NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/detplan21e_20040921.htm

The concept of Chinatown, Little Italy etc. came about because immigrants historically chose to congregate together because of cultural similarities.

This plan attempts to legislate that naturally occuring phenomenon by actively promoting one race over all others.

And just what does "majority minority" mean? If 83% of the population is one race, aren't they the majority? Or would losing the "minority" label cause them to lose perceived benifits?

Everyone not caucasian is in a minority

Welcome to "newspeak."

This is incredible, now we need to level the playing field between minorities?

I especially love the part "immigrants from Mexico, Asia and the Middle East are stealing resources, jobs and other opportunities from blacks".

Now I completely agree that there is a default racial preference for caucasians, but when you need government to make sure Mexican immigrants aren't receiving economic preference over you, maybe the problem isn't as external as one might think.

As for the Yellow Scourge, I don't think there is a society that isn't suffering from them "stealing resources", damned thieving Asians

Everyone not caucasian is in a minority
Not quite sure, but I believe that caucasians are actually a minority group... given world population figures of course.

The concept of AA is racist. It does not 'become' racist, it just is.

The concept of AA is racist. It does not 'become' racist, it just is.

The concept of AA is racist?

Ok how so?

Do you even know what it is?

The concept of AA is racist?

Ok how so?

Do you even know what it is?
its called "reverse racism"

aka implementing structured racism to supposedly counter racism

Affirmative Action, at best, promotes racism. It creates the idea that blacks (and other groups, but blacks get the most press time) can't survive without the benevolence of Democratic politicians. These politicians, in turn, recieve votes and aid from the Very Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, as well as the NAACP and other such groups. As a result a new minority generation comes up believing that they need the aid of their white "masters" to survive, while a new generation of rich white politicians learns about how they should help the "poor, ignorant, helpless fools."

Now that that is over with I will only say that anyone using the term "majority minority" in any sense of seriousness needs to be carried away by the nice men with straight jackets.

Any concept that promotes gving an advantage to some group based on race, is racist.

The concept of AA is racist?

Ok how so?

Do you even know what it is?

Absolutely it is....

"We would love to hire you, but unfortunately you are not black, so we can't."

Is this a racist statement? I think it is because it singles you out as non-hirable based on the color of ones skin.

I was told this when I interviewed for a job once. That they actually told me that I was not going to get the job, not because of my qualifications, but because of my skin color made it racist.

What a hilariouse article!! :D

Absolutely it is....

"We would love to hire you, but unfortunately you are not black, so we can't."

Is this a racist statement? I think it is because it singles you out as non-hirable based on the color of ones skin.

I was told this when I interviewed for a job once. That they actually told me that I was not going to get the job, not because of my qualifications, but because of my skin color made it racist.
Actually its this:
There are 5 guys all qualified for a job. All there resumes are equal. But they like diversity so Tim gets extra points for being a certain race.
Since all equal in other ways in resume he gets job.

You have to be qualified remember that. I dislike the lies that say it makes unqualified people get hired.

Actually its this:
There are 5 guys all qualified for a job. All there resumes are equal. But they like diversity so Tim gets extra points for being a certain race.
Since all equal in other ways in resume he gets job.

You have to be qualified remember that. I dislike the lies that say it makes unqualified people get hired.
I try to give AA the benifit of the doubt. Which is why I believe it can go too far, as in the case I cited.

However, using your analogy, let's say candidates 1-4 all recieved the same score, 200 e.g. Candidate 5 recieves 191. Candidate 5 receives 10 points for being black, therefor he has a total score of 201. He gets hired over the other candidates, even though they scored higher, because he is black.

Im curious also, has there ever been a case where a company was overrepresented by a minority, and a caucasian was hired over other minority applicants simply because he was white?

Actually its this:
There are 5 guys all qualified for a job. All there resumes are equal. But they like diversity so Tim gets extra points for being a certain race.
Since all equal in other ways in resume he gets job.

You have to be qualified remember that. I dislike the lies that say it makes unqualified people get hired.
The only fair way to deal with such a dilemma is a no holds barred battle to the death with broad swordsbetween the five people to get the job. Any other answer is racist.

If you think my answer is ridiculous, well so is your situation. Where in existence are five men/women who are all carbon copies (excluding race and sex) of each other going to apply for the same damn job opening at the same damn time? The use of extreme examples to prove your point only further highligts the ridiculousness of the fundamental idea.

Actually its this:
There are 5 guys all qualified for a job. All there resumes are equal. But they like diversity so Tim gets extra points for being a certain race.
Since all equal in other ways in resume he gets job.

You have to be qualified remember that. I dislike the lies that say it makes unqualified people get hired.
Then you're implying that diversity must be inherently derived from one's skin color, and not factors such as religion, ethinicity (different from race), where you were raised, etc. Thus, it promotes skin color as a way to distinguish people from one another as opposed to other things that can and do make more of a difference. I think that's racism.

If a buisness has no so called "minorities" it is required to hire one. If that person is less skilled and less qualified so be it. Racist.

In my school whites are the minority and other races still bi*** about how they are being discriminated against. Shut up!...pisses me off.

Im curious also, has there ever been a case where a company was overrepresented by a minority, and a caucasian was hired over other minority applicants simply because he was white?
Actually, I had a friend try to get a job at the local Asian restaraunt. The owner said, "No, no white boys." :rolleyes: He didn't take it to court or anything, but I thought it was interesting.

i dont like racism (dont be fooled by the name) but to go as far as to not give jobs to some people hu are worthy of the job is stupid. Plus, i think AA is just a way of promoting 'the immigrants steal our job' saga which is silly because lots of caucasion people have taken a job u have applied for as well.

Then you're implying that diversity must be inherently derived from one's skin color, and not factors such as religion, ethinicity (different from race), where you were raised, etc. Thus, it promotes skin color as a way to distinguish people from one another as opposed to other things that can and do make more of a difference. I think that's racism.
AA is supposed to be racism actually so that isn't a argument.

Now Legacy is another type of bias toward the rich. Many rich people use it to get extra points. That is the same as AA really.

i dont like racism (dont be fooled by the name) but to go as far as to not give jobs to some people hu are worthy of the job is stupid. Plus, i think AA is just a way of promoting 'the immigrants steal our job' saga which is silly because lots of caucasion people have taken a job u have applied for as well.
I cite Maddox on this:
If American law made it legal for companies to hire a person regardless of citizenship, then companies would no longer have a preference for hiring immigrants because they would be paying them the same rate, thus leveling the playing field for citizens.
Just thought I'd put that out there.

Actually its this:
There are 5 guys all qualified for a job. All there resumes are equal. But they like diversity so Tim gets extra points for being a certain race.
Since all equal in other ways in resume he gets job.
You have to be qualified remember that. I dislike the lies that say it makes unqualified people get hired.
I think it is a bad idea. What would you say if one says that white people should get five extra points?
Is it an achievement to be of a certain race? Or sex?
In cases where people are the same qualified it should be the disgracion of the employer.
And for the state: It can chose on social criteria like: time working for it, family status (children, e.g.), age. (the more the better)

Actually its this:
There are 5 guys all qualified for a job. All there resumes are equal. But they like diversity so Tim gets extra points for being a certain race.
Since all equal in other ways in resume he gets job.

You have to be qualified remember that. I dislike the lies that say it makes unqualified people get hired.
no its more like there are 3 guys being considered for a job

2 are caucasian, one has slgihtly better credential, the 3rd has credentials much lower than the other 2, but he is black.

the black guy gets the job to fulfill a "black" quota so the company cant get sued for racism

I cite Maddox on this:
If American law made it legal for companies to hire a person regardless of citizenship, then companies would no longer have a preference for hiring immigrants because they would be paying them the same rate, thus leveling the playing field for citizens.
Just thought I'd put that out there.
Didn't Bushy wanted to do something like that?

AA is supposed to be racism actually so that isn't a argument.

Now Legacy is another type of bias toward the rich. Many rich people use it to get extra points. That is the same as AA really.
I think I may have misunderstood your post, because I do agree that AA is racism. I'm against legacies, too. It's really just a way for universities to try to bribe rich alumni into donating large sums of money.

I try to give AA the benifit of the doubt. Which is why I believe it can go too far, as in the case I cited.

However, using your analogy, let's say candidates 1-4 all recieved the same score, 200 e.g. Candidate 5 recieves 191. Candidate 5 receives 10 points for being black, therefor he has a total score of 201. He gets hired over the other candidates, even though they scored higher, because he is black.
Actually no. The highest score on the test is a 208 let me say for a example. To be qualified you need a 200. All five men got above 200. Mark got 204, Tim got 203, and 3 got 200. Thus they are all qualified. You can't get extra points unless qualified.
Then looking at them all Tim can get extra points, he got 203, but he gets 2-3 points redeemable once he is higher than 200 and that puts him above Mark.
Yes Mark scored higher before bonus points but Tim and Mark are both qualified.

And in your example if Candidate 5 got 201 then he did score higher even with bonus points. And if he got a higher score then they didn't score higher.

Actually no. The highest score on the test is a 208 let me say for a example. To be qualified you need a 200. All five men got above 200. Mark got 204, Tim got 203, and 3 got 200. Thus they are all qualified. You can't get extra points unless qualified.
Then looking at them all Tim can get extra points, he got 203, but he gets 2-3 points redeemable once he is higher than 200 and that puts him above Mark.
Yes Mark scored higher before bonus points but Tim and Mark are both qualified.

And in your example if Candidate 5 got 201 then he did score higher even with bonus points. And if he got a higher score then they didn't score higher.

I think I'm missing something here . . .

Candidates 1-4 scored a 200 on the test . . .

Candidate 5 socred 191 . . . but gets 10 bonus points for being a minority, bringing him up to 201. Which means he's "more" qualified while doing worse on the test.

What am I missing?

its called "reverse racism"

aka implementing structured racism to supposedly counter racism

Chess Squares, for once, I agree with you.

I think I'm missing something here . . .

Candidates 1-4 scored a 200 on the test . . .

Candidate 5 socred 191 . . . but gets 10 bonus points for being a minority, bringing him up to 201. Which means he's "more" qualified while doing worse on the test.

What am I missing?

So in school if your extra credit assignment gets you bonus points, they don't count? Only final grade counts.

I hate affirmative action - I say that regardless of race, if your credentials are good enough for a job, you should just get it; we should treat minorities like everyone else

The thing about affirmative action is that it's a partial, clumsy response to a symptom of a very deep problem (which AA feeds). You can't use racism to counter itself. You just make the problem worse by perpetuating the myth that whoever's on the receiving end needs the help. If you're treated like an inferior all your life, nothing good can come of it.

Actually no. The highest score on the test is a 208 let me say for a example. To be qualified you need a 200. All five men got above 200. Mark got 204, Tim got 203, and 3 got 200. Thus they are all qualified. You can't get extra points unless qualified.
Then looking at them all Tim can get extra points, he got 203, but he gets 2-3 points redeemable once he is higher than 200 and that puts him above Mark.
Yes Mark scored higher before bonus points but Tim and Mark are both qualified.
I'm kind of confussed but I am assuming that our characters are WHITEBOY1 with a 204, WHITEBOY2 with 203, and BLACKBOY with 201. Now your argument is that, even though WHITEBOY1 is more qualified to fill the position, BLACKBOY should get it by the nature of his race?
Even though he is less capable than WHITEBOY1?
How is this fair? How is this not discrimination?
Not only that, but how is this a good thing for anyone but BLACKBOY?
WHITEBOY1 is out a job he deserved, WHITEBOY2 never really had a chance, and now the company has someone who isn't as qualified to fill the position as they would if it weren't for Affirmative Action bullshit.

affirmitive action based on ethnicity doesn't "become" racism at any point; it is racist by definition, so there is no case in which such affirmitive action would NOT fall under the heading of "racist policies."

similarly, affirmitive action based on gender or sexuality is ALWAYS sexist or "orientationist" or whatever you want to call it.

In continuaton of this topic..

http://www.secondamendment.net

you should just get it; we should treat minorities like everyone else

If we treated minorities like everyone else in the first place, there would be no need for 'special treatment'.

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/detplan21e_20040921.htm

The concept of Chinatown, Little Italy etc. came about because immigrants historically chose to congregate together because of cultural similarities.

This plan attempts to legislate that naturally occuring phenomenon by actively promoting one race over all others.



I don't think this is harmful or racist at all.
When people migrated to what ever country, they had little choice but to congregate into communities with those they shared cultural similarities with. I imagine going to a new country, where you can not speak the language, can be quite daunting and these people needed each other for support.

Places such as China Town and Little Italy are not just restricted for the selected races. Anyone can visit these places and many different races do. They are largely 'tourist' attractions also.

I think you will also find that almost every race has their own 'area/areas'. So such concepts do not really promote one race over others.

If we treated minorities like everyone else in the first place, there would be no need for 'special treatment'.
ahh yes, the old "we must legislate racist policies in order to get rid of racism" double talk.

there is NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for legalized racism. none. trying to get rid of racism by implimenting racist policies is completely impossible, not to mention utterly absurd.

ahh yes, the old "we must legislate racist policies in order to get rid of racism" double talk.

there is NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for legalized racism. none. trying to get rid of racism by implimenting racist policies is completely impossible, not to mention utterly absurd.

You should keep in mind that if racism didn't still exist today, there would be no need to 'counter' it and therefore 'legalise racism'.
You cannot have one without the other.

Welcome to "newspeak."

There has never been a truer statement made on this forum.

If we treated minorities like everyone else in the first place, there would be no need for 'special treatment'.

You don't balance a scale by making the other side heavier . . .

So in school if your extra credit assignment gets you bonus points, they don't count? Only final grade counts.

I don't recall getting bonus points on a school assignment on the basis of my genetics.

frankly i think everyone is racist there is no black or white or african or asian or mexican we are all just shades of brown and we originated from the same land. truly there is only one race: human

You don't balance a scale by making the other side heavier . . .
Of course. This is hardly the case though.
Keep in mind, these actions are implemented to balance the scale. If the scale was already balanced, such things would never need to come into play.
Besides, these plans hardly result in equality for those they are appointed to 'save'. Racism exists much deeper.

If such minorities were already receiving equal opportunities, there would be no need to 'favour' one group. Of course, when I say 'favour' I really mean providing a minority with something they have been robbed of for so long (not in all cases of course).

frankly i think everyone is racist there is no black or white or african or asian or mexican we are all just shades of brown and we originated from the same land. truly there is only one race: human
^^^
That attitude isn't racist at all. So how can you argue that everyone is racist?

sorry what i meant to say is that anyone who looks at someone as being black or white is racist. we are all human nothing more nothing less

If such minorities were already receiving equal opportunities, there would be no need to 'favour' one group. Of course, when I say 'favour' I really mean providing a minority with something they have been robbed of for so long (not in all cases of course).
You cannot fight fire with fire. By using racist policies to try to counter racism is pointless. Maybe it still exists... but you are only perpetuating the system by using AA as an excuse for "making up for racism" in the status quo. Would anyone else find it offensive to benefit from AA?? "You are not good enough for the job but we don't have enough black people so you're hired." You're statement about providing people with what they have been robbed of is completely ridiculous. In order to be deprived you have to deserve it in the first place, if the only way you deserve it is because the company hiring does not meet the racial quotas that are set, you should not get the job, period.

You cannot fight fire with fire. By using racist policies to try to counter racism is pointless. Maybe it still exists... but you are only perpetuating the system by using AA as an excuse for "making up for racism" in the status quo. Would anyone else find it offensive to benefit from AA?? "You are not good enough for the job but we don't have enough black people so you're hired." You're statement about providing people with what they have been robbed of is completely ridiculous. In order to be deprived you have to deserve it in the first place, if the only way you deserve it is because the company hiring does not meet the racial quotas that are set, you should not get the job, period.

Obviously one shouldn't be hired on the basis of their race detracting from their actual ability to function effieciently at the job. Though, if a company chooses to employ one person, (who is equally capable as the others) because that race has been and is still being denied certain things, then that's ok.
Just because it is a plan, doesn't mean it is necessarily put into practise,
anyway.
Sometimes fire needs to be fought with fire. Ever heard of back burning?

Sure, it might be pointless and in a sense hypocritical. Still, these things should be thought about before racism occurs in the first place. Getting rid of such attitudes will not happen over night.
There's nothing wrong with making up for the equality and opportunities people have been denied (and are still being denied) of for so long.

You should keep in mind that if racism didn't still exist today, there would be no need to 'counter' it and therefore 'legalise racism'.
You cannot have one without the other.
so because there is still racism today, we MUST be racists? sorry, i'm not buying that. you haven't given a single reason or explanation of how enforcing racist government or employment policies is going to get rid of racism...i'd love to see you try, as a matter of fact. while we're at it, let's rule that the best way to combat child abuse is to beat abusers in front of their children; that should screw the kids up much less, right? i mean, we're going to fight abuse by legally mandating abuse, so by your logic the problem should go away in no time!

Obviously one shouldn't be hired on the basis of their race detracting from their actual ability to function effieciently at the job. Though, if a company chooses to employ one person, (who is equally capable as the others) because that race has been and is still being denied certain things, then that's ok.
Just because it is a plan, doesn't mean it is necessarily put into practise,
anyway.
Sometimes fire needs to be fought with fire. Ever heard of back burning?

Sure, it might be pointless and in a sense hypocritical. Still, these things should be thought about before racism occurs in the first place. Getting rid of such attitudes will not happen over night.
There's nothing wrong with making up for the equality and opportunities people have been denied (and are still being denied) of for so long.
so you think an employer should hire a black man over a white man because the average income or education level of other black people is lower than that for white people? are you suggesting that having black skin is what is responsible for those problems? are you saying that black people need special help, because they aren't as good as white people?

if not, then why not judge that black applicant on his or her personal situation, and do the same for white applicants? there are black people who grow up in nice, safe suburbs (i went to school with many of them) and white people who grew up homeless or in poverty (i stayed at a homeless shelter with many of them), so why should the black suburbanites get special perks when applying to school or for jobs? they didn't have it any harder than white suburbanites, but you're giving them special treatment because other people who look like them are treated poorly.

studies have proven that unattractive people are generally less successful than attractive people. unattractive people get lower paying jobs, are rejected by both lovers and employers more often, and are more likely to suffer from depression. since the unattractive are clearly at a disadvantage, should employers make a point to hire the ugliest applicant? i mean, that ugly person probably has a way harder life than the pretty applicants, so it's only fair that they be given a nice job (even if they aren't really the most qualified person).

Im curious also, has there ever been a case where a company was overrepresented by a minority, and a caucasian was hired over other minority applicants simply because he was white?

You are asking if there was ever a case where a caucasian was hired over a non-caucasian, because of skin colour? Hmmmm, I wonder if that could ever have happened?

sorry what i meant to say is that anyone who looks at someone as being black or white is racist. we are all human nothing more nothing less

you are an idiot

You are asking if there was ever a case where a caucasian was hired over a non-caucasian, because of skin colour? Hmmmm, I wonder if that could ever have happened?
no, read more carefully: he specified that it would have to be a situation where a minority was OVER REPRESENTED in the given company, and a white person was hired to "bring diversity" to the workplace.

you are an idiot
if you couldn't come up with a better way to mock an idiot, then what does that make you? :)

if you couldn't come up with a better way to mock an idiot, then what does that make you? :)

Read carefully. I'm not mocking, I'm calling the poster an idiot. I still believe that the best way to tell someone that they are an idiot is to say "You're an idiot".

no, read more carefully: he specified that it would have to be a situation where a minority was OVER REPRESENTED in the given company, and a white person was hired to "bring diversity" to the workplace.

Show me a company where white people are under-represented and I'll show you long hours and low wages.

Read carefully. I'm not mocking, I'm calling the poster an idiot. I still believe that the best way to tell someone that they are an idiot is to say "You're an idiot".
ahh, so "you are an idiot" wasn't an insult, it was a reasoned judgment of character. please, then, expand on your helpful statement. he will never learn to stop being an idiot if you don't explain what he did wrong, after all.

Show me a company where white people are under-represented and I'll show you long hours and low wages.
so affirmitive action should only be okay for "good" jobs? we should only use affirmitive action for high paying jobs with short hours?

or are you saying that white people never have to work low-paying jobs with long hours? as a white person, i can personally correct that misconception via my personal experience working low-paying jobs with long hours.

so affirmitive action should only be okay for "good" jobs? we should only use affirmitive action for high paying jobs with short hours?

or are you saying that white people never have to work low-paying jobs with long hours? as a white person, i can personally correct that misconception via my personal experience working low-paying jobs with long hours.

I'm saying that in jobs where white people are under-represented, there are on the whole long hours and low pay. I don't think there is any need for affirmative action to get more white people into machine shops in the garment industry.

Unless you think that there are thousands of white people desperate for the opportunity to work 12 hours for minimum wage or less, and all those puerto rican illegals are just hogging their jobs.

Personally I think that's unlikely.

I don't think I've made any statements about when we should use affirmative action, if at all. People who believe that it is a good thing probably think that it is needed when people of a given ethnicity are under represented in places they want to be, rather than just under represented. I don't hear anyone clamouring for affirmative action to get more white people into jail. In that case, I would expect that the more desirable the position (based on things like pay), the more the perceived need for affirmative action.

ahh, so "you are an idiot" wasn't an insult, it was a reasoned judgment of character. please, then, expand on your helpful statement. he will never learn to stop being an idiot if you don't explain what he did wrong, after all.

It certainly was an insult. "Insult" and "mockery" aren't synonymous.

It certainly was an insult. "Insult" and "mockery" aren't synonymous.
funny you should say that...when i look up "synonym" for "insult" using my thesaurus the third item is "mock."

funny you should say that...when i look up "synonym" for "insult" using my thesaurus the third item is "mock."

insult (n) has mockery (n) ? I think not.

Furthermore a thesaurus is not a list of synonyms (words with identical meaning), it is a list of words with similar meanings.

I'm saying that in jobs where white people are under-represented, there are on the whole long hours and low pay. I don't think there is any need for affirmative action to get more white people into machine shops in the garment industry.

why not? there are tons of white people who are unemployed and willing to take ANYTHING, and they aren't being given jobs because it is easier for employers to exploit new imigrants.


Unless you think that there are thousands of white people desperate for the opportunity to work 12 hours for minimum wage or less, and all those puerto rican illegals are just hogging their jobs.

Personally I think that's unlikely.

last i checked, making people work for less than minimum wage was frowned upon. perhaps we should only discuss legitimate businesses here, if we are going to talk about implimentation of affirmitive action; after all, a business that ignores minimum wage laws will probably ignore affirmitive action laws too, so this discussion won't really apply to them.


I don't think I've made any statements about when we should use affirmative action, if at all.


never said you had. you simply responded to the question of if caucasians should ever be the beneficiaries of affirmitive action by stating that the only jobs where whites will be underrepresented would be low paying jobs with long hours. either you a) were answering the question by saying that whites shouldn't be beneficiaries of affirmitive action because they wouldn't want the jobs that would get them, or b) you weren't answering the question at all, and were making an unrelated statement. i don't much mind which it is, but your next statements seem to indicate it is a).

People who believe that it is a good thing probably think that it is needed when people of a given ethnicity are under represented in places they want to be, rather than just under represented. I don't hear anyone clamouring for affirmative action to get more white people into jail.
actually, there are many people clamoring for change in the justice system, a system which is three times as likely to send a black man to jail as it is to send a white man. our system sentences black who kill whites to death row 5 times more often than whites who kill blacks. there are many, many people who clamor for that to change.

of course, nobody simply wants to put more white people in jail, they want to see that all people who deserve to be in jail are there, regardless of skin color. they're more worried about the qualifications for incarceration, if you will :).


In that case, I would expect that the more desirable the position (based on things like pay), the more the perceived need for affirmative action.
i don't see how the need for affirmitive action changes with job quality, though i can see what you are saying about that being the source for PERCEIVED need. if that were actually the case then that would suggest affirmitive action is most important for jobs requiring higher education and advanced skills, when in fact the most pressing need for jobs comes from people who have neither of those; a black man with a Harvard Law degree isn't going to starve if he doesn't get the Associate position at his first pick firm, but a black man with a GED may miss quite a few meals if he can't get his entry level manufacturing job. the fact that the manufacturing job isn't as "desirable" doesn't mean squat.

insult (n) has mockery (n) ? I think not.

Furthermore a thesaurus is not a list of synonyms (words with identical meaning), it is a list of words with similar meanings.
"to insult" has "to mock." stupid english, unconjugated verbs have to be written as two words...:P

EDIT: i also have "mockery" listed under the heading "SYNONYMS" for the noun "insult."

EDIT AGAIN: and dude, the definition of synonym is "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language." a thesaurus is defined by Websters as "a book of synonyms."

i'm male, blue eyes, fair hair. british/spanish
if i'd be born in the US would i be a minority? either for the british or spanish descent?

i'm male, blue eyes, fair hair. british/spanish
if i'd be born in the US would i be a minority? either for the british or spanish descent?
that brings up a good point...while i am fair-skinned and referred to as "white" i am actually part of a small minority: i'm a second-generation Hungarian American. why don't i get affirmitive action protection? does my culture bring less diversity than the dark skin of Americans whose families have lived here for over 6 generations? does my experience with traditional Hungarian culture somehow count for less than the Latino cultures or African cultures that are so popular today?

i don't see how the need for affirmitive action changes with job quality, though i can see what you are saying about that being the source for PERCEIVED need. if that were actually the case then that would suggest affirmitive action is most important for jobs requiring higher education and advanced skills, when in fact the most pressing need for jobs comes from people who have neither of those; a black man with a Harvard Law degree isn't going to starve if he doesn't get the Associate position at his first pick firm, but a black man with a GED may miss quite a few meals if he can't get his entry level manufacturing job. the fact that the manufacturing job isn't as "desirable" doesn't mean squat.

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. Affirmative action is important not just to stop people starving. Slaves on the whole weren't starving before the civil war, but some affirmative action might have been helpful there. If a black man with a harvard law degree can't get hired anywhere, that might go some way to explaining why so many more black folks go to the chair than white ones.

The fact that the manufacturing job is less desirable is pretty important in fact. If nobody wants the job, nobody needs help to get it. And I would like to see your evidence that there a huge numbers of white unemployed in the US desperate for minimum wage minimum condition jobs.

that brings up a good point...while i am fair-skinned and referred to as "white" i am actually part of a small minority: i'm a second-generation Hungarian American. why don't i get affirmitive action protection? does my culture bring less diversity than the dark skin of Americans whose families have lived here for over 6 generations? does my experience with traditional Hungarian culture somehow count for less than the Latino cultures or African cultures that are so popular today?

so you would receive no benefits?

that brings up a good point...while i am fair-skinned and referred to as "white" i am actually part of a small minority: i'm a second-generation Hungarian American. why don't i get affirmitive action protection? does my culture bring less diversity than the dark skin of Americans whose families have lived here for over 6 generations? does my experience with traditional Hungarian culture somehow count for less than the Latino cultures or African cultures that are so popular today?

Do you see yourself as white? Do others?
Do people treat you like a Hungarian or like a white guy?
You ever get the KKK running after you wanting to lynch you?
Do people call you a "paprikaBack" to your face?

"to insult" has "to mock." stupid english, unconjugated verbs have to be written as two words...:P

EDIT: i also have "mockery" listed under the heading "SYNONYMS" for the noun "insult."

EDIT AGAIN: and dude, the definition of synonym is "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language." a thesaurus is defined by Websters as "a book of synonyms."

I'm glad to hear it.

Still, I wasn't mocking the person. I was insulting it. But most of all I was saying to it "You're an idiot".

incidentally, My "American Heritage" Dictionary says
mockery:
Scornfully contemptuous ridicule; derision.
A specific act of ridicule or derision.
An object of scorn or ridicule: made a mockery of the rules.
A false, derisive, or impudent imitation: The trial was a mockery of justice.
Something ludicrously futile or unsuitable: The few packages of food seemed a mockery in the face of such enormous destitution.

insult:
An offensive action or remark.

Medicine. A bodily injury, irritation, or trauma.
Something that causes bodily injury, irritation, or trauma: “the middle of the Bronx, buffeted and poisoned by the worst environmental insults that urban America can dish out” (William K. Stevens).

So that's all that dictionaries know.