrelevant.
You can be for that - I am. As a policy it makes sense.
Standardized scores are not biased - that doesn't make sense. Standardized *tests* could be biased but the "proof" of that is generally "this group did worse, therefore it's biased!"
Now it's true that some groups do better or worse in general on standardized tests, due to a variety of factors including racial discrimination in many forms - which is why AA is defensible despite being racial discrimination. If someone comes from a poor economic background and goes to a shitty urban school they probably will do worse on the math part of the SAT. But that doesn't mean that asking someone what the square root of negative 1 is is "biased." The fact that different races do differently on the test doesn't mean the test itself is biased, and the idea that questions about math fundamentals can be biased seems pretty silly.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Why should an asian have to get a higher score? How can you be in favor of that?
les papillons sexuels
Banned
man your racist. As a gay son from an immigrant father, you can gfy. The skilled and the best dont need handouts, only the pathetic and weak do. Maybe rise above your past and make a new future instead of asking for government aid based on an unchaning past.
The best companies want the best employees, and the best schools want the best students.
Because actions have consequences, and the policies you suggest would have the effect of promoting racism. So, although you say you're "100% opposed to racism," you clearly aren't -- it's apparent that there are values you prioritize over social justice when considering policy.
It's currently legal to discriminate against transgender people as a business in most of America. Here's a quick look at how that plays out today in just one arena of life:
national center for transgender equality said:
This is what legalized discrimination by businesses looks like. Here's another interesting tidbit:
http://2fwww.thetaskforce.org/downloads/resources_and_tools/ntds_report_on_health.pdf
This really shouldn't be news, though, because the same point has been made in other studies: racial discrimination by businesses and employers is STILL A PROBLEM EVEN THOUGH IT'S ILLEGAL. So your earlier contention that people will just avoid businesses that are racist and the free market will eliminate discrimination? Simply false, and obviously so based on the actual evidence.
So what value is so important to you that it's more important than people being able to lead happy and healthy lives? Because it's that apparent prioritization choices that's leading people, apparently over and over, to think that you view pervasive and destructive racism and discrimination as an acceptable consequences of the way you think government should work.
1) and SAT score and 'quantifiable than something like "is in debate club."" are both equally quantifiable. One is a base 10 number and the other is a binary number.
2) According to who is it that SAT scores and GPA scores are "GPA/SAT are the two most important factors in admissions"?
3) There is actually numerous evidence to racial bias in standardized tests... Actually, even cultural bias.
Hm, isn't it kinda obvious that you cannot?
Seems rather obvious to me that in most societies ethnic/religious/whatever majority will have special privileges that the minority does not have.
Sometimes minority is in power and subjugates the majority, usually this does not end well for them - they usually either get assimilated or slaughtered (Tutsi in Rwanda).
IHaveCandy
Banned
I must say, this discussion of AA reminds me of the ugly view on life I think race gives. Among a group of friends, I am often the last person to notice if we are around a large group of a particular race. My friends or acquaintances will often say something like "I wonder why there are a lot of Asians here." I always found those kinds of observations strange. I've always tried to not look at people's races as an identifying trait. I can obviously tell if somebody is black or white, but it often just flies under my radar as far as how I identify them. If I walk into a room of 12 people, I see 12 people. This AA model seems like it would promote the idea of walking into the same room and seeing 4 white males, 3 white females, 2 black males, 1 black female, 1 hispanic female, and 1 asian male. I wish more people could just see people as people and forget about race. It really is an ugly way to look at people in my eyes.
I see you didn't read the paper that I linked before. You really ought to take a look at that -- I've taken a look at your sources. While they do cite SAT scores as an example they also note that it's difficult to pinpoint the exact reason for admission confirmation and denial because the process is fluid and it's exactly mathematical.
Admissions officers. Including a friend of mine who worked as one at BU and Emerson.
Feel free to share it. And remember: evidence that different races get different results is not in itself evidence of bias.
Edit: Many of the people in this thread are completely incoherent. They want to simultaneously argue that AA is good and at least somewhat effective, but also that it doesn't actually DO anything.
"AA doesn't allow someone to leapfrog over someone else." Of course it does - that's the point. You have a set of people who without AA would have made it and a set who wouldn't have. AA alters those sets. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT. Some of the people who wouldn't have made it now do, and some of the people who would have made it now don't. That is very much one person "jumping ahead" of another.
You could in fact physically group the people who made it and didn't make it into two groups, then one by one swap them to form the new sets post-AA. Each person walking from one group to the other is now obviously ahead or behind where they were before.
soul creator
Member
If you go through life with a mindset of "not seeing race", that also makes it very difficult to see racism, as your posts throughout this thread seem to indicate.
edit: http://crommunist.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/colour-blindness-not-a-virtue/
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Whether or not AA is the correct/best solution to these problems, I'm not surprised that white millennials think we just don't need to worry about race anymore. Based on what I can see, a lot of younger white millennials have greatly benefited from the new industries of the 21st century and have their own brand of blind privilege building up right quick. Some of the places full of them, such as silicon valley, seem ripe to become / have become breeding grounds for neoliberal crypto racism.
I have met more than a few young white people who don't really have a clue about race, institutional racism, have no real clue just how fortunate their own success is - regardless of how bright they are how how hard they worked. They seem to be buying in hardcore to a narrative of "post-racial culture", which is crafted to absolve their generation, class and race of any potential feelings of guilt or latent social awareness as they solidify their hold on industry and economy.
I have met more than a few young white people who don't really have a clue about race, institutional racism, have no real clue just how fortunate their own success is - regardless of how bright they are how how hard they worked. They seem to be buying in hardcore to a narrative of "post-racial culture", which is crafted to absolve their generation, class and race of any potential feelings of guilt or latent social awareness as they solidify their hold on industry and economy.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I don't think that is the case. I can still obviously tell when racism occurs.
...
Consider the possibility that this fact makes all your other opinions worthless until you do something to rectify it.
I guess the idea that I would ugre you to consider here is the idea that x person is more worthy because of y test scores isn't always that simple. You pretty much categorize admissions as formulaic and it's not really how it works (although apparently you know people, so good for you).
The idea that some people lose out because others win because of AA is falling into a victimization mentality that poisons the conversation pretty readily. Others in this thread, including me, are telling you that it's not that simple, and yet you repeatedly cling to that same assumption.
soul creator
Member
http://www.timwise.org/2010/08/with...cism-and-white-privilege-on-the-liberal-left/
I'd recommend reading the "Liberal Colorblindness and the Perpetuation of Racism" section. One quote:
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Honestly, it was too simplistic.
One black guy doesn't mean all, just like one white doesn't mean all. To get a better perspective on it, you have to look at the whole enchilada. From there "issues" become noticeable.
It is a much different America now. But honestly that is through initiatives like AA that things have improved. An America without AA would look wholly different. And honestly probably disgusting to our modern sensibilities.
Do you have a representative number of admission officer's numbers?
Unfortunately, I can't find something free that I can share (plenty of paid stuff. Or if you already have a JSTOR subscription, I can give you something from there.)
However, I noticed that in your examples of how standardized tests can't be biased, you said something about the sqrt(2) or something like that.
No one is saying a question like that is biased. It's the word problems that are culturally biased (which makes sense, given that language itself reflects culture.) Simple words can mean varying different things to people of different cultures.
Or, the questions can contain concepts that are foreign to people of certain cultures, which can slow them down (which is bad on a time standardized test.)
For myself, I read his writings a while back and am truly puzzled as to the end result that he and his cohorts are envisioning. I asked several "anti-racists" a few times and never got a good answer...
Yup. It's pretty jarring to see people complain about institutionalized racism and then defend affirmative action - an institution of racism - because they like the result.
The "fight fire with fire" strategy that is affirmative action may be effective, but to claim that no one gets burned by it is ludicrous. The entire point of affirmative action is for people who would otherwise not be hired/accepted/chosen to be hired/accepted/chosen. Since all of these actions are selective, it is a necessary fact that a direct consequence of affirmative action is that other people who would otherwise have been hired/accepted/chosen are not.
Admissions and hiring are both extremely formulaic. It really is how it works.
The idea that some people lose out because others win because of AA is factually true and is no more of a "victimization mentality" than the arguments for affirmative action, which are factually true.
It is that simple when you look at the facts. Affirmative action is discrimination to fight discrimination. The principle is as absurd as the laws against age discrimination. (The laws themselves are discriminatory with regards to age and only protect seniors.) Whether or not you like affirmative action and whether or not you think it is effective are separate from the simple facts that it is discriminatory and certain groups of people are hurt by it.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
was affirmative action intended to provide preferential treatment to women and minorities or so that they could have access to opportunities? I believe its the latter.
It is not absurd if you look at it not in ideological sense but in pragmatic sense.
In any non-homogenous society you ideally try to level the playing field a bit in order to prevent emergence of severely economically disadvantaged groups that also happen to have common ethnic/cultural identity since this is a recipe for constant violence and instability. It's not about fairness, and more about stabilizing the society. Everything else is more or less ideological window dressing.
Yes, it is discrimination to fight discrimination, better than a low level civil war for example.
Candy, do you even know what Affirmative Action is? Because I get the distinct feeling you don't. It's the name for a series of legislative and executive acts that forbid discrimination of ANYONE based on sex, race, and more recently sexuality. Its not some single piece of legislation that declares "You have to hire black people," or however you perceive it. It CAN'T be racist because by definition it FORBIDS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. It does not elevate a single group over another. It isn't some magical microscope that examines every business to determine how many minorities they employee. It does nothing more than give EVERYONE (including straight white cisgendered males) legal recourse should they be discriminated against in business, education, or several other departments. Explain to me, exactly, how affirmative action is racist. The only problem that has ever really existed with it is the idea of quotas, which screwed over everyone, and that was rectified quickly.
And that goes for you too, Mud.
And that goes for you too, Mud.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I've stated that I am fine with saying AA is using discrimination to fight racism/discrimination.
Michelle Alexander covers this brilliantly in a few paragraphs in The New Jim Crow.
[...]
There are answers to these questions, but they are difficult to swallow when millions of Americans have displayed a willingness to elect a black man president of the United States. The truth, however, is this: far from undermining the current system of control, the new caste system depends, in no small part, on black exceptionalism. The colorblind public consensus that supports the new caste system insists that race no longer matters. Now that America has officially embraced Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream (by reducing it to the platitude "that we should be judged by the content our character, not the color of our skin"), the mass incarceration of people of color can be justified only to the extent that the plight of those locked up and locked out is understood to be their choice, not their birthright.
In short, mass incarceration is predicated on the notion that an extraordinary number of African Americans (but not all) have freely chosen a life of crime and thus belong behind bars. A belief that all blacks belong in jail would be incomptaible with the social consensus that we have "moved beyond" race and that race is no longer relevant. But a widespread belief that a majority of black and brown men unfortunately belong in jail is compatible with the new American creed, provided that their imprisonment can be interpreted as their own fault. If the prison label imposed on them can be blamed on their culture, poor work ethic, or even their families, then society is absolved of responsiblity to do anything about their condition.
This is where black exceptionalism comes in. Highly visible examples of black success are critical to the maintenance of the racial caste system in the era of colorblindness. Black success stories lend credence to the notion that anyone, no matter how poor or black you may be, can make it to the top, if only you try hard enough. These stories "prove" that race is no longer relevant. Whereas black success stories undermined the logic of Jim Crow, they actually reinforce the system of mass incarceration. Mass incarceration depends for its legitimacy on the widespread belief that all those who appear trapped at the bottom actually chose their fate.
Viewed from this perspective, affirmative action no longer appears entirely progressive. So long as some readily identifiable African Americans are doing well, the system is largely immunized from racial critique. People like Barack Obama who are truly exceptional by any standards, along with others who have been granted exceptional opportunities, legitimate a system that remains fraught with racial basis - especially when they fail to challenge, or even acknowledge, the prevailing racial order.
There are answers to these questions, but they are difficult to swallow when millions of Americans have displayed a willingness to elect a black man president of the United States. The truth, however, is this: far from undermining the current system of control, the new caste system depends, in no small part, on black exceptionalism. The colorblind public consensus that supports the new caste system insists that race no longer matters. Now that America has officially embraced Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream (by reducing it to the platitude "that we should be judged by the content our character, not the color of our skin"), the mass incarceration of people of color can be justified only to the extent that the plight of those locked up and locked out is understood to be their choice, not their birthright.
In short, mass incarceration is predicated on the notion that an extraordinary number of African Americans (but not all) have freely chosen a life of crime and thus belong behind bars. A belief that all blacks belong in jail would be incomptaible with the social consensus that we have "moved beyond" race and that race is no longer relevant. But a widespread belief that a majority of black and brown men unfortunately belong in jail is compatible with the new American creed, provided that their imprisonment can be interpreted as their own fault. If the prison label imposed on them can be blamed on their culture, poor work ethic, or even their families, then society is absolved of responsiblity to do anything about their condition.
This is where black exceptionalism comes in. Highly visible examples of black success are critical to the maintenance of the racial caste system in the era of colorblindness. Black success stories lend credence to the notion that anyone, no matter how poor or black you may be, can make it to the top, if only you try hard enough. These stories "prove" that race is no longer relevant. Whereas black success stories undermined the logic of Jim Crow, they actually reinforce the system of mass incarceration. Mass incarceration depends for its legitimacy on the widespread belief that all those who appear trapped at the bottom actually chose their fate.
Viewed from this perspective, affirmative action no longer appears entirely progressive. So long as some readily identifiable African Americans are doing well, the system is largely immunized from racial critique. People like Barack Obama who are truly exceptional by any standards, along with others who have been granted exceptional opportunities, legitimate a system that remains fraught with racial basis - especially when they fail to challenge, or even acknowledge, the prevailing racial order.
This is actually in the midst of a section of the book arguing against affirmative action as not progressive enough and being the epitome of what she quotes Martin Luther King Jr. as warning against: racial justice purchased on the cheap. She also argues that affirmative action creates an illusion of progress where little actually exists. She is addressing this more from the perspective of the system of mass incarceration, and how, for instance, the complicity of minority officers (who are in many departments there directly because of affirmative action programs) in the War on Drugs serves to legitimate them and insulate them from claims of racism despite the fact that minority officers engage in racial profiling nearly as consistently as white officers. In some ways having a black president presents the same problem as having a black police chief, writ large. You have people who see black leadership and think, "How can you say the police force is racist; the police chief is black!" and you see people who make similarly arguments replacing the United States or America with the President.
EatinOlives
Member
You know you're treading dangerously close to the whole "LOL REVERSE RACISM!!" Fox News bullshit talking point, don't you?
I like that you think that Mudkips hasn't spent more time on that one point than a ballerina in training.
Um no. That is something completely different. What you are referring to is Equal Opportunity or Non-Discrimination. Or the 14th Amendment - equal protection under the law.
Affirmative action means a variety of different things in different settings, but in terms of academic admissions it is active discrimination. It explicitly does discriminate on the basis of race.
OliveGuy said:
That doesn't make what he said false. (Although AA is not "racism" - it's racial discrimination but without racist intent) Fox News people eat vegetables - that doesn't mean eating vegetables is wrong.
You completely side-stepped any sort of substantive critique of what he wrote in favor of a flippant one-liner. AA in admissions does result in someone who would have made it into a place not making it in once race is taken into account. Whether or not that is justified can be debated but the fact that it happens cannot be.
1: Please tell me where anything I said was factually wrong.
2: "Reverse racism" is just racism.
3: Fox News? Talking points? What are you even talking about? Do you have an actual argument to make or not? Twice now you've responded to me with quips that have not actually responded to the content of my posts.
The "affirmative" in affirmative action refers to doing specific things to give preferential treatment to certain groups.
From Wikipedia (bolding mine)
You take an affirmative action to achieve a desired level of diversity, fight back against ingrained policies, biases, or demographics, etc. Affirmative action is literally about doing something in order to achieve the desired result. That's what the words "affirmative" and "action" actually mean, and that's what such policies actually do.
You can be for or against these policies. I'm against them, but I admit there are legitimate reasons for them. Why can't people who are for them admit that they are preferential and discriminatory by nature?
It's like arguing that a car is not a car. It's a car! You bought the car because you wanted a car and now you have a car. Why are you now denying the fact that it's a car? You're clearly driving the car around, aren't you? "No I'm not, it doesn't even run so you can't call it a car." Oh, then let's get rid of it. "No don't take my car away I need it to drive to places."
I just think that we, and others are just going to have to agree to disagree about this point. To put it in a kind way, I think that the difference is mostly semantics and I think there is common ground to be found.
Edit: In other places.
Zoramon089
Banned
People who call affirmative action racism don't know what the word racism means
There are types of AA that are not discriminatory, or at least not in the same sense.
As I mentioned earlier when you interview NFL coaches you must by rule interview a black candidate. This does discriminate in some small way in that the time you spent interviewing that guy you could have spent interviewing someone else, but realistically you can interview anyone on your short list anyway.
If you do end up hiring that black guy and you only interviewed him because of that policy you can say that he would not have been hired without AA, but while that is true he was still presumably the best person for the job and his race was not a factor in the final decision. He did not take the spot of a more deserving person, he took the spot of a *less* deserving person.
I have focused specifically on admissions because AA policies differ. A policy that broadens the potential pool is very different from a policy that alters selection criteria.
As I mentioned earlier when you interview NFL coaches you must by rule interview a black candidate. This does discriminate in some small way in that the time you spent interviewing that guy you could have spent interviewing someone else, but realistically you can interview anyone on your short list anyway.
If you do end up hiring that black guy and you only interviewed him because of that policy you can say that he would not have been hired without AA, but while that is true he was still presumably the best person for the job and his race was not a factor in the final decision. He did not take the spot of a more deserving person, he took the spot of a *less* deserving person.
I have focused specifically on admissions because AA policies differ. A policy that broadens the potential pool is very different from a policy that alters selection criteria.
This is basically the trumpet-call of everybody in this thread who doesn't feel as though lack of understanding of racism should prevent them from having opinions about it.
So if we suppose that standardized tests can be biased...you don't think the scores from those tests are biased? What?
travisbickle
Member
Can the people who say "choose the person who is best qualified" explain themselves in more detail?
I used to run my own business, and employed people, and now I am venturing on a new career as an employee. So I have quite a bit of experience on both sides of the interview process, and I have to say 'Best qualified' doesn't make any sense to me.
I can only assume that 'best qualified' means you add up all the scores and who ever's highest wins. In that case why would we have interviews?
Obviously you want someone qualified for the role, but there are candidates who are over-qualified, and in some cases there are benefits to taking on an employee who is under-qualified!
In my opinion, from experience, the reason for hiring someone is there aptitude and attitude during the interview process ... And the colour of their skin.
To add, if you mean 'best qualified' = went to a certain university, then we definitely need to work on accessibility to those universities for ethnic minorities, or as we know it AA.
I used to run my own business, and employed people, and now I am venturing on a new career as an employee. So I have quite a bit of experience on both sides of the interview process, and I have to say 'Best qualified' doesn't make any sense to me.
I can only assume that 'best qualified' means you add up all the scores and who ever's highest wins. In that case why would we have interviews?
Obviously you want someone qualified for the role, but there are candidates who are over-qualified, and in some cases there are benefits to taking on an employee who is under-qualified!
In my opinion, from experience, the reason for hiring someone is there aptitude and attitude during the interview process ... And the colour of their skin.
To add, if you mean 'best qualified' = went to a certain university, then we definitely need to work on accessibility to those universities for ethnic minorities, or as we know it AA.
EatinOlives
Member
Your "factually correct" argument is completely misleading. You're using your pretended ignorance of what "racism" historically means as a little mat so you can make your mental gymnastics on it. Honestly, I only reciprocate what I'm reading. I resort to quips if what I'm reading is equally devoid of rational thought.
"Reverse racism" is a piss poor application of actual discrimination. Nobody's actively being RACIST at whites/asians by applying affirmative actions to other minorities. You only posit that any attempt to level the playing field of candidates is "ZOMG DISCRIMINATION" without saying anything else of substance. How would you, in turn, magically remove socioeconomic disadvantages of particular candidates and erase many employers'/schools' predisposition to ignore particular minorities without resorting to your so-called "discrimination"? Because you know, removing these disadvantages actually does kind of inherently entail doing something that helps these minorities. Or are you just going to sit here and pretend like that's just not a problem? Just fuck the inner city kids with underfunded schools and unmotivated teachers, because if you actually help them you're actually being racist at white kidz in upstate New York omg!
ReBurn
Gold Member
I think that a lot of people believe that affirmative action removes barriers for people of some races by shifting the barriers to people of other races. I don't believe that the intent of affirmative action is to do that. There may have been anecdotal cases where someone felt as though barriers were created for them because they were removed for someone else, but I doubt that was the true intention.
Dark Knyght
Member
Love these racial threads, or should I say racist threads. It brings out people's true feelings and additions to my ignore list.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
This is about a page late, but the thought that protecting a business's right to discriminate is more important than protecting an individual's equal rights is ludicrous to the highest degree. And just when you'd think it couldn't get worse, there's the suggestion that the free market will handle it, despite there being a hundred years of evidence to the contrary.
The first rule of rights law, emphasized in every class I ever took (a good number) is that your rights end where someone else's rights begin. This is why hate speech is illegal. Fuck, it's why murder and theft are illegal.
EDIT: Misspoke about hate speech being illegal (see below) but it applies to other non-protected forms like incitement to violence (what I was thinking of but mis-labeled as hate speech).
The first rule of rights law, emphasized in every class I ever took (a good number) is that your rights end where someone else's rights begin. This is why hate speech is illegal. Fuck, it's why murder and theft are illegal.
EDIT: Misspoke about hate speech being illegal (see below) but it applies to other non-protected forms like incitement to violence (what I was thinking of but mis-labeled as hate speech).
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll