Poll: Affirmative Action
- Thread starter JakePwnsAtLife
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Right, harmless conversations in that context are just that.nilcypher said:
However, in the workplace, the awkwardness of whites being unable to acknowledge race leads to just holding it all in and wanting to avoid people of other races (whom they aren't already familiar with), thus breeding the subtlest form of racism and, IMO, the real problem with workplace racism. Yes it exists, and yes, it breeds ignorance by not allowing communication for fear of being fired/"outed" as a racist.
Let's all be able to talk about race openly and laugh it off like Dave Chappelle would have us do, may he rest in peace.
People in my workcenter can laugh and joke on me being white (With my diverse vocabulary and inability to dance) all day long, but the second I reply, "At least I can get a cab when I need one!", suddenly I'm the asshole =p
In the 1970's through somepoint in the 80's it was reasonable. True equal rights weren't granted until the 1960's.
We're a different generation now, let's forgo these former necessities. It's making too many rely simply on race and the scapegoating of history over working hard to achieve what you have. This is why American society is declining.
We're a different generation now, let's forgo these former necessities. It's making too many rely simply on race and the scapegoating of history over working hard to achieve what you have. This is why American society is declining.
in general terms, most of the people here determine "minorities as the smallest race in terms of number in a general nation/whatever. that clarified i think that affirmative action is racist against white people because if black people get their own collage, why cant white people?
and yes i am a smart semi-educated middle class white kid who wont get half as many scholarships due to the fact that i am 1. white, and 2. middle class, so ya i dislike affirmative action.
and yes i am a smart semi-educated middle class white kid who wont get half as many scholarships due to the fact that i am 1. white, and 2. middle class, so ya i dislike affirmative action.
Yes, THAT IS how it should be, in a perfect world.nilcypher said:
Race, however, is an indicator of culture, and culture is what can make/break social interactions and workplace efficiency.
It's not going away any time soon. As long as our brains subconsciously tuck away negative images over positive ones of minorities (for a primitive 'survival's sake' instinct) this will always exist.
Until our white children don't know the phrase "stop acting so black", and our black children never hear "stop acting so white", this issue will persist for at least a few decades more.
That being said, I think with Obama's election, it's been a slap in the face to black racists restrained by their own shackles and ideas of why they struggle to succeed in America.
Black people are no different than white people. We've provided reperations before to be honest.
As a white man, I'm biased. But as a Libertarian I can find NO reason why a black man would say "I'm not equal so please provide extra money to me to make up for my shortcomings."
Fight to be equal, as my people (Irish) have. Don't take handouts!
As a white man, I'm biased. But as a Libertarian I can find NO reason why a black man would say "I'm not equal so please provide extra money to me to make up for my shortcomings."
Fight to be equal, as my people (Irish) have. Don't take handouts!
Seriously.Seekster said:
Everyone go watch "Return of the King" episode of the Boondocks.
RIGHT. NOW.
3-min Snippit: MLK's new speech. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYggWJZZSw8]
8-min with more context: THIS IS WHAT I GOT ALL THOSE ASS-WHUPPINS FOR?! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gZL9hCncMM&feature=related]
Cheese Pavilion:
The Nazis had more than one reason for killing people. Genocide was not their intent in every single case, and yes a lot of their mass murders were not attempted Genocide. Exactly my point.
As far as racism goes, all arguement back and forth aside, the point is that it is dead in the mainstream. You really have to dig to find a real racist in the US. The election of Obama proves that, since he simply could not have been elected without the support of mainstream America. It could not have happened... period.
Those who seek to keep racism alive in politics/the media, by any justification, including claims of the "long term effects of slavery" do so simply to incite problems and grab a headline.
Arguably I'd say that one of the big problems that we have nowadays is that Blacks feel that they *need* the spectre of racism to blame for their problems. With the racism gone, and a lot of them still on the bottom (albeit not all of them) they have nobody outside of themselves personally to blame. They are simply now just another minority group within society and that can be jarring, especially for people who for some reason thought that if Racism died things would magically be differant for them.
It's sort of like how some guy fights in "the people's revolution" to tear down the rich guys/nobles/whatever and then stays a peasant at the bottom of the totem pole. China, France, Russia, it happened in all those places. Winning a war does not generally amount to change for the people at the bottom despite what they might think.
Affirmitive Action is little more than a long antiquidated tool, that long ago outlived it's usefulness. Like an unexploded nuclear munition it's leaking poison out into all other aspects of society.
If anything Affirmitive Action CREATES racism, because as long as it exists, it raises the question whenever a minority is hired if he actually deserves the job, or was hired because of AA. This leads to anger and resentment, even where it might not be deserved. What's more when people DO lose jobs due to affirmitive action, it creates justified hatred. The only real reason to keep Affirmitive Action around is to try and keep as much of a race war alive as possible.
-
As far as the guy who says that he'd put his work ethic against AA anytime goes... well he misses the point. When it comes down to AA your work ethic doesn't matter, because your bosses needs so many minorities in such positions. Thus you wind up with them putting anyone of an appropriate ethnicity into the job, sometimes even training them for the job while they are holding the position. The guys with the heavy qualifications, good work ethics, and tons of extra time booked, are the ones who get most upset over, and are most wronged by, AA.
But this is also why it's unfair to minorities because if some minority DOES earn such a job, as long as AA exists, there is always going to be that doubt.
What's more, AA can be exploited. After all if a company needs a minority to fill a position, he can oftentimes goof off and not do his job, and be a burden to everyone, because they would cause even more problems by having to find a minority of the same sort to replace him/her. What's more once your in an AA job, tools suddenly become availible meant to protect people inserted in such jobs. So of course even if the guy IS goofing off and not doing his job, it can be nearly impossible to fire him because he's got so many weapons to protect himself with, all existing due to the assumption that your lying to get rid of him because of his race.
You put ANY person into a position like that and there is going to be a temptation to exploit it, and a lot do. This is another reason why people hate AA.
Say your Mr. Good Work Ethic, you put in for a promotion, but your area demands so many Latinos to be in supervisory positions due to the breakdown of the population. So they hire this guy called Juan to be the supervisor even though he's just barely qualified for it. Juan comes in, sits in the supervisor office, and rotates between sleeping, eating lunch, flirting obnoxiously with female subordinates, and playing video games on the office computer. For all intents and purposes there is no supervisor except on paper, so the manager (level above that job) makes you do the job you put in for, under your current pay grade. Being Mr. Work Ethics you do it, hoping that you'll eventually get the job. But Juan is so heavily protected that the only way you'll ever replace him is if AA goes away, because he's smart enough to at least make sure his rear is covered bureaucratically.
Such things do not happen everywhere, but they happen with enough frequency to create anger over the whole situation.
There are also union issues (well with some unions) as unions keep a careful eye on qualifications and promotions to make sure that the "right" who deserve it get promoted. This can be very corrupt also, but in some places does help. Affirmitive Action steps on union watchdog groups because it means that if a company wants to bypass the union they can simply ignore the paperwork and who SHOULD be doing a job or moving up, and simply toss a minority in there and say "oops Affirmitive Action, sorry guys" if they want to avoid something involving union politics or whatever.
The system doesn't even work like it's supposed to, and is heavily exploited. That is why it needs to die. It's also why I feel that people brought in for AA jobs need to be booted in most cases. Some may be qualified for the job, especially after holding it for a while, but there are enough who aren't that I feel that the only way to repair the damage is to universally remove virtually all traces of the system ever having been there.
>>>----Therumancer--->
The Nazis had more than one reason for killing people. Genocide was not their intent in every single case, and yes a lot of their mass murders were not attempted Genocide. Exactly my point.
As far as racism goes, all arguement back and forth aside, the point is that it is dead in the mainstream. You really have to dig to find a real racist in the US. The election of Obama proves that, since he simply could not have been elected without the support of mainstream America. It could not have happened... period.
Those who seek to keep racism alive in politics/the media, by any justification, including claims of the "long term effects of slavery" do so simply to incite problems and grab a headline.
Arguably I'd say that one of the big problems that we have nowadays is that Blacks feel that they *need* the spectre of racism to blame for their problems. With the racism gone, and a lot of them still on the bottom (albeit not all of them) they have nobody outside of themselves personally to blame. They are simply now just another minority group within society and that can be jarring, especially for people who for some reason thought that if Racism died things would magically be differant for them.
It's sort of like how some guy fights in "the people's revolution" to tear down the rich guys/nobles/whatever and then stays a peasant at the bottom of the totem pole. China, France, Russia, it happened in all those places. Winning a war does not generally amount to change for the people at the bottom despite what they might think.
Affirmitive Action is little more than a long antiquidated tool, that long ago outlived it's usefulness. Like an unexploded nuclear munition it's leaking poison out into all other aspects of society.
If anything Affirmitive Action CREATES racism, because as long as it exists, it raises the question whenever a minority is hired if he actually deserves the job, or was hired because of AA. This leads to anger and resentment, even where it might not be deserved. What's more when people DO lose jobs due to affirmitive action, it creates justified hatred. The only real reason to keep Affirmitive Action around is to try and keep as much of a race war alive as possible.
-
As far as the guy who says that he'd put his work ethic against AA anytime goes... well he misses the point. When it comes down to AA your work ethic doesn't matter, because your bosses needs so many minorities in such positions. Thus you wind up with them putting anyone of an appropriate ethnicity into the job, sometimes even training them for the job while they are holding the position. The guys with the heavy qualifications, good work ethics, and tons of extra time booked, are the ones who get most upset over, and are most wronged by, AA.
But this is also why it's unfair to minorities because if some minority DOES earn such a job, as long as AA exists, there is always going to be that doubt.
What's more, AA can be exploited. After all if a company needs a minority to fill a position, he can oftentimes goof off and not do his job, and be a burden to everyone, because they would cause even more problems by having to find a minority of the same sort to replace him/her. What's more once your in an AA job, tools suddenly become availible meant to protect people inserted in such jobs. So of course even if the guy IS goofing off and not doing his job, it can be nearly impossible to fire him because he's got so many weapons to protect himself with, all existing due to the assumption that your lying to get rid of him because of his race.
You put ANY person into a position like that and there is going to be a temptation to exploit it, and a lot do. This is another reason why people hate AA.
Say your Mr. Good Work Ethic, you put in for a promotion, but your area demands so many Latinos to be in supervisory positions due to the breakdown of the population. So they hire this guy called Juan to be the supervisor even though he's just barely qualified for it. Juan comes in, sits in the supervisor office, and rotates between sleeping, eating lunch, flirting obnoxiously with female subordinates, and playing video games on the office computer. For all intents and purposes there is no supervisor except on paper, so the manager (level above that job) makes you do the job you put in for, under your current pay grade. Being Mr. Work Ethics you do it, hoping that you'll eventually get the job. But Juan is so heavily protected that the only way you'll ever replace him is if AA goes away, because he's smart enough to at least make sure his rear is covered bureaucratically.
Such things do not happen everywhere, but they happen with enough frequency to create anger over the whole situation.
There are also union issues (well with some unions) as unions keep a careful eye on qualifications and promotions to make sure that the "right" who deserve it get promoted. This can be very corrupt also, but in some places does help. Affirmitive Action steps on union watchdog groups because it means that if a company wants to bypass the union they can simply ignore the paperwork and who SHOULD be doing a job or moving up, and simply toss a minority in there and say "oops Affirmitive Action, sorry guys" if they want to avoid something involving union politics or whatever.
The system doesn't even work like it's supposed to, and is heavily exploited. That is why it needs to die. It's also why I feel that people brought in for AA jobs need to be booted in most cases. Some may be qualified for the job, especially after holding it for a while, but there are enough who aren't that I feel that the only way to repair the damage is to universally remove virtually all traces of the system ever having been there.
>>>----Therumancer--->
If you want equality, then you can have equality... That means letting your qualifications get you what you deserve. If you ***** about race issues, then create them yourself, that's nothing short of hypocrisy. I really lose even more faith in humanity when I think about stuff like this.
Actually, that isn't true. People voted largely along racial lines, with Obama winning most of the black vote and McCain winning most of the white vote.Therumancer said:
A more detail breakdown can be found here [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html].
Overt racism may not be prevalent any more, but I would hardly call it dead.
I agree with what you did. My opinion is that, should two applicants be equal in their skills, then the one from a disadvantaged socio-economic background should get the position, considering they 'jumped the greater hurdle', so to speak.Spacelord said:
However, quotas are fucking stupid. Don't limit yourself to the less-abled students just to appear politically correct.
Edit: In light of more information (thank you, Seldon), quota's are not part of affirmative action, and are actually against the law (in the US).
Let's say we have a group of people who just got off the refugee boat from Carbombya, and can't read or write a word of English, which causes them to have a wee bit of trouble when applying into a university.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
If the state chooses to do something about that, the obvious answer is arranging enough remedial education that these people are able to deal with English. Then, if they can, they are free to beat other applicants in the entrance exams and claim their spots.
I'm going for a process of elimination, here. If your intention is not giving one race an unfair advantage or build up permanent victim status, why would you ever set up quotas and nudge test scores? Finding and fixing real and relevant gaps in education, then giving everyone the same shot is just plain better.
It really depends on where you come from on the nature/nurture side of things. If you accept that everyone has the same basic academic abilities, which are then either supported or diminished by the environment in which they're raised, then you'll conclude that the poor and minorities (who tend to go to worse schools, and have fewer opportunities) need a leg up. If you reject that, and believe that everyone has the same basic opportunities, and those who really work harder or have some inborn talent will rise to the top, you'll conclude that people get what they deserve.
We'll ignore whether it's actually a good thing for a school to have some measure of diversity (insofar as it actually benefits even the white students). Having gone to an inner-city school for high school, and been close to many impoverished and minority students through the football team, I can tell you that the opportunities are vastly different. If I had difficulty with homework, I could come home and get help. If someone's watching his siblings while his parents both work late, that's far less possible. Someone who has worked hard to succeed despite the disadvantages given to them shows far more promise than someone who succeeded at the same level with every advantage in the world.
It's rare for a more qualified white student to lose out to a less qualified minority. It's more common for a white person to lose out to a minority person of equal qualifications. But when you're dealing with people of equivalent merit, what's wrong with saying "the one who's overcome more has more potential"? The thinking isn't reversing racism, but that someone who succeeded with the cards stacked against them may excel even further with the cards on his side.
If we ever really level the playing field (and give poor inner-city students the same access to good teachers and materials as their suburban counterparts), I'll be more than happy to say we don't need affirmative action. But as long as some people have to work far harder to get the same things as their privileged competition, I don't see a problem with giving them a leg up.
We'll ignore whether it's actually a good thing for a school to have some measure of diversity (insofar as it actually benefits even the white students). Having gone to an inner-city school for high school, and been close to many impoverished and minority students through the football team, I can tell you that the opportunities are vastly different. If I had difficulty with homework, I could come home and get help. If someone's watching his siblings while his parents both work late, that's far less possible. Someone who has worked hard to succeed despite the disadvantages given to them shows far more promise than someone who succeeded at the same level with every advantage in the world.
It's rare for a more qualified white student to lose out to a less qualified minority. It's more common for a white person to lose out to a minority person of equal qualifications. But when you're dealing with people of equivalent merit, what's wrong with saying "the one who's overcome more has more potential"? The thinking isn't reversing racism, but that someone who succeeded with the cards stacked against them may excel even further with the cards on his side.
If we ever really level the playing field (and give poor inner-city students the same access to good teachers and materials as their suburban counterparts), I'll be more than happy to say we don't need affirmative action. But as long as some people have to work far harder to get the same things as their privileged competition, I don't see a problem with giving them a leg up.
I agree wholeheartedly. But until we're ready to take money from suburban districts and reallocate it to inner-city schools, that's unlikely to happen. Until we're willing to distribute the affluent students to all schools evenly (so things like fundraisers are more fair), it's unlikely to happen. The only way we can fix the real and relevant gaps in education is to be fair. But fairness is anathema to a lot of what we're talking about. People move to the suburbs in part for the better schools. These affluent people pay more in property taxes, give more to the schools, and make the schools better.Nutcase said:
Also, can we please disabuse ourselves of the notion that this is somehow a government program? At no point has the government itself stepped in to create quotas or critical masses, or anything else we call Affirmative Action. They've refused to stop them, but that's not the same. Government doesn't stop me from chewing bubblegum, that doesn't make bubblegum chewing a government program. You can claim that "state supported" institutions should be held to the same standards as the government itself, but they aren't so deal with it. I hate to be glib, but they aren't. A school (at any level) has far more restrictions in some areas, and far more latitude in others.
