NationStates Jolt Archive

As far as Barney goes, he and Tinky Winky were seen comming out of a gay bar, for whatever that's worth. As far as your critique of my spelling skills, or lack thereof, I have two words for you: ksdvs bnurwe! So There! lol!

I must insist on photographic evidence of this event. And I did not comment on your spelling skills, even though they appear to be lacking.

Did anyone notice - FAG active, then "new", "different" troll (JMLP) almost immediately after FAG disappears, then magically FAG is active again when JMLP disappears? Waves of activity from the trolls in the thread. Hmmm... could be coincidence, couldn't it?

Meanwhile, I love how proof that blacks are disadvantaged must be ignored in a thread about how they are advantaged. I love how exposure to affirmative action must be corrected, but continued exposure in a "reverse" way is necessary, which of course would expose new people to affirmative action which would have to be countered and countered and countered.

And most I love that central premise of the whole thing is that black people should be able to overcome racism, prejudice and disadvantage on their own but white people cannot do it without help, which is why affirmative action is wrong but "reverse" affrimative action is necessary. FAG is being kind of racist against white people.

There is an easy way to solve all of those problems about racism and preferential treatment and affirmative action and yadda yadda yadda. It's really quite ingenious.

Ruffy, grab your Lighter of Doom. I've got the Aerosol of Truth. We're going to overflash everybody's optic centers using unique wavelengths of light! Either it will cause every person in the world to see each other in a nice, single shade of robin egg blue, or the entire world will go blind. Both are acceptable. :D

So is reverse reverse racism just plain old fashioned racism then?

The two "reverse" cancel out, so yeah, that's what he's saying - let's all be racist pricks against anyone affirmative action helps (all minorities, and women, and people with disabilities, etc). Sieg Heil.

But it's all founded on the false premise that affirmative action is itself racism.

His entire argument is one long logical fallacy defended by silly anecdotes and conjecture.

Actually, by definition, a policy which favors one race over another is "racist."

So why don't you show me affirmative action laws which explicitly state that one race is "favored" over another. That might be more amusing than your unimaginative claims that you are being discriminated against.

Affirmative action is inherently racist because it places blacks above whites

You sir, just have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows.

you can't honestly debate that it's not.

I'm not going to debate from the point of view of a strawman argument based on a false premise of your own doing, no.

So, is this troll (OP) any good?

Martin Luther King said it pretty succinctly. "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." If Group A spends *centuries* unjustly, unrighteously, wickedly, dispicably subjugating, enslaving, dehumanising and murdering Group B, then it won't be enough to simply discontinue those practices-- they must be compensated for. For there to be justice, there has to be restitution and amends. That's not to say that white people should spend a few hundred years being enslaved and murdered, because if those are practices that we've deemed evil then they shouldn't be revisited in the name of good, even by the wronged against the wrongdoers; two wrongs don't make a right. But restitution and amends still deserve to be made, and if that means a period of being 'disadvantaged' or 'unfavoured,' then unfortunately that's the cost of eventually doing right. It might seem unfair to the former oppressors, but the oppressors should have thought a little harder about fairness and justice and what's right before they spent hundreds of years perpetrating gross indecencies agaisnt their fellow human beings. And it's not like there are *no* jobs for white people, it's a matter of the group that was trampled on for generations being given a boost, because without it they're left with the disadvantageous stigmas-- lack of education, lack of respect (and often self-respect), lack of skills and opportunities-- that were forced upon them. History isn't some dead thing; the past seeds the present. So to correct a wrong it isn't enough to simply, passively stop doing it, you have to actively do penance for it, which entails suffering some discomfort.

And before you make some simplistic, presumptuous noise about me being some angry ethnic with a sense of entitlement, I'm white. I'm whitey-white white. So yeah, under the regime I'm talking about I may end up having to settle for less than a perfect, priviledged life. I might have to work harder than everybody and still get stuck with a job that I'm not crazy about. Poor me. But I still don't have it half as bad as someone being abducted from their family and their homeland and shipped across the ocean in chains and forced to work all day every day doing work from which I derive no benefit (except for maybe less whipping). Give that some thought before you cry about our awful burden. You might say "I never chained anyone up and whipped them and make them work in my fields, why should I pay any price?" Well, if the son inherits none of the father's 'sins' and demerits, then why does he get to inherit the house and the business and all the nice things passed down for generations from those days? The whole system and everything that we, the priviledged, enjoy is built on the toil of others who were exploited and oppressed. Anyone with a sense of right and wrong, regardless of their ethnicity, should understand that if he lives in a world that was handed to him by his dad, who received it from his dad, who received it from his dad, who created it by enslaving other human beings, then the descendants of those people are eventually going to expect someone to pony up, and if it isn't our generation then we pass the buck off onto the next, and if they do the same ad infinitum then no reparations ever get made.


Affirmative action (reverse racism) has instilled a dangerous viewpoint in the American people: that discriminating against certain people on the basis of race is acceptable, as long as the people are minorities and the discrimination is positive in result. This is not much different from the Jim Crow era South, except for the fact that minorities are now favored instead of whites. More damaging still is that maleficent tactics have been employed to force people to conform with this liberal idea; those who refuse to use race as a criterion in making decisions are sometimes deemed "racists" for their position. All over the US, people are being coerced into accepting a revolting idea with basis only in prejudice against whites. The scope of this policy has increased exponentially since its birth; now, politically-correct culture demands that "diversity" be a sought-after goal and companies are scrambling over each other to hire as many minority workers as possible, even though they may not be the most qualified candidates for the job. This imperils our economic and social well-being. Thus, a more radical solution than simply ending affirmative action is necessary; the problem has progressed so far and is so prevalent that blacks will still be favored over whites and Asians despite no legal impetus for such racism.

To revert to a state of equality among all races, we must employ reverse reverse racism (the opposite of affirmative action) for a period of time. That is, whites should be given priority over blacks for certain posts in order to combat the persistent and pervasive favoritism in society which rewards blacks over more meretricious whites. Whites have been deprived of an equal opportunity in many fields simply because of their skin color. They have been marginalized in the haste to promote minorities. The only way to stop this trend is to give them a helping hand in order to bring equality to the playing field. This policy should remain in effect until all traces of the racist tenet that minorities should be given a free ride ahead of whites is eradicated.

If Group A spends *centuries* unjustly, unrighteously, wickedly, dispicably subjugating, enslaving, dehumanising and murdering Group B, then it won't be enough to simply discontinue those practices-- they must be compensated for.

So Group C (the descendants of Group A, who probably disagreed with their views to begin with) must overcompensate for Group D (descendants of Group B, who have not been oppressed by Group C)? Doesn't seem too fair. The whole situation should just be "rebooted", the past and the meaning of "race" nullified, and then people could go on living normally without such silly things as racism.

But as long as there's just _one_ group remembering whatever wrongdoings and bringing them up all the time (racists fall into this category, no matter their "race"), there can never be a "point zero" from which to start anew.

So Group C (the descendants of Group A, who probably disagreed with their views to begin with) must overcompensate for Group D (descendants of Group B, who have not been oppressed by Group C)? Doesn't seem too fair. The whole situation should just be "rebooted", the past and the meaning of "race" nullified, and then people could go on living normally without such silly things as racism.

But as long as there's just _one_ group remembering whatever wrongdoings and bringing them up all the time (racists fall into this category, no matter their "race"), there can never be a "point zero" from which to start anew.

We need some kind of drug induced amnesia

So Group C (the descendants of Group A, who probably disagreed with their views to begin with) must overcompensate for Group D (descendants of Group B, who have not been oppressed by Group C)? Doesn't seem too fair. The whole situation should just be "rebooted", the past and the meaning of "race" nullified, and then people could go on living normally without such silly things as racism.

But as long as there's just _one_ group remembering whatever wrongdoings and bringing them up all the time (racists fall into this category, no matter their "race"), there can never be a "point zero" from which to start anew.

The problem is that Group C still benefits from the actions of Group A and Group D is still disadvantaged due to those actions and the government created by Group A still exists and still is responsible for the actions IT took. You can't just ignore the history of a country because it's inconvenient to you.

The problem is that Group C still benefits from the actions of Group A and Group D is still disadvantaged due to those actions

That's why I said we need the "reboot". And an amnesia inducing drug sounds good... another way would be to require everyone paint their skin green. XD

That's why I said we need the "reboot". And an amnesia inducing drug sounds good... another way would be to require everyone paint their skin green. XD

I prefer some kind of breeding programme that'll effectively put all the races in a blander and mix em all up.



Mainly because I'd probably get laid out of it.

That's a good way of putting it.

The purpose of affirmative action is to reverse racism; the only way to eradicate racism is via affirmative action.

There's never been a state of equality among all races. Whites have always been, and still continue to be priviledged.

Usually I strive to give totally constructive criticism to something that is this bad, but now I shall revert to the reaction of my kinsmen in Scotland and merely proclaim "WHAT A PILE OF SHITE!!!"

How can being racist stop racism? What are you talking about? We need to realise that it is not going to go away over night and the only way to completely eradicate it in a way that everyone is comfortable with the outcome is to completely disregard the topic of race when making decisions. Then and only then, over time, will racism cease to exist. Whilst race is being used as a factor in peoples decision making, it cannot stop being a problem in society.

I prefer some kind of breeding programme that'll effectively put all the races in a blander and mix em all up.
It's not so simple. The different races will continue to exist, even if the majority will be some mixture. IIRC, certain genes tend to be inherited in "packages", so it's perfectly possible to see caucasians, africans etc etc. even after such a programme. If such a programme indeed had the result of creating a bland mixture though, I'd gladly turn celibate.

Affirmative action (reverse racism) has instilled a dangerous viewpoint in the American people: that discriminating against certain people on the basis of race is acceptable, as long as the people are minorities and the discrimination is positive in result. This is not much different from the Jim Crow era South, except for the fact that minorities are now favored instead of whites. More damaging still is that maleficent tactics have been employed to force people to conform with this liberal idea; those who refuse to use race as a criterion in making decisions are sometimes deemed "racists" for their position. All over the US, people are being coerced into accepting a revolting idea with basis only in prejudice against whites. The scope of this policy has increased exponentially since its birth; now, politically-correct culture demands that "diversity" be a sought-after goal and companies are scrambling over each other to hire as many minority workers as possible, even though they may not be the most qualified candidates for the job. This imperils our economic and social well-being. Thus, a more radical solution than simply ending affirmative action is necessary; the problem has progressed so far and is so prevalent that blacks will still be favored over whites and Asians despite no legal impetus for such racism.

To revert to a state of equality among all races, we must employ reverse reverse racism (the opposite of affirmative action) for a period of time. That is, whites should be given priority over blacks for certain posts in order to combat the persistent and pervasive favoritism in society which rewards blacks over more meretricious whites. Whites have been deprived of an equal opportunity in many fields simply because of their skin color. They have been marginalized in the haste to promote minorities. The only way to stop this trend is to give them a helping hand in order to bring equality to the playing field. This policy should remain in effect until all traces of the racist tenet that minorities should be given a free ride ahead of whites is eradicated.

Yes because whites are soooo opressed. :rolleyes:

If such a programme indeed had the result of creating a bland mixture though, I'd gladly turn celibate.

Such a loss for humanity that would be...

If such a programme indeed had the result of creating a bland mixture though, I'd gladly turn celibate.

So it's a win-win situation all round, then. Let the miscegenation begin!

Such a loss for humanity that would be...
Indeed.

So it's a win-win situation all round, then. Let the miscegenation begin!
Except as I just specified above, it does not work that way. :)

Indeed.


Except as I just specified above, it does not work that way. :)

Shush, I'm finally gonna get some :p

Affirmative action (reverse racism) has instilled a dangerous viewpoint in the American people: that discriminating against certain people on the basis of race is acceptable, as long as the people are minorities and the discrimination is positive in result.First, let's clear up some common misconceptions.

1) Most people believe that "discrimination" is inherently wrong, illegal, unconstitutional, what-have-you. They think that as soon as you utter the word, whatever you are attacking is necessarily bad. This is incorrect. "Discrimination" means, quite simply, to make distinctions--in this case, as with most laws, distinctions between classes of people. Some people are treated one way and other people are treated a different way based on some classification.

Now, in the United States we do have this thing called the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees people "equal protection" of State laws, and the Fifth Amendment's "due process" clause has been read to apply the same rule against the federal government. But does "equal" protection mean "no distinctions"? No, it does not. Rather, there are legal rules for determining when "discrimination" actually qualifies as what we call "invidious discrimination" to designate its illegal character.

Most classifications are judged under a test of "rationality," which actually presumes that a classification is valid unless proven otherwise: the burden of proof is on the person claiming discrimination. Such classifications as, say, public universities charging more tuition for out-of-state residents or people paying a higher percentage of income tax depending on their income are upheld under this rule. It requires only that a classification should be "rationally related" (not hard to prove) to a "legitimate government end" (also not hard, especially for the states).

Of course, we have a much harder legal standard for classifications involving race. We call it "strict" scrutiny, and it presumes AGAINST the classification, placing the burden of proof on the state to show that it is not invidious. To pass, a classification must be "necessary" or "narrowly tailored" to "achieve a compelling government interest." Much harder to prove, and this is the reason that quota systems and affirmative action programs placing undue emphasis on race have been consistently ruled unconstitutional.

Thus, if you look at the affirmative action policies practiced by state entities today, you will find that they may ONLY look at race as "one factor among many" when making admissions/hiring decisions. Empirical research has shown that this results in only fully qualified minority applicants making it through the full review process. It is hardly the demon you make it out to be.

2) Of course, this only applies to the government. Non-state entities are free to employ affirmative actions policies unless they violate federal or state laws. While some businesses in the public sector (e.g. government contractors) are legally required to make some show of affirmative action--or at least to prove that they are making an attempt to correct gross racial disparities in their workforce, e.g. hiring only 2% African Americans when 10% of the qualified applicant pool is black. Note that such regulations always refer to the qualified applicant pool. If my construction company operates in an area with 14% African Americans but in which only 10% of qualified construction workers are black, I am required to explain why I don't hire 10% blacks, not why I don't hire 14% blacks.

In a few states, there are actually laws AGAINST affirmative action, but for the most part private corporations operate without any laws specifically requiring or forbidding affirmative action. This is a major misconception: most people still believe that "affirmative action" is some law that forces companies to hire "diverse" staff. The fact of the matter is that a) private corporations ELECT to practice affirmative action because research shows that there are distinct advantages to a diverse workforce; and b) private institutions are actually much freer than states to use aggressive affirmative action policies. They are not held to the constitutional standard.

This is not much different from the Jim Crow era South, except for the fact that minorities are now favored instead of whites.Actually, it's a lot different than Jim Crow. Let's look at a few of the differences:

Under Jim Crow, African Americans had difficulty getting a job or an education ANYWHERE because of their race. They were actively discriminated AGAINST, and the whole idea was to keep them down as a race. Under affirmative action, white Americans do not have, on the whole, any more difficulty finding a job than anyone else (as a matter of fact, it is STILL easier for whites); they are not actively discriminated AGAINST--no one declines to hire a white man because they want to keep white men down.

More damaging still is that maleficent tactics have been employed to force people to conform with this liberal idea; those who refuse to use race as a criterion in making decisions are sometimes deemed "racists" for their position.In my experience, only if they make it evident that they are racists and they espouse their position for racist reasons. While I am pro-affirmative action, I know many intelligent, non-racist people who disagree with me. I know many African Americans who oppose affirmative action; and despite our disagreement I certainly would not call them racist.

All over the US, people are being coerced into accepting a revolting idea with basis only in prejudice against whites.You're going to have to document both the "coercion" and the "prejudice." As already noted, private firms adopt affirmative action policies voluntarily, and I see no "prejudice" against whites. No one thinks, "whites are inferior, therefore I won't hire them." Rather, they think, "There are advantages to a diverse workforce, so when I have the chance I'll try to diversify mine."

The scope of this policy has increased exponentially since its birth; now, politically-correct culture demands that "diversity" be a sought-after goal and companies are scrambling over each other to hire as many minority workers as possible, even though they may not be the most qualified candidates for the job.It's not "politically-correct culture," but workplace research that has declared diversity to be a sought-after goal. More importantly, however, few business-people are foolish enough to believe that diversity is so valuable that it would outweigh the disastrous results of hiring under-qualified candidates for a job.

Does this mean that sometimes the "most" qualified person does not get the job? Yes, but that has always been the case, for a variety of reasons: the person with the most experience or best education may be the kind of asshole you just don't want around the office; he/she may refuse to relocate into the city, so that he/she cannot be on call or prepared to respond to rapidly developing situations; he/she might have other obligations, including family; he/she might not like sports, while 100% participation in the company softball league is considered important for morale.

The fact of the matter is that it is a MYTH that the "most qualified" candidate was EVER guaranteed a job. Employers (and educators) have a thousand concerns other than getting the "most" qualified candidates.

If schools took only the "most qualified" candidates, Harvard and Yale would be populated entirely by pimply nerds. Instead, even the best schools have always wanted a diverse student population with some nerds, some athletes, some poets, some journalists, some politicians, some activists... some people from Kansas, some people from Alaska, some people from Peru...

The fact of the matter is that diversity has ALWAYS been valued. The result of the last fifty years or so is that we've finally added racial and ethnic diversity to the mix.



As a final note, I would like to call into question the idea of "qualification" as it is often (mis)understood with respect to higher education. When claiming discrimination, people often point to disparities in SAT scores or grades: "that black woman got in with a 1300, and I had a 1400, boo-hoo!" But is an SAT score, in itself, a qualification? No. It is an attempt to measure the real qualification, which amounts to intangibles like "likelihood to graduate" or "likelihood to graduate with a 3.0 or better."

Now, in scientific research, we have found a disparity in the predictions of the SAT: in short, an African American with a 1300 is just as likely or more likely to do well in college as a white kid with a 1400. Why? There are a variety of competing explanations, and we have yet to work them out. One likely candidate is that white kids are more likely to take SAT Prep courses like Princeton Review (which often cost $1000 or more), and while these tests "boost" a student's score they DO NOT affect innate intelligence, scholastic aptitude, or work ethic. Thus, white students may score higher without actually being more qualified.

Affirmative action is, in one sense, actually all about qualification: it is about figuring out the complex nature of "qualification" in a world that still favors whiteness with wealth, resources, and opportunities in such a way that the relative success of a minority applicant says a lot more about her/his ability to persevere through adversity than a white applicant.

It is about the fact that "qualifications on paper" need to be interpreted in light of the fact of very different life experiences.

But more importantly, it is our only hope to one day achieve a society that CAN be "color blind" without also being inherently unfair. One day, we won't need affirmative action.

Today we do.

We need to realise that it is not going to go away over night and the only way to completely eradicate it in a way that everyone is comfortable with the outcome is to completely disregard the topic of race when making decisions. Then and only then, over time, will racism cease to exist. Whilst race is being used as a factor in peoples decision making, it cannot stop being a problem in society.And without affirmative action, the whites in power will continue to be racist and promote other whites in power.
The "disregard[ing] the topic of race" won't occur without affirmative action.

Alright, I'm really tired of listening to these people that think Affirmative Action really "hampers their chances of getting good jobs, decent educations, etc." Let's go and talk about some races that were not only socially and civilly repressed, but also economically and politically.

The Native Americans. Yes, remember them? The entire millions of people that America slaughtered, displaced, raped, and otherwise exterminated? Now making up a tiny portion of the population, these people are generally born on reserves that were carved out a long, long, long time ago. They have little to no access to adequate public schools because of government funding to the areas in which they live. They have, therefore, no access to well-paying jobs that most every other citizen can access. Alcoholism, suicide, etc. run rampant because they have absolutely no opportunities. And it's suggested that this is ok? How else is America to rectify the situation of the Native American? Send them flowers and say "Sorry for systematically destroying your culture and values as well as your forefathers"? No, concessions must be made and a tiny majority getting a benefit is not a big deal.

The African Americans. Well, this is a group that is, probably, one of the only minority groups to have not truly been able to integrate. Why? Because, as someone previously mentioned, integration did not end until the early to mid 80's. This means that they've had 20 years and, somehow, they are supposed to catch up to the majority after about, oh say, 350 years of being treated as less than citizens? We're talking about a group of people that were dragged to America and put into chains. We're talking about the only minority group to not come to America willingly. We're talking about a people that no longer have ties to their original home, culture, or values. We're talking about a group of people that are consigned to live in less-than-adequate housing in places of extreme socio-economic segregation. They live in these areas because that was the only place open to them before segregation ended and integration began. Is this to say that not all of them have risen above this situation? Absolutely not.

Let's talk about the college system in the United States. Colleges have been around since not too long after first colonization. Now, rich white people had access to these institutions and they prospered. Cut forward to the 1950s and the GI Bill passed by Congress. This bill was extremely successful in that it created a burgeoning middle-class in suburbia. It gave access to colleges to most families that fought in the war and it gave them great housing prices. However, the African Americans could not serve in the military freely. A disproportionate amount of them were stuck at home and received no benefits from the GI Bill. So, at whom was the GI Bill aimed? White men. It gave preferencial treatment to an entire group of people who had the civil right to serve freely in the military. That seems to be called... Oh, say... Affirmative Action? It's complete Affirmative Action toward the white majority and completely boosted their place in American Society.

So, now we come to the question: what to do now? Well, I think hollistic admissions have a good idea in that, instead of giving preferencial treatment based on race, opportunities are given to those of low socio-economic status and to those from low income areas. Is it color-blind? Absolutely. Does it still address race and access to institutions of higher-education? Absolutely.

In closing: ethnocentrism, prejudices, and other methods of setting one race apart from another are completely vapid. Do not believe for one minute that I can see us living in a color-blind society. I don't see that. But historical wrongs need to be set right and discrimination is not the way to do that.

AnarchyeL, thank you. I was hoping someone like you would post a full closure for the thread, hence prodding it up from death's door. :)

Couldn't have put it better.

(Though I still think we should all paint our skin green... :p)

I must insist on photographic evidence of this event. And I did not comment on your spelling skills, even though they appear to be lacking.

I can supply evidence that Tinky-Winky is gay, but not barney

So, is this troll (OP) any good?

F.A.G? No, he is persistent in his trolling but isn't causing a flame war (then again I skipped about 14 pages).

I prefer some kind of breeding programme that'll effectively put all the races in a blander and mix em all up.

Mainly because I'd probably get laid out of it.

I too want to 'unify' humanity.

Mmmm, losing my virginity...

It's not so simple. The different races will continue to exist, even if the majority will be some mixture. IIRC, certain genes tend to be inherited in "packages", so it's perfectly possible to see caucasians, africans etc etc. even after such a programme. If such a programme indeed had the result of creating a bland mixture though, I'd gladly turn celibate.

The main purpose would be that everyone has a common background and the species as a whole has the maximum amount of genetic diversity. You don't have to lose much due to increases in technology that can offset some bad phenotypes (really bad ones, such as tay-sachs disease would be eradicated if the heterogenous version is not beneficial).

The main purpose would be that everyone has a common background and the species as a whole has the maximum amount of genetic diversity. You don't have to lose much due to increases in technology that can offset some bad phenotypes (really bad ones, such as tay-sachs disease would be eradicated if the heterogenous version is not beneficial).
I would be against a forced breeding programme whatever its intended results, but my point was simply that such a form of blending will not reduce everything to one mix - certain common phenotypes will continue to exist.

Be patient. Your kids are working on blending the races enough that race won't be an issue. I'm tri-racial myself...leaning to the white look.

But I do have certain issues.

Why do colleges, who have never seen you, never heard from you before, and are looking at a stellar academic record, need to know your race?

I thought merit was supposed to be the deciding factor? (Don't get me started on legacy children.) If a school is looking for the best and brightest, who cares what they look like? Same goes for hiring. I don't care what you look like, can you think on your feet and are you going to get the job done?

I think the whole race thing is a red herring used to keep control of the lower half of the population. Invented to keep poor whites and slaves from finding common cause to take a shotgun to the head of a lazy plantation owner. It's a good way to divvy up votes today. Poor whites are just as poor as poor blacks. I know. I've been poor.

Mercure;12782454']I thought merit was supposed to be the deciding factor?

nah, nor should we want it to be, considering what we know about the social determinants of 'merit'

Affirmative action (reverse racism) has instilled a dangerous viewpoint in the American people: that discriminating against certain people on the basis of race is acceptable, as long as the people are minorities and the discrimination is positive in result. This is not much different from the Jim Crow era South, except for the fact that minorities are now favored instead of whites. More damaging still is that maleficent tactics have been employed to force people to conform with this liberal idea; those who refuse to use race as a criterion in making decisions are sometimes deemed "racists" for their position. All over the US, people are being coerced into accepting a revolting idea with basis only in prejudice against whites. The scope of this policy has increased exponentially since its birth; now, politically-correct culture demands that "diversity" be a sought-after goal and companies are scrambling over each other to hire as many minority workers as possible, even though they may not be the most qualified candidates for the job. This imperils our economic and social well-being. Thus, a more radical solution than simply ending affirmative action is necessary; the problem has progressed so far and is so prevalent that blacks will still be favored over whites and Asians despite no legal impetus for such racism.

To revert to a state of equality among all races, we must employ reverse reverse racism (the opposite of affirmative action) for a period of time. That is, whites should be given priority over blacks for certain posts in order to combat the persistent and pervasive favoritism in society which rewards blacks over more meretricious whites. Whites have been deprived of an equal opportunity in many fields simply because of their skin color. They have been marginalized in the haste to promote minorities. The only way to stop this trend is to give them a helping hand in order to bring equality to the playing field. This policy should remain in effect until all traces of the racist tenet that minorities should be given a free ride ahead of whites is eradicated.

Too true :(

Too true :(

Well, with such an extensive argument it's difficult to combat

Does it occur to you that someone just made up a fake argument that was meant to be ludicrous and you just agreed whole-heartedly. Consider that for a moment.

Well, with such an extensive argument it's difficult to combat

Does it occur to you that someone just made up a fake argument that was meant to be ludicrous and you just agreed whole-heartedly. Consider that for a moment.

Maybe the same people who believe there to be a muslim/arab hivemind fail to realize that there is a corresponding bigot hivemind.

Maybe the same people who believe there to be a muslim/arab hivemind fail to realize that there is a corresponding bigot hivemind.

Don't you see it? The liberals have made it so minorities get more rights than the common man and anyone who disagrees with anything the liberals say about these minorites gets labelled a bigot. Heck anyone who disagrees with liberalism is labelled a bigot. Anyone who says anything slightly "homophobic" whether meant for offense or not is labelled "homophobe". Anyone who says that minorities are getting more rights than the common man are autmatically labelled racist or bigot. Thanks for proving my point.

In conclusion liberals have a hive mind and thats who the zerg politically represeent in StarCraft. They infest everyone using cheap tactics and then make everyone think the same and carry out the will of the swarm.

Don't you see it? The liberals have made it so minorities get more rights than the common man *screeeeech*

By which you mean, the common WASP. Thanks but no thanks, kiddo. Go cry pity to someone else. Possibly someone crazy enough to believe you.

By which you mean, the common WASP. Thanks but no thanks, kiddo. Go cry pity to someone else. Possibly someone crazy enough to believe you.

People I knew said "that was so gay" as in "that's retarded" and got severe punishment for being homophobic even though it was obvious what they meant. Someone wearing a "Straight and proud of it, freedom of speech" got arrested. Some freedom of speech. And people are being expelled for wearing Christian t-shirts yet other religious t-shirts are aloud. So go ahead, pretend I'm crazy you liberal bigot! You lefties screech about equality but when it's in reach you show your true colors.

Don't you see it? The liberals have made it so minorities get more rights than the common man and anyone who disagrees with anything the liberals say about these minorites gets labelled a bigot. Heck anyone who disagrees with liberalism is labelled a bigot. Anyone who says anything slightly "homophobic" whether meant for offense or not is labelled "homophobe". Anyone who says that minorities are getting more rights than the common man are autmatically labelled racist or bigot. Thanks for proving my point.

In conclusion liberals have a hive mind and thats who the zerg politically represeent in StarCraft. They infest everyone using cheap tactics and then make everyone think the same and carry out the will of the swarm.

http://simpsonovi.comics.cz/media/Obrazky/WALL/images/PARANOID.JPG

I would be against a forced breeding programme whatever its intended results, but my point was simply that such a form of blending will not reduce everything to one mix - certain common phenotypes will continue to exist.

*Imagines a breeding farm* That isn't right...

I'd prefer it more like a social project where it is preferable to breed with someone who does not share your traits. That way you could also stop ethnic groups reforming.

The fact that some people may gain a series of traits that makes them similar to a former ethnic group doesn't matter so long as they breed with dissimilar people.

It can also be about giving the whole species a new start and common origin. Then comes the economic redistribution...

Mwuhahaha?

People I knew said "that was so gay" as in "that's retarded" and got severe punishment for being homophobic even though it was obvious what they meant. Someone wearing a "Straight and proud of it, freedom of speech" got arrested. Some freedom of speech. And people are being expelled for wearing Christian t-shirts yet other religious t-shirts are aloud. So go ahead, pretend I'm crazy you liberal bigot! You lefties screech about equality but when it's in reach you show your true colors.

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/86.jpg

People I knew said "that was so gay" as in "that's retarded" and got severe punishment for being homophobic even though it was obvious what they meant. Someone wearing a "Straight and proud of it, freedom of speech" got arrested. Some freedom of speech. And people are being expelled for wearing Christian t-shirts yet other religious t-shirts are aloud. So go ahead, pretend I'm crazy you liberal bigot! You lefties screech about equality but when it's in reach you show your true colors.

And what in the bloody fuck does that have to do with affirmative action? And do you have any proof of any of those rather specious claims?

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/86.jpg

:fluffle:

And without affirmative action, the whites in power will continue to be racist and promote other whites in power.
The "disregard[ing] the topic of race" won't occur without affirmative action.

Prove it.

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/86.jpg

I love that picture.

And what in the bloody fuck does that have to do with affirmative action? And do you have any proof of any of those rather specious claims?

1) I agreed with FreedomandGlory about the minorities getting more rights than the common man and how they're begining to be oppressed by being constantly accused for hate crime whether guilty or not

2) Go to Americqa and weep for humanity and democracy :(

Prove it.

it happens now. see any of the numerous studies that have ever been done on the subject.

1) I agreed with FreedomandGlory about the minorities getting more rights than the common man and how they're begining to be oppressed by being constantly accused for hate crime whether guilty or not

2) Go to Americqa and weep for humanity and democracy :(

Could you please list these privileges we minorities seem to have? I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble believing you.

Could you please list these privileges we minorities seem to have? I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble believing you.

The privilege of being allowed to live in this country even though most of you dont care about are laws and history.
The privilege of being tolerated even though your a burden to the middle class , the middle working class that keep this country balanced is over taxed do to welfare,crime, & so on. *minorities*
The privilege of affirmative action


Im too tired to keep typing but i think you can get where I'm coming from.:upyours:

The minorities & corporate elite are whats going to destroy this country

:eek: :mp5:

The privilege of being allowed to live in my country. Excuse me? Whose country? I assume you are from the US, no? I think my brothers and sisters would have something to say about you claiming their lands as your own.

Not to mention the blacks have been there for as long as 'your' people have. If you want to claim it 'your' country then they surely deserve to be included.
The privilege of being tolerated even though your a burden to the middle class that holds this country up on its feet.
The privilege of affirmative action Troll a little harder, puppet-boy.

Could you please list these privileges we minorities seem to have? I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble believing you.

They get to do more and if we object we get charged for hate crime.

The privilege of being allowed to live in my country.
The privilege of being tolerated even though your a burden to the middle class that holds this country up on its feet.
The privilege of affirmative action


Im too tired to keep typing but i think you can get where I'm coming from.:upyours:

The minorities & corporate elite are whats going to destroy this country

:eek: :mp5:

hmmm...I think i'll just ignore you from here on out...and wait for South Lizasauria to respond...

They get to do more and if we object we get charged for hate crime.

You fail at making lists.

You also fail at understanding what a hate crime is, and most likely you also fail at knowing whether or not there is even hate crime legislation in your jurisdiction.

They get to do more and if we object we get charged for hate crime.

You apparently object ... yet are not charged with a hate crime who would have thunk ... seems you proved yourself wrong there

They get to do more and if we object we get charged for hate crime.

Do we now? What more do we get? Be specific.

And hate crimes are applied to people who commit crime because of race, religion, sex, etc.

The privilege of being allowed to live in this country even though most of you dont care about are laws and history.
The privilege of being tolerated even though your a burden to the middle class , the middle working class that keep this country balanced is over taxed do to welfare,crime, & so on. *minorities*
The privilege of affirmative action


Im too tired to keep typing but i think you can get where I'm coming from.:upyours:

The minorities & corporate elite are whats going to destroy this country

:eek: :mp5:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/No-Troll.png/150px-No-Troll.png

You mean, the only way to eradicate racism is through more racism? Really? Do you also believe that the cure for obesity is over-indulgence in food?

That's one way to cure obesity. It's slow, but it gets there. ;)

Heck anyone who disagrees with liberalism is labelled a bigot.This is a strange accusation for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it's not at all clear exactly what you mean by "liberalism"--and I get the distinct impression that's because even you don't really know.

Anyone who says anything slightly "homophobic" whether meant for offense or not is labelled "homophobe".Hmm... I take it you're having trouble figuring out why people look at you funny when you say things like "faggot"? Next time, before you get your fur all in a bunch because no one understand you, take a moment to think about how the words actually sound coming out of your mouth.

Anyone who says that minorities are getting more rights than the common man are autmatically labelled racist or bigot.Well, I might have to give you this one: anyone who says that minorities are getting more rights than the "common man" without specifying these "rights" or offering any kind of argument whatsoever... well, yeah. That strikes me as kinda bigoted.

The privilege of being allowed to live in this country even though most of you dont care about are laws and history.
The privilege of being tolerated even though your a burden to the middle class , the middle working class that keep this country balanced is over taxed do to welfare,crime, & so on. *minorities*
The privilege of affirmative action


Im too tired to keep typing but i think you can get where I'm coming from.:upyours:

The minorities & corporate elite are whats going to destroy this country

:eek: :mp5:

lmao, History was actually my strong point in highschool. Nothing under a B:).
And the rest of it...well the rest I just don't care about.

lmao, History was actually my strong point in highschool. Nothing under a B:).
And the rest of it...well the rest I just don't care about.


And thats exactly why you and so many other shouldnt be here. :headbang:

And thats exactly why you and so many other shouldnt be here. :headbang:

Ah, I shouldn't be here because I never got a B in History?:p

And thats exactly why you and so many other shouldnt be here. :headbang:

What tribes first occupied the lands you now live on?

People I knew said "that was so gay" as in "that's retarded" and got severe punishment for being homophobic even though it was obvious what they meant.Unfortunately, "people I knew" rarely makes for a convincing argument, especially when you are trying to claim a cultural conspiracy so vast its advocates should be compared to video game monsters.

At any rate, I would want to know what "severe punishment" is (not to mention the actual context of the statements) before making a judgment as to the justice of the scenario.

Someone wearing a "Straight and proud of it, freedom of speech" got arrested.Arrested? ARRESTED?! I'm sorry, but unless you can provide a link to the news story or arrest report, I'm going to have to call BULLSHIT on this one.

Even if it did really happen, the case would get laughed out of court. Unless, of course, your friend was doing something else, too...

And people are being expelled for wearing Christian t-shirts yet other religious t-shirts are aloud.BULLSHIT ALERT x2. Unless you can provide documentation, of course. Then we'll judge based on the facts.

The privilege of being allowed to live in this country even though most of you dont care about are laws and history.

The country's history? You mean the history of their people being oppressed, enslaved, or slaughtered? :rolleyes:

They get to do more and if we object we get charged for hate crime.

Firstly, is EpicPandemic a puppet of yours? I'm not assuming he is, just asking.

Secondly, what rights do we minorities get that whites don't?

Ah, I shouldn't be here because I never got a B in History?:p

No history buffs. They tend to bring an unreasonable amount of intelligence and tolerence to a forum. :D

*snip* Don't expect facts, sources, or anything of substance from SL. He's just not up to it.

The privilege of being allowed to live in this country even though most of you dont care about are laws and history.Interestingly, immigrants score higher on knowledge test of American history and constitutional law than most Americans, so this claim doesn't even make any sense.

The privilege of being tolerated even though your a burden to the middle class , the middle working class that keep this country balanced is over taxed do to welfare,crime, & so on. *minorities*Does this even merit a response? It's common knowledge that the red state poor Christian whites are a larger drain on the federal income tax than anyone else: blue states, with all their urban populations, give... red states take away.

Urban welfare in the big cities, of course, is primarily funded by state sales taxes--and it would be hard to argue that the middle class is hit harder by that than the poorest people, since the sales tax is regressive by nature.

Arrested? ARRESTED?! I'm sorry, but unless you can provide a link to the news story or arrest report, I'm going to have to call BULLSHIT on this one.

Even if it did really happen, the case would get laughed out of court. Unless, of course, your friend was doing something else, too...


He probably took a swing at a cop. Then it turned out he was wearing the t-shirt under his sweater.

He's just not up to it.Sounds like a personal problem. Any way I can link him to my spam folder? ;)

Arrested? ARRESTED?! I'm sorry, but unless you can provide a link to the news story or arrest report, I'm going to have to call BULLSHIT on this one.

Even if it did really happen, the case would get laughed out of court. Unless, of course, your friend was doing something else, too...

BULLSHIT ALERT x2. Unless you can provide documentation, of course. Then we'll judge based on the facts.

Only thing I could find.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1827644/posts

Only thing I could find.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1827644/posts

"Our challenge is to balance two fundamental rights that, in this case, are conflicting with each other," he said. "Schools have a legal responsibility to protect all of our students from being placed in an atmosphere of fear or intimidation. We also recognize our students’ right to free expression.

"I support our students’ desire to debate complex and even controversial issues, but that conversation must take place without disrupting the educational environment, singling out a specific group of students, or creating an atmosphere of fear for anyone. This applies to students on both sides of a debate," he wrote.

Who is intimidated or made fearful by a T-shirt saying, 'I'm gay'?

No one. No one sane that is.

Who is intimated by T-shirt proclaiming the evil of homosexuality, the fact that homosexuals will go to hell etc, etc, etc?

Exactly. Balancing rights, and in this case, the ones claiming to be oppressed are the ones fostering intimidation in the name of religious bigotry. Freedom of speech is never absolute.

Oh, but notice, SL...that link still doesn't back up your claim that someone was arrested for wearing an anti-gay shirt.

Sounds like a personal problem. Any way I can link him to my spam folder? ;)

I wish.

Who is intimidated or made fearful by a T-shirt saying, 'I'm gay'?

No one. No one sane that is.

What if the t-shirt was holding a knife? :p

EDIT: Oh, wait. If the t-shirt is holding a knife, then the person viewing the shirt is probably insane, on hallucinogens, or deprived of sleep. Or any combination of the above. Whatever.

Only thing I could find.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1827644/posts
Interestingly, a simple Google search produces page upon page of stories about the incident.

Your link is, however, the "only thing I could find"... as blatantly biased as your own opinions. Interesting indeed.

For those who don't feel like reading it all, here's the rundown:

1) Many students favoring basic rights for homosexuals observed a national Day of Silence.
2) Anti-gay Christian conservatives wore T-shirts proclaiming that homosexuals will go to hell.
3) The principal made a judgment call to the effect that the T-shirts created a hostile environment and disrupted the learning process--the kind of decision that has been upheld again and again by the Supreme Court, and more often against liberal student activists than against conservatives.
4) Many of the students were suspended; after a protest, the principal very reasonably negotiated with parents, and the punishments were expunged from their records.
5) Conservatives spin the story as if the principal has horns on his heads and holds orgies in his back yard.

INCIDENTALLY, NO ONE WAS ARRESTED.

Can I just jump the gun and start up Anti-Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism? ;)

It's threads like this that make me decide to go play video games instead of posting. See ya'll.

Interestingly, a simple Google search produces page upon page of stories about the incident.

Your link is, however, the "only thing I could find"... as blatantly biased as your own opinions. Interesting indeed.


Wow you gleaned all that from 5 words and a link.

You like making assumptions don't you?

you're wrong, just thought I'd tell you that. White should not be given priority over blacks, Blacks should not be given priority over whites, who ever is qualified for the job should be given priority over who is less qualified for the job. race should be totally left out of the equation

you're wrong, just thought I'd tell you that. White should not be given priority over blacks, Blacks should not be given priority over whites, who ever is qualified for the job should be given priority over who is less qualified for the job. race should be totally left out of the equation

You win the thread. :)

You win the thread. :)

You going to back up any of the statements you made earlier?

No, wait, stupid question.

Of course you won't. You don't back anything up with facts.

You going to back up any of the statements you made earlier?

No, wait, stupid question.

Of course you won't. You don't back anything up with facts.

My point was, the minority is becoming the priority to the commoner when the whole point of the equal rights movement was to *gasp* create equality! Thus commoners and minorities should be equal and their rank in society should be purely based on merit. That was the whole point I was trying to make, that liberals were just making the minority the superior and trying to make the commoner and non-liberal insuperior which creates inequality and defeats the purpose of the equal rights movement.

People I knew said "that was so gay" as in "that's retarded" and got severe punishment for being homophobic even though it was obvious what they meant.
The fact that you can't see that using the word, "gay" in place of "retarded" is in fact homophobic speaks volumes about your understanding of minorities.

Think of it this way: If people started using "South Lizasauria" (or better yet your full real name) to mean "a dumb retard speaking out of his butt" would you not feel the slightest bit agrieved that people were putting you down personally?

yes?

Then how do you think a gay man feels everytime he hears himself (or rather the minority he most identifies and associates with) being used to mean "retarded" or "shit"?

you're wrong, just thought I'd tell you that. White should not be given priority over blacks, Blacks should not be given priority over whites, who ever is qualified for the job should be given priority over who is less qualified for the job. race should be totally left out of the equation

Agreed.

Don't you see it? The liberals have made it so minorities get more rights than the common man and anyone who disagrees with anything the liberals say about these minorites gets labelled a bigot. [...] Anyone who says that minorities are getting more rights than the common man are autmatically labelled racist or bigot. Thanks for proving my point.

Pray tell: who exactly is this noble, upstanding, oppressed "common man" you keep referring to? Can you identify him? Can you tell us anything about him, other than that he's presumably a white, upper- or middle-class, straight protestant male who got to where he was in the 'good old days' by oppressing non-whites, the lower-class, non-straights, non-protestants and women? Because if that's the guy you're talking about, bitch still owes all of those groups for the centuries of slavery, exploitation, gay-bashing and misogyny that he perpetrated. He hasn't paid all of his debt yet because society *still* manifests-- hell, still revolves around and advantages him for-- his legacy of abuse. Oh, he *feels* so terribly hard done-by, so oppressed and bereaved, but that's because he's being pulled down off the pedastal he stole and forced to share the pie equally with everyone who was forced to bake it for him, and he hates the thought of being made to share if it means he loses one bit of his priviledge. So get over your self-pity and take a look at history-- at how your "common man" racked up his debts, and at whether he's really experienced a fraction of the hardships he's inflicted. There will never be peace without justice.

Affirmative action.

"Reverse racism" is, for the most part, a fantasy of the privileged--at least insofar as it is supposed to have some sort of substantive effect.

I read through all of this hoping for something of substance to reply to. It seems like all the bigots are just cheerleading. The only links were ones linking to hate speech that was disallowed in school and THAT is the best they could do to link to "arrests" and the other nonsense in these claims.

For the most part the only posts of substance are by peoiple I agree with literally begging for evidence from the other side. How boring. Let me know when someone shows up with some evidence that actually requires an effort to debunk.

I'm with you, Joc.

I don't know what's been going on lately, but we've had a flood of whine threads by white/male/heterosexual/Christians who are feeling oppressed. Um, boo hoo?

So far, I've yet to see any evidence for any oppression on any of the threads. There's been a lot of complaining about how people who, historically, have enjoyed completely unearned perks are now expected to actually be equal to everybody else, and how we're all supposed to feel their pain. Somehow I'm having trouble sympathizing.

I'm with you, Joc.

I don't know what's been going on lately, but we've had a flood of whine threads by white/male/heterosexual/Christians who are feeling oppressed. Um, boo hoo?

So far, I've yet to see any evidence for any oppression on any of the threads. There's been a lot of complaining about how people who, historically, have enjoyed completely unearned perks are now expected to actually be equal to everybody else, and how we're all supposed to feel their pain. Somehow I'm having trouble sympathizing.

I have a feeling I know why
I built an application to go through the first (specified) number of pages (I specified 100 pages) and do a count for a specified user and give me a count.

RO created over a hundred threads in the last hundred pages ... most of them clustered to the more recent (I will re run it to get my numbers down but it takes like 20 minuits to run)...

(Edit: 108 in the last 100 pages of general)

I'm with you, Joc.

I don't know what's been going on lately, but we've had a flood of whine threads by white/male/heterosexual/Christians who are feeling oppressed. Um, boo hoo?

So far, I've yet to see any evidence for any oppression on any of the threads. There's been a lot of complaining about how people who, historically, have enjoyed completely unearned perks are now expected to actually be equal to everybody else, and how we're all supposed to feel their pain. Somehow I'm having trouble sympathizing.

I'm white, male, heterosexual and Christian and, oddly, I don't feel disadvantaged at all. In fact, it kind of feels like I've never been denied a job or any rights because of my skin, ethnicity, sexual preferences or religion. It kind of feels like the only time I've disadvantaged because of who I am it was because of age (a kind of descrimination that would be impossible to stop in my industry). It kind of feels like I walked into some places that offer me work immediately simply because of my looks.

Oh, wait, we're supposed to be bitching. Damn women and minorities keeping me down. How dare you ask for you piece of the pie? You awfu, awful people.

EDIT: Incidentally, since minority women are often quite attractive and I'm single, can y'all agree to sleep with me even if my beliefs regarding you are ridiculous and hateful. Thank you for your time.

I'm white, male, heterosexual and Christian and, oddly, I don't feel disadvantaged at all. In fact, it kind of feels like I've never been denied a job or any rights because of my skin, ethnicity, sexual preferences or religion. It kind of feels like the only time I've disadvantaged because of who I am it was because of age (a kind of descrimination that would be impossible to stop in my industry). It kind of feels like I walked into some places that offer me work immediately simply because of my looks.

Oh, wait, we're supposed to be bitching. Damn women and minorities keeping me down. How dare you ask for you piece of the pie? You awfu, awful people.

What I find funny is that so many white, heterosexual, Christian males attribute their PERSONAL difficulties to "racism" or "sexism" or whathaveyou.

It is absolutely possible for a white, male, heterosexual Christian to encounter a jackass in real life, and to endure mean treatment at the hands of somebody who is being a jerk. It's quite possible for a white, male, heterosexual Christian to be turned down for a promotion, or to be denied a particular job, or to encounter any of a variety of difficulties in life.

These things can happen to anybody. Being a white, male, heterosexual Christian doesn't magically protect you from all misfortune.

But, frankly, in the Western world today it is stupid to assume that because you, personally, experience misfortune this constitutes evidence for your status as Member Of An Oppressed Class.

That seems to be what most of these threads are bitching about, actually: the fact that being a white, male, heterosexual Christian no longer guarantees as much of an edge in life.

I have trouble seeing the benefits of affirmative action. They say it increases racial equality, but all I see it doing is stiring up more hatred.

I have trouble seeing the benefits of affirmative action. They say it increases racial equality, but all I see it doing is stiring up more hatred.
The fact that I have a job right now "stirs up hatred" among some people. So does the fact that I make as much money as the guys who have the same job title as me.

Forgive me, but I happen to see certain benefits to being able to work, even if it makes some people feel hateful.

And, of course, the kind of people who feel hate because of affirmative action are generally the kind of people I enjoy pissing off anyhow. ;)

The fact that I have a job right now "stirs up hatred" among some people. So does the fact that I make as much money as the guys who have the same job title as me.

Forgive me, but I happen to see certain benefits to being able to work, even if it makes some people feel hateful.

And, of course, the kind of people who feel hate because of affirmative action are generally the kind of people I enjoy pissing off anyhow. ;)

But in your case it was hatred for an individual, but affirmative action is having the reverse effect as to what it is suppost to be doing. It's only making more people racist, or at least prejudiced against black workmen. If it isn't working, then there is no reason for a company to use race as a factor when employing people.

What I find funny is that so many white, heterosexual, Christian males attribute their PERSONAL difficulties to "racism" or "sexism" or whathaveyou.

It is absolutely possible for a white, male, heterosexual Christian to encounter a jackass in real life, and to endure mean treatment at the hands of somebody who is being a jerk. It's quite possible for a white, male, heterosexual Christian to be turned down for a promotion, or to be denied a particular job, or to encounter any of a variety of difficulties in life.

These things can happen to anybody. Being a white, male, heterosexual Christian doesn't magically protect you from all misfortune.

But, frankly, in the Western world today it is stupid to assume that because you, personally, experience misfortune this constitutes evidence for your status as Member Of An Oppressed Class.

That seems to be what most of these threads are bitching about, actually: the fact that being a white, male, heterosexual Christian no longer guarantees as much of an edge in life.


I don't agree. I think the big worry is that someone else might get an edge when not every white, Christian male gets it first. Personally, as long as I'm not being denied access to college, to jobs, to food, to shelter, etc., I don't care if other individuals get access to those things a little easier than me. The classically disadvantaged can get a hand out when they need it or deserve it and I don't really care.

I don't need a hand out as badly as someone from the inner city. I simply don't. To complain about that would be nonsensical.

I do think there are kinds of oppression that men experience like the current status of custody issues, for example. However, the complaints they have aren't addressing these issues. They aren't even related to these issues. Issues such as those are being addressed.

But in your case it was hatred for an individual, but affirmative action is having the reverse effect as to what it is suppost to be doing. It's only making more people racist, or at least prejudiced against black workmen. If it isn't working, then there is no reason for a company to use race as a factor when employing people.

Evidence? It's giving already prejudiced people an excuse. Nothing more. Pretending as if racism is worse because of it is absurd and unsupported.

Evidence? It's giving already prejudiced people an excuse. Nothing more. Pretending as if racism is worse because of it is absurd and unsupported.

It's not absurd. If you look at the media, or even just people you know, you will see that there will be a handful of people, who would otherwise not be racist, less trusting in a black doctor for example. If it wasn't stiring up racial hatred then why is it such a huge issue in the media, why are most people against it? Why don't you provide support that it actually has fixed anything.

But in your case it was hatred for an individual,

No, it's not. It's hatred for women. The people I was talking about don't hate me for being me, the individual, they hate that I'm female and working outside the home, or female and making as much money as a male.


but affirmative action is having the reverse effect as to what it is suppost to be doing.

You're assuming that the intended effect of affirmative action is to make people stop having racist feelings. I don't agree.

I think the point of affirmative action was to provide things like enforced job access equality DESPITE people's racist feelings.


It's only making more people racist, or at least prejudiced against black workmen. If it isn't working, then there is no reason for a company to use race as a factor when employing people.
If by "not working" you mean "not making white males feel happy and nice," okay. But it's working just fine if you're trying to make sure that minorities and women receive better jobs and better pay.

Personally, I don't particularly care if a racist/sexist person is angry and hateful. All I care about is that they are legally barred from using their racism/sexism to deny me equal access to employment, education, etc. They can feel angry and hateful all they want, and I'll go cash my equal paycheck and laugh all the way to the bank.

It's not absurd. If you look at the media, or even just people you know, you will see that there will be a handful of people, who would otherwise not be racist, less trusting in a black doctor for example. If it wasn't stiring up racial hatred then why is it such a huge issue in the media, why are most people against it? Why don't you provide support that it actually has fixed anything.

You're starting with conclusion in hand. How do I know they would otherwise not be racist? I know for absolute certain they would otherwise be irrational because your claim is not rational. Because some people might get a job because of their skin color doesn't mean this doctor did.

Meanwhile, I assure that incompetent doctors are not being created because they are black. If you believe so then you're problem isn't AA, it's that you don't understand what it is.

I love how now I have to provide evidence (evidence incidentally provided in this thread in huge doses) because you've giving your anecdotal evidence for your claims. Provide evidence for your claims or admit they're absurd. Failure to do the former, whether you like it or not, is doing the latter.

No, it's not. It's hatred for women. The people I was talking about don't hate me for being me, the individual, they hate that I'm female and working outside the home, or female and making as much money as a male.


Ok, but I still don't see what it has to do with affirmative action.


You're assuming that the intended effect of affirmative action is to make people stop having racist feelings. I don't agree.


No, i'm saying it's to promote racial equality in the work place. That exact phrase has been used many times by advocates.


I think the point of affirmative action was to provide things like enforced job access equality DESPITE people's racist feelings.


You don't need affirmative action for that. That does not make job access equal, as it gives minorities priority for the job. A better way to have job access equality is to higher non racist employees.


If by "not working" you mean "not making white males feel happy and nice," okay. But it's working just fine if you're trying to make sure that minorities and women receive better jobs and better pay.


Not really, look at The Cat Tribes thread about this.


Personally, I don't particularly care if a racist/sexist person is angry and hateful. All I care about is that they are legally barred from using their racism/sexism to deny me equal access to employment

Exactly, have that INSTEAD of affirmative action.

Ok, but I still don't see what it has to do with affirmative action.



No, i'm saying it's to promote racial equality in the work place. That exact phrase has been used many times by advocates.



You don't need affirmative action for that. That does not make job access equal, as it gives minorities priority for the job. A better way to have job access equality is to higher non racist employees.



Not really, look at The Cat Tribes thread about this.



Exactly, have that INSTEAD of affirmative action.

Man, I don't think that there's a sentence there not based on some form of misunderstanding. TCT's thread is showing that it's not done, not that it's not working. The difference is not subtle.

Affirmative action is precisely what creates equal access to employment and it's made much progress over the years, something shown repeatedly by TCT. It's not done. That's not the same as not effective.

You're starting with conclusion in hand. How do I know they would otherwise not be racist? I know for absolute certain they would otherwise be irrational because your claim is not rational. Because some people might get a job because of their skin color doesn't mean this doctor did.


Because I have seen many people from experience be manipulating into believing that "black people are taking our jobs"... "if your doctor is black he's probably there because of affirmative action" etc... And even if they were racist before, it's giving the racist manipulators more things to reinforce their ideas.


Meanwhile, I assure that incompetent doctors are not being created because they are black. If you believe so then you're problem isn't AA, it's that you don't understand what it is.


I never said that, i'm saying that some people think that however.


I love how now I have to provide evidence (evidence incidentally provided in this thread in huge doses) because you've giving your anecdotal evidence for your claims. Provide evidence for your claims or admit they're absurd. Failure to do the former, whether you like it or not, is doing the latter.

This sort of thing can't be supported by synthetic evidence. You can't measure racism. But it can be supported logically, from things like massive hype in the media.

Because I have seen many people from experience be manipulating into believing that "black people are taking our jobs"... "if your doctor is black he's probably there because of affirmative action" etc... And even if they were racist before, it's giving the racist manipulators more things to reinforce their ideas.



I never said that, i'm saying that some people think that however.



This sort of thing can't be supported by synthetic evidence. You can't measure racism. But it can be supported logically, from things like massive hype in the media.
Yet, you aren't. You're making claims with no evidence, not even logical support. The fact that racists will cling to anything to make their claims seem rational doesn't give me reason to think that means that AA is a bad thing or that it's causing racism. No more than I think seperation of Church and State is the reason that so many Christians (not all) are up in arms. They've always been up in arms, the seperation of Church and State is just their new excuse for the same other thing.

It can be certainly shown that access to jobs and financially inequality have improved since affirmative action. As such, unless you have some ACTUAL evidence for your claims, claiming them is not logical, it's the opposite.

Man, I don't think that there's a sentence there not based on some form of misunderstanding. TCT's thread is showing that it's not done

But it is being done. All over america AFAIK. But I can't really speak for the USA, only england.


Affirmative action is precisely what creates equal access to employment and it's made much progress over the years, something shown repeatedly by TCT. It's not done. That's not the same as not effective.

Again, it may have succeeded in the action it's trying to do (i.e. put more minorities in the work place), but there is a reason for doing this, and this reason is to promote social equality. And i'm saying that hasn't worked.

Racism itself interferes with the free market.


Actually, no.

A racist would have to pay a price if he doesn't want to, say, employ a black person - he'll have a smaller pool of employees to choose from. Which is why a lot of unions at the start of the last century were racist - they wanted blacks excluded from industrial labor and thus their own salaries improved.

Again, it may have succeeded in the action it's trying to do (i.e. put more minorities in the work place), but there is a reason for doing this, and this reason is to promote social equality. And i'm saying that hasn't worked.

so you are claiming that society is more racist now than it was 50 years ago? honestly?

Yet, you aren't. You're making claims with no evidence, not even logical support. The fact that racists will cling to anything to make their claims seem rational doesn't give me reason to think that means that AA is a bad thing or that it's causing racism. No more than I think seperation of Church and State is the reason that so many Christians (not all) are up in arms. They've always been up in arms, the seperation of Church and State is just their new excuse for the same other thing.


Again, there is no way I could provide proof that will satisfy you as there is no scientific way of measuring racism. I've been trying to choose things that can easily be shown with a little common sence. Like the state of how much racism there is in the US. If all I was trying to do was make unsupported claims, that would be too easy. I could make claims all day about how 99% of experienced economists think AA is a load of crap, which I know to be true but which cannot be proven.


It can be certainly shown that access to jobs and financially inequality have improved since affirmative action.

Show it then.

so you are claiming that society is more racist now than it was 50 years ago? honestly?

No. But affirmative action had nothing to do with it.

I read through all of this hoping for something of substance to reply to. It seems like all the bigots are just cheerleading. The only links were ones linking to hate speech that was disallowed in school and THAT is the best they could do to link to "arrests" and the other nonsense in these claims.

For the most part the only posts of substance are by peoiple I agree with literally begging for evidence from the other side. How boring. Let me know when someone shows up with some evidence that actually requires an effort to debunk.

I wasn't going to post to this thread at all because of who the OP is (do not fed the trolls), but I started to see some good names attached to it, so here I am. I guess if it's going to be a Knock-Down-the-Strawman party, I may as well join in. For the exercise. ;)

No. But affirmative action had nothing to do with it.

So what we're supposed to do is deny all of the good things of AA despite evidence, evidence you admit exists WHILE taking your lack of evidence for it spreading hatred as "common sense". I see. Forgive me, but your argument resembles logic like Dennis Rodman resembles GWB.

Are you really claiming that despite the fact that racism has improved and job access has improved and the financial status of minorities has improved that AA is having the opposite effect and they we are supposed to accept this all not only without evidence but while ignoring the evidence we do have? Are we supposed to treat this like it makes any sense at all?

Ok, but I still don't see what it has to do with affirmative action.

You seem to think that affirmative action is bad/failure because it creates hatred. I'm arguing that 1) the hatred is already there, and 2) who cares?


No, i'm saying it's to promote racial equality in the work place. That exact phrase has been used many times by advocates.

Yep. ACTUAL equality. Like, a black person can get a job and be paid equal to white coworkers with the same position. Like, an employer can't refuse to hire me because I'm female, or refuse to pay me the same wage as male employees.

Whether or not my employer has racist/sexist feelings is beside the point.

Hopefully they would learn that I'm quite capable and not in any way hampered by my sex. But if they don't, then I still have workplace equality guaranteed to me under the law.


You don't need affirmative action for that. That does not make job access equal, as it gives minorities priority for the job. A better way to have job access equality is to higher non racist employees.

So you're actually advocating that people be denied jobs based on their personal opinions...and you think that's a BETTER way to get rid of racism and hatred than affirmative action?

Do you really think racism and hatred will die out faster, if we intentionally make martyrs out of racists?

You seem to think that affirmative action is bad/failure because it creates hatred. I'm arguing that 1) the hatred is already there, and 2) who cares?


Yep. ACTUAL equality. Like, a black person can get a job and be paid equal to white coworkers with the same position. Like, an employer can't refuse to hire me because I'm female, or refuse to pay me the same wage as male employees.

Whether or not my employer has racist/sexist feelings is beside the point.

Hopefully they would learn that I'm quite capable and not in any way hampered by my sex. But if they don't, then I still have workplace equality guaranteed to me under the law.


So you're actually advocating that people be denied jobs based on their personal opinions...and you think that's a BETTER way to get rid of racism and hatred than affirmative action?

Do you really think racism and hatred will die out faster, if we intentionally make martyrs out of racists?

And how does one go about doing that anyway? Hold still while I rub this paper on you.... Hey, Charley, we got another one. *stamps forehead with big red REJECTED: RACIST*

But it is being done. All over america AFAIK. But I can't really speak for the USA, only england.
Wait -- You say it's being done all over America, but then say you can't speak for the USA, only England, although you do not tell us what is being done in England. You are aware that the USA is in America and is not part of England, right?

Another way to express what you are saying here would be to admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

Again, it may have succeeded in the action it's trying to do (i.e. put more minorities in the work place), but there is a reason for doing this, and this reason is to promote social equality. And i'm saying that hasn't worked.
Let's walk through the flaws in this statement:

1) You make an assertion of fact. You have been asked several times for evidence to back up that assertion. You still do not provide it. Therefore, your assertion cannot and will not be accepted as fact, not merely on your say-so.

2) Look at the words in your sentences. In the first sentence you state that affirmative action may have worked in what it is trying to do, and in the very next sentence, you say that it has not worked in what it is trying to do. Which is it? Worked or not worked? You can't have both.

3) You state that the purpose of affirmative action is to promote social equality. This is an error. That is NOT the purpose of affirmative action. Affirmative action programs are designed to prevent whole sectors of society from being unfairly barred from employment by forcing employers to open employment to all people. The correct balance is considered one that roughly reflects the demographic breakdowns of the national or regional population. Employers whose workplaces show a clear disparity -- i.e. are 98% white, male, Christian for no apparent reason related to the jobs being done -- will be forced by affirmative action to meet demographic quotas. This is not an ideal system because it is inherently artificial, but as a corrective, it is effective. One might think of it as a hammer for breaking glass ceilings -- not subtle but it gets the job done.

What affirmative action does NOT do is address the qualitative condition of society. It does NOT address the thoughts or feelings of people. That is not its job. Addressing and correcting any hostilities or resentments that might arise from a company being forced to abandon racist hiring policies is left up to the people involved and their diplomacy towards each other.

So do not criticize affirmative action for not creating social equality. That is like criticizing a giraffe for not laying eggs. If there is no social equality today, that is the fault of people, not programs.

Originally Posted by Hydesland
You don't need affirmative action for that. That does not make job access equal, as it gives minorities priority for the job. A better way to have job access equality is to higher non racist employees.
So you're actually advocating that people be denied jobs based on their personal opinions...and you think that's a BETTER way to get rid of racism and hatred than affirmative action?

Do you really think racism and hatred will die out faster, if we intentionally make martyrs out of racists?
I would have to comment that a person who advocates one kind of discrimination -- i.e. a litmus test for acceptable opinions in order to qualify for employement -- might likely have a hard time seeing the inherent problem with other kinds of discrimination. If Hydesland's only solution for discrimination in the work place is more discrimination, then it seems he is missing the point of this issue. We are arguing against discrimination, not just certain kinds of it.

And how does one go about doing that anyway? Hold still while I rub this paper on you.... Hey, Charley, we got another one. *stamps forehead with big red REJECTED: RACIST*

Possibly the same way one tells if a job applicant is a Jew, or an atheist, or a communist. Oh, wait...

No. But affirmative action had nothing to do with it.

so you think that society is getting less racist and affirmative action is accomplishing its goals. and this is a problem because...?

So what we're supposed to do is deny all of the good things of AA despite evidence, evidence you admit exists WHILE taking your lack of evidence for it spreading hatred as "common sense". I see. Forgive me, but your argument resembles logic like Dennis Rodman resembles GWB.


Thats the most stupid thing i've ever heard. AA is a new phenomena and didn't exist during the rapidly declining rates of racism in the USA. Education is what lowers racism, not forcing employers to employ minoritees.


Are you really claiming that despite the fact that racism has improved and job access has improved and the financial status of minorities has improved

It hasn't, barely. Unless you would actually like to support this.


that AA is having the opposite effect and they we are supposed to accept this all not only without evidence but while ignoring the evidence we do have?

wwwaaa waa waaa i need t3h evidence waaa waaaa. I've told you that synthetic evidence for something like this cannot exist. Since affirmative action has only made the racists more racist, and made it easy for them to manipulate others into racism, you can only logically conclude that it has had a worse effect.

Thats the most stupid thing i've ever heard. AA is a new phenomena and didn't exist during the rapidly declining rates of racism in the USA. Education is what lowers racism, not forcing employers to employ minoritees.

So this "education" is achieved by denying jobs to people who are racist? What else?


wwwaaa waa waaa i need t3h evidence waaa waaaa. I've told you that synthetic evidence for something like this cannot exist.

Well, at least he admits there is no evidence for what he claims.


Since affirmative action has only made the racists more racist, and made it easy for them to manipulate others into racism, you can only logically conclude that it has had a worse effect.
See, now THOSE claims could have evidence.

Provide us with evidence that racists have been made more racist by AA. Provide evidence that it is easier for them to manipulate others into racism due to AA. Provide evidence that either of these, if true, would result in a "worse" net effect than what would be seen otherwise.

Any evidence will do, for a start.

You seem to think that affirmative action is bad/failure because it creates hatred. I'm arguing that 1) the hatred is already there, and 2) who cares?


I'm arguing that racism is increasing.


Yep. ACTUAL equality. Like, a black person can get a job and be paid equal to white coworkers with the same position. Like, an employer can't refuse to hire me because I'm female, or refuse to pay me the same wage as male employees.


Which has nothing to do with AA.


Whether or not my employer has racist/sexist feelings is beside the point.

Hopefully they would learn that I'm quite capable and not in any way hampered by my sex. But if they don't, then I still have workplace equality guaranteed to me under the law.


AA doesn't garentee equal oppurtunity, that should already be garenteed. There is a difference between having an equal oppurtunity, and having an equal chance even if you may not be as good. The latter is unfair.


So you're actually advocating that people be denied jobs based on their personal opinions...and you think that's a BETTER way to get rid of racism and hatred than affirmative action?


I'm saying that people should be denied or granted jobs based on their abillity, not on their race. If affirmative action doesn't exist, it gives no reason to assume crap about a black workman.

So this "education" is achieved by denying jobs to people who are racist? What else?


Teaching kids that races are equal etc...


See, now THOSE claims could have evidence.

Provide us with evidence that racists have been made more racist by AA.

Look at stormfront. Talk to your local racist, they all rant about that stuff.


Provide evidence that it is easier for them to manipulate others into racism due to AA.

Because it doesn't rely on misunderstandings of science etc.. which are easier to discredit.

Wheres the other 176 people that voted against affirmative action? I need your help!!

Thats the most stupid thing i've ever heard. AA is a new phenomena and didn't exist during the rapidly declining rates of racism in the USA. Education is what lowers racism, not forcing employers to employ minoritees.

So basically any evidence that supports the effectiveness isn't evidence because you say so. But the lack of evidence (a lack created by your unwillingness to accept evidence) is also support of your claim because you say so. Very compelling.


It hasn't, barely. Unless you would actually like to support this.

It hasn't improved. So you're saying that the number of black doctors, lawyers, judges, politicians, CEO's, VP's, etc., has not increased? The number of rich black people has not increased? The number of black people in the middle class hasn't increased? You're really going to claim that? Seriously?


wwwaaa waa waaa i need t3h evidence waaa waaaa. I've told you that synthetic evidence for something like this cannot exist. Since affirmative action has only made the racists more racist, and made it easy for them to manipulate others into racism, you can only logically conclude that it has had a worse effect.

You've not shown that former yet you claim it leads to the latter. It's just an excuse. If they didn't have that, they'd use another. They do use others. I don't agree it makes it easier for them. You've not shown that it does. You've got a circular argument there. But hey, keep on arguing it. It's really elevating your credibility.

You've not shown that any new racists were created by AA. In fact, you've agreed racism is on the decline. You've not shown it's helped their credibility. In fact, you've agreed racism is on the decline. You've not shown that it makes racists more racists. In fact, you've agreed that racism is on the decline.

Logically, one would expect the opposite effect if what you say is true, that AA increases racism in racists and helps them to create more racists by making them more credible and giving them a way to be more effective manipulators. What you are doing is rejecting logic because you really, really want your conclusion to be true.

Teaching kids that races are equal etc...

All well and good. Unfortunately, we have disadvantaged people in the interim who wouldn't mind, you know, a job, equal pay, the occasional meal.

Look at stormfront. Talk to your local racist, they all rant about that stuff.

Them ranting isn't evidence that they would be less racist or less credible. They have 85 complaints and 1 of them is affirmative action.


Because it doesn't rely on misunderstandings of science etc.. which are easier to discredit.

No, it relies on a misunderstanding of AA. Also easy to discredit. In fact, it's why you're crying for help now.

I'm arguing that racism is increasing.

Um, you said the opposite.

so you are claiming that society is more racist now than it was 50 years ago? honestly?

No. But affirmative action had nothing to do with it.

Not very consistent, are you?


Which has nothing to do with AA.

Again, that's your misunderstanding. That's the entire purpose of AA. It doesn't address racism. It addresses employment inequality. And she is pointing that she is experiencing that equality and you're claiming they aren't related. Wasn't it you that was talking about logical connections? Why is this one so difficult for you.


AA doesn't garentee equal oppurtunity, that should already be garenteed. There is a difference between having an equal oppurtunity, and having an equal chance even if you may not be as good. The latter is unfair.

The latter isn't what AA guarantees. It guarantees that all things being equal you should see a workforce that reflects the population of people qualified for a job.


I'm saying that people should be denied or granted jobs based on their abillity, not on their race. If affirmative action doesn't exist, it gives no reason to assume crap about a black workman.
And existing it gives no reason to assume crap about a black workperson unless you don't know what AA is. It provides equal access. Nothing more.

So basically any evidence that supports the effectiveness isn't evidence because you say so. But the lack of evidence (a lack created by your unwillingness to accept evidence) is also support of your claim because you say so. Very compelling.


It's logically impossible, as I said, because AA didn't even exist till very recently and had nothing to do with the declining rates of racism from the 50s onwards. I actually have to laugh that you want me to provide evidence that AA didn't have anything to do with this, thats like me asking you to provide evidence for gravity.


It hasn't improved. So you're saying that the number of black doctors, lawyers, judges, politicians, CEO's, VP's, etc., has not increased? The number of rich black people has not increased? The number of black people in the middle class hasn't increased? You're really going to claim that? Seriously?


There is still massive social inequalities among minority areas. And how do you know that these black doctors, lawyers, judges etc.. were there because of affirmative action?


You've not shown that former yet you claim it leads to the latter. It's just an excuse. If they didn't have that, they'd use another. They do use others. I don't agree it makes it easier for them. You've not shown that it does. You've got a circular argument there. But hey, keep on arguing it. It's really elevating your credibility.


At least i've given examples. You have given absolutely fuck all. It may be difficult for someone without common sense to accept anything without imaginery evidence, which would be impossible to exist for something like this. I've given examples to bottle, do your own damn research.


You've not shown that any new racists were created by AA. In fact, you've agreed racism is on the decline. You've not shown it's helped their credibility. In fact, you've agreed racism is on the decline. You've not shown that it makes racists more racists. In fact, you've agreed that racism is on the decline.


I said it was on the decline, but it's not declining at the moment.

This thread has got me thinking: how can you tell a troll from a person with inflammatory views? You can't! Assuming he (or she) is sincere, I almost feel sorry for folks like FreedomandGlory.

All well and good. Unfortunately, we have disadvantaged people in the interim who wouldn't mind, you know, a job, equal pay, the occasional meal.


Then provide them with a good education, and they should be able to get a job with equal pay.


Them ranting isn't evidence that they would be less racist or less credible. They have 85 complaints and 1 of them is affirmative action.


It's pretty much the main non scientific problem they have with blacks.


No, it relies on a misunderstanding of AA. Also easy to discredit.

But it doesn't need to rely on any scientific backing.

It's logically impossible, as I said, because AA didn't even exist till very recently and had nothing to do with the declining rates of racism from the 50s onwards. I actually have to laugh that you want me to provide evidence that AA didn't have anything to do with this, thats like me asking you to provide evidence for gravity.

Ah, yes, the typical argument when one has no claim. Compare it to a proven claim even though there really is no connection. Almost everything in that statement you just made could be evidenced if the evidence exists. Feel free to start whenever you'd like your statements to be credible.



There is still massive social inequalities among minority areas. And how do you know that these black doctors, lawyers, judges etc.. were there because of affirmative action?

You keep just switching the argument. A minute ago you denied that such things were improving and asked me to prove it. Now even though you accept that such a thing is happening you deny the connection, while requesting that we accept your connection of nothing to nothing because you really, really want us to. You don't see the absurdity of what you're doing? We do.

And, yes, social inequalities still exist. How is the fact that it's not done show that it's not improved? Still struggling with logic. I'll explain. There are apples in only apples in one barrell and only pears in the other. I'm moving apples from one barrell to the other and pears from one barrell to the other. You walk up and say, hey, you're not making any difference. I say, but look there are now apples and pears in both barrells. Your ludicrous reply, but they aren't equal dispersed yet and thus you're not making a difference.

You see, in the real world, where actual real logic applies, we recognize that traveling a path and actually being at the destination are not the same thing. Just because I haven't arrived yet doesn't mean I'm on the wrong path. So either show that no progress has been made or stop saying nonsensical things.




At least i've given examples. You have given absolutely fuck all. It may be difficult for someone without common sense to accept anything without imaginery evidence, which would be impossible to exist for something like this. I've given examples to bottle, do your own damn research.

You have not given examples. You've offered anecdotal evidence that doesn't actually support your claim. That you don't get that, doesn't an argument make. Every example I've given you've accepted and then pretended it didn't exist. Why do I need to evidence things you already accepted.

Again, you asked for evidence that blacks are getting more access to jobs. I pointed out they there are more black doctors, politicians, lawyers than ever before and you accepted that it was true. So what proof do I need when you've accepted my claim.

I claimed financial movement and you accepted that too. So how do I need proof.

I claimed a decrease in racism. So have you. So how do I need proof?

But ten minutes from now you'll be claiming I need to prove these things again. I'm sorry, but nothing I provide is going to help you remember you've already accepted these things.


I said it was on the decline, but it's not declining at the moment.

Wow, you don't know what "on the decline" means either, do you?

I'll go slow. And be specific.

Are there more black judges than there were in 1961?

Are there more black politicians than in 1961?

Are there more black CEO's?

Are there more black VP's?

Are there more black generals?

More black lawyers?

Are there more rich blacks than in 1961?

Are there more middle class blacks than in 1961?

Be specific. What is it exactly I'm supposed to evidence.

Incidentally 1961 was 46 years ago when affirmative action was put into effect. So I take it the increase in racism caused by it over the 46 years was overwhelmed by the massive decrease for the four years before that, since you admit that racism has decreased over the last 50 years. You see why we think your points are ludicrous.

Um, you said the opposite.





Not very consistent, are you?


I said that racism HAS declining, I didn't say it's declining now.


Again, that's your misunderstanding. That's the entire purpose of AA.

Purpose is irellavent.


It doesn't address racism. It addresses employment inequality. And she is pointing that she is experiencing that equality

She said that she got hired, despite being a woman. That has nothing to do with AA.


and you're claiming they aren't related. Wasn't it you that was talking about logical connections?

Because there is no connection.


The latter isn't what AA guarantees. It guarantees that all things being equal you should see a workforce that reflects the population of people qualified for a job.


Thats just saying the same thing in a wishy washy way.


And existing it gives no reason to assume crap about a black workperson unless you don't know what AA is. It provides equal access. Nothing more.

It provides unequal access. Giving minoritees more priority. Equal access would not put race as a factor, and only base it on abillity.

AA didn't even exist till very recently

the framework for it was established at the very start of the 60s, building on earlier government interventions in the 50s...

Then provide them with a good education, and they should be able to get a job with equal pay.

And AA only guarantees that SHOULD becomes "not prevented from".


It's pretty much the main non scientific problem they have with blacks.

Really? I call BS. Meanwhile, I find it interesting that you claim racism has been declining over the time AA has been in effect, but it's the "main" non-scientific problem. So deliciously absurd.



But it doesn't need to rely on any scientific backing.

Which simply makes it easier to discredit, since the actuality of AA is much easier to understant.

I said that racism HAS declining, I didn't say it's declining now.

i think i understand the argument now. you are arguing that racism has declined since the 50s, but has started to head back up again since affirmative action was invented on august 14th of last year.

right?

I said that racism HAS declining, I didn't say it's declining now.

Again, when do you think AA was instilled? It was almost 50 years ago and you said it's declined in the last 50 years. Just another thing you don't know or don't understand.



Purpose is irellavent.

Ah, yes. Even better. What has happened while it's in effect... irrelevant. What it's purpose is... irrelevant. That its purpose and the happenings while in effect match up... irrelevant. Amusing. Yet, it's relevant that racism which you say has declined for 50 years is increased by AA that's been around for nearly all of those 50 years. Seriously, tell me this doesn't seem like a good argument even to you. Please, tell me you see your argument is inherently flawed and restore my faith.



She said that she got hired, despite being a woman. That has nothing to do with AA.

Again, how does that a job that wasn't available before AA and would not have paid equally had she by some miracle gotten it before AA, that now does, which is the express purpose of AA have nothing to do with it? What is the cause if not AA? Magic beans?



Because there is no connection.

You've not demonstrated this. Why is an effect that exactly matches the purpose of a program designed to create that effect without connection? Again, please tell me you see the flaw and you're just trying to win.


Thats just saying the same thing in a wishy washy way.

Um, no, it isn't. Your lack of understanding of the very clear difference is just that. Quotas are illegal. They are specifically against the law.


It provides unequal access. Giving minoritees more priority. Equal access would not put race as a factor, and only base it on abillity.

No, it doesn't. By law, it's required to not give unequal access. That's why quotas are illegal. But then since you don't know when it started, what it does, how it works, that you would know what it is, is probably asking too much, isn't it?

i think i understand the argument now. you are arguing that racism has declined since the 50s, but has started to head back up again since affirmative action was invented on august 14th of last year.

right?

I think it's funny that we have to educate him on the purpose, effect, cause of and origins of AA in order to show we're right or else his premise that we all know is based on absurd misunderstandings stands. I really do.

We've seen a decrease in racism over the last 50 years, but apparently a program that's been around almost all of that 50 years is INCREASING racism. A recent program, according to our friend. You know a program that's been around almost a quarter of this country's history is, of course, recent.

He opens with an admission he knows shite about the US and can only speak educatedly about England, but then argues about the US program, which of course he knows shite about.

Oh, this argument is scrumptuous.

Jocabia, I don't have time to adress your hugely long and repetative posts. The only thing you have shown is that racism has decreased since the 50s, and affirmative action has also been in place. Colleration does not equal causation, this peice of statistical data means nothing and should never be used in a proper debate. If you want to convince me that AA is good, then I need you to show me two things:

1) Evidence of a link between declining rates of racism, and increase in affirmative action.

2) A reason why affirmative action is the only way to have equal access in work, despite the fact that it favours minoritees over whites.

Jocabia, I don't have time to adress your hugely long and repetative posts. The only thing you have shown is that racism has decreased since the 50s, and affirmative action has also been in place. Colleration does not equal causation, this peice of statistical data means nothing and should never be used in a proper debate.

Actually, you're wrong. Correllation is only not enough. Correllation is evidence, but it does not lead to a conclusion alone. You have to show why that correllation matters. Correllation is evidence if you have a connection. Here we do.

The bathroom is dirty. I walk into the bathroom and shut the door. I walk out. It's clean. Now, it's possible that the bathroom just happened to get clean while I was in it, but it's not rational to just say that it must be so because you want it to be so. We know I'm capable of cleaning the bathroom. We know I want the bathroom clean. And we know there is no other more logical explanation for the clean bathroom.

Unless you can give a more reasonable explanation, it's logically to accept that the most rational explanation, that I cleaned it is the proper explanation.

In this case you have a program that set out to deal with the effects of racism and during its existence the effects of racism, the specific effects it was created to deal with have improved. It's possible it's not related, but you've not offered a more reasonable explanation. All you've shown is your lack of understanding of the program which certainly doesn't help you or your position.



If you want to convince me that AA is good, then I need you to show me two things:

1) Evidence of a link between declining rates of racism, and increase in affirmative action.

Affirmative action doesn't address racism, it addresses the effects of racism. I'm tired of trying to teach this to you. I've shown the direct link. That you deny it is just sad.



2) A reason why affirmative action is the only way to have equal access in work, despite the fact that it favours minoritees over whites.

You don't get it. It doesn't favor minorities. It is designed to ensure that the population of a workforce in general and in a particular company represent one another. It's focus is minorities, but it's provides equality for minorities, not favor. The difference is not subtle and has been explained to you repeatedly. If you're tired of repetition, read what people write so you'll stop stating things that are untrue.

Meanwhile, your request is absurd. That it is one way to address the problem is all that need be shown. The only way for you to show that it's not an appropriate response is to show that is more appropriate. Your request is like saying that I have to prove that evolution is the only way that life could have gotten this way. It's not a scientific request, as the request is impossible.

As is typical of someone losing a debate, you abandoned all your claims, claims which were ridiculous, to push the burden of proof on me. I take you now accept that there is no evidence logical or otherwise that AA increases racism given that you yourself stated that it decreased during the time AA was in effect.

Actually, you're wrong. Correllation is only not enough. Correllation is evidence

No more evidence then what supports the fact that haribo decreases racism, since that has increased whilst racism decreases.


In this case you have a program that set out to deal with the effects of racism and during its existence the effects of racism, the specific effects it was created to deal with have improved.

There have been a huge number of programs that have been aimed at dealing with racism. Some of which would rationally have a greater effect then affirmative action (such as education).


It's possible it's not related, but you've not offered a more reasonable explanation.

Yes I have, see above.


Affirmative action doesn't address racism, it addresses the effects of racism. I'm tired of trying to teach this to you. I've shown the direct link.

No you havn't, not at all. If it doesn't have anything to do with racism, why spend 5 fucking pages saying it does.


You don't get it. It doesn't favor minorities.

Affirmative Action refers to policies intended to promote access to education or employment aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group; typically minorities or women. Motivation for Affirmative Action policies is to redress the effects of past discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as Universities, Hospitals and Police forces to be more representative of the population.

This is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programmes, by preferential treatment given to applicants from socio-politically disadvantaged groups and in some cases through the use of quotas.

source: wiki

It is designed to ensure that the population of a workforce in general and in a particular company represent one another.[QUOTE]

Thats it's purpose, so?

[QUOTE]Meanwhile, your request is absurd. That it is one way to address the problem is all that need be shown.

If there are other ways that are not at other peoples expense, then it shouldn't be used.

No more evidence then what supports the fact that haribo decreases racism, since that has increased whilst racism decreases.

Again, your lack of understanding of the connection does not an argument make. This program isn't just tacitly related to racism, my friend. You're really struggling with even the basic logic pieces and acting like that's my fault.



There have been a huge number of programs that have been aimed at dealing with racism. Some of which would rationally have a greater effect then affirmative action (such as education).

Proof? What specific programs have had a greater effect.




Yes I have, see above.

Again, you've not mentioned a specific program.


No you havn't, not at all. If it doesn't have anything to do with racism, why spend 5 fucking pages saying it does.

I spent five pages saying that racism has decreased during because you said it causes INCREASED racism. See how that works. It's not my fault you keep forgetting what we're talking about, friend.




Affirmative Action refers to policies intended to promote access to education or employment aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group; typically minorities or women. Motivation for Affirmative Action policies is to redress the effects of past discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as Universities, Hospitals and Police forces to be more representative of the population.

This is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programmes, by preferential treatment given to applicants from socio-politically disadvantaged groups and in some cases through the use of quotas.

source: wiki

You mean the wiki article that says right at the top that it's credibility is in question because of a hack? You mean that one? You really want to use that are your source? The entire article is spurious. It's clearly written from the point of view of someone who is trying to bash AA.


Thats it's purpose, so?

Again, that you don't see the connection between purpose and how it is enacted is just sad. It is not, however, an argument.



If there are other ways that are not at other peoples expense, then it shouldn't be used.

Like? Whose expense is this at?

Actually, no.

A racist would have to pay a price if he doesn't want to, say, employ a black person - he'll have a smaller pool of employees to choose from. Which is why a lot of unions at the start of the last century were racist - they wanted blacks excluded from industrial labor and thus their own salaries improved.Is not artificially reducing the labor pool an interference in the free market?

(Incidentally, your description of labor unions at the time doesn't apply to all of them.)

Again, your lack of understanding of the connection does not an argument make. This program isn't just tacitly related to racism, my friend. You're really struggling with even the basic logic pieces and acting like that's my fault.


Learn from free soviets, he gets straight to the point and doesn't waste time analysing me with "it's sad how you... you keep doing..." crap. And I have adressed you link:


Proof? What specific programs have had a greater effect.


It would be impossible to prove something like this since no one has studied the effects of each program in depth. But I did give an example: education. Teaching kids racism is wrong is probably much more effective then affirmative action.


Again, you've not mentioned a specific program.


Yes I have, see above.


I spent five pages saying that racism has decreased during because you said it causes INCREASED racism. See how that works. It's not my fault you keep forgetting what we're talking about, friend.


You need to understand statistics. AA might increase racism, despite the fact that anually racism declines. If AA didn't exist, racism might decrease a lot more. It's like putting more water in a bath which has just had it's plug pulled out, it's increasing the amount of water despite the fact that it continues to decrease.


You mean the wiki article that says right at the top that it's credibility is in question because of a hack? You mean that one? You really want to use that are your source? The entire article is spurious. It's clearly written from the point of view of someone who is trying to bash AA.



http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/D949197D-70E9-45D9-A2AC0195439722DD/alpha/A/


Again, that you don't see the connection between purpose and how it is enacted is just sad. It is not, however, an argument.


I might punch someone in the face for the purpose of hardening them up, doesn't mean it's a good idea.


Like? Whose expense is this at?

People who are equally qualified (and in some cases more qualified, especially in parts of europe), but turned down due to race.

watch out, once Jocabia sinks his teeth into a thread, he doesn't like to let go for anything as small as the truth. And if you don't answer his same question EVERY time he asks it, obviously it is because you are wrong. if you do answer it every time, then you are being repetitive and should come up with something new to say.

it's sad that you have to filter through so much of this bull to get to the posts that actually have anything useful to say

watch out, once Jocabia sinks his teeth into a thread, he doesn't like to let go for anything as small as the truth. And if you don't answer his same question EVERY time he asks it, obviously it is because you are wrong. if you do answer it every time, then you are being repetitive and should come up with something new to say.

it's sad that you have to filter through so much of this bull to get to the posts that actually have anything useful to say
Perhaps he should pick up BAAWAKnight's aggressive style. I cannot recall a poster more direct and to the point than he was.

even if he weren't very direct, if he'd at least stop cutting and pasting his posts. heaven forbid you repeat yourself, but if you complain about him doing it, then clearly you can't handle the 'truth'

even if he weren't very direct, if he'd at least stop cutting and pasting his posts. heaven forbid you repeat yourself, but if you complain about him doing it, then clearly you can't handle the 'truth'

Are these just +1 posts or are you actually going to contribute to the debate?

Affirmative action (reverse racism) has instilled a dangerous viewpoint in the American people: that discriminating against certain people on the basis of race is acceptable, as long as the people are minorities and the discrimination is positive in result. This is not much different from the Jim Crow era South, except for the fact that minorities are now favored instead of whites. More damaging still is that maleficent tactics have been employed to force people to conform with this liberal idea; those who refuse to use race as a criterion in making decisions are sometimes deemed "racists" for their position. All over the US, people are being coerced into accepting a revolting idea with basis only in prejudice against whites. The scope of this policy has increased exponentially since its birth; now, politically-correct culture demands that "diversity" be a sought-after goal and companies are scrambling over each other to hire as many minority workers as possible, even though they may not be the most qualified candidates for the job. This imperils our economic and social well-being. Thus, a more radical solution than simply ending affirmative action is necessary; the problem has progressed so far and is so prevalent that blacks will still be favored over whites and Asians despite no legal impetus for such racism.

To revert to a state of equality among all races, we must employ reverse reverse racism (the opposite of affirmative action) for a period of time. That is, whites should be given priority over blacks for certain posts in order to combat the persistent and pervasive favoritism in society which rewards blacks over more meretricious whites. Whites have been deprived of an equal opportunity in many fields simply because of their skin color. They have been marginalized in the haste to promote minorities. The only way to stop this trend is to give them a helping hand in order to bring equality to the playing field. This policy should remain in effect until all traces of the racist tenet that minorities should be given a free ride ahead of whites is eradicated.

Asians are a minority too.

Granted I believe race should not factor into whether you get a job(unless you like are playing a black guy or a wite guy in a movie or something) but your post could have been put differently. It sounded kind of racist.

Did you see that MadTV skit werenthere was a black woman going for a job and she got hired because of affirmitive action?
I found the skit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7nCyodUDrQ)(click it)

No, Christmahanikwanzikah, these are not '+1' posts. I never made many posts under my old name either, because I skip threads that are not interesting to me(which is the majority) and do not repost over and over. The value in my post is in paying attention to what it actually says. Don't bother 'debating' Jocabia. It is a waste of time and keystrokes. He will fill up page after page of thread without saying anything. If you want to continue 'debating' go ahead, but you can never claim that i didn't warn you.

No, Christmahanikwanzikah, these are not '+1' posts. I never made many posts under my old name either, because I skip threads that are not interesting to me(which is the majority) and do not repost over and over. The value in my post is in paying attention to what it actually says. Don't bother 'debating' Jocabia. It is a waste of time and keystrokes. He will fill up page after page of thread without saying anything. If you want to continue 'debating' go ahead, but you can never claim that i didn't warn you.

Umm, sorry. I've read the last 4 pages of the debate between Jocabia and Hydesland, and it seems pretty apparent that the opposite of what you are whining about is exactly what has happened. Hydesland has seemed oblivious to the fact that he has not shown any evidence that affirmative action hasn't worked, Jocabia has again and again asked Hydesland to prove this...

To which Hydesland demanded that Jocabia proves that affirmative action has worked, which, in his own admission, Hydesland has said "is impossible to prove." It's a simple "burden of proof" fallacy, clear as day.

Learn from free soviets, he gets straight to the point and doesn't waste time analysing me with "it's sad how you... you keep doing..." crap. And I have adressed you link:

I'm sorry if you didn't realize that FS and I are different posters with different styles. I'm having fun. You don't like it. I don't care. Waters wet. All these things are true and none of them are going to change.




It would be impossible to prove something like this since no one has studied the effects of each program in depth. But I did give an example: education. Teaching kids racism is wrong is probably much more effective then affirmative action.

You have a lot of excuses for a lack of evidence. Of course, they're all absurd, but hey if you don't want to be credible, I can't really do anything about that.



Yes I have, see above.

That's not a specific program. I'm sorry, but do you not know what "specific" or "program" means?


You need to understand statistics. AA might increase racism, despite the fact that anually racism declines. If AA didn't exist, racism might decrease a lot more. It's like putting more water in a bath which has just had it's plug pulled out, it's increasing the amount of water despite the fact that it continues to decrease.

But you've not demonstrated that this is true or why it would be true. I do understand statistics and given what is available I don't fill in the gaps because I really want it to be true. I work off the evidence we have. The evidence we have is that during AA racism has decreased. Meanwhile, you've changed your claim again. You openly stated that racism increased during AA. Of course, you've also admitted that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You've not shown that racism was improving without AA. You've not shown that AA slowed it down. You've not shown why it would. And since racism has been improving while a program designed to address the effects of racism and to promote equality has been in effect, I'm afraid the burden is on you to show that it's had the opposite effect. Something you've admitted YOU are incapable.



http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/D949197D-70E9-45D9-A2AC0195439722DD/alpha/A/

Yes, and you'll notice that it points out that the overall effect even in the specific examples is equality. Not special treatment for minorities. If I hire all men for a while, on purpose, the effect of hiring a woman is equality, not preferential treatment for women. If I have a mixed softball league and I first only look at men and then look at women have I preferenced women?


I might punch someone in the face for the purpose of hardening them up, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Doesn't address the point at all. Given that the purpose and the effect are the same and you've not shown otherwise, nor have you shown a single adverse effect, you're point is just another spurious attempt to associate to something with evidence you don't have and cannot provide.


People who are equally qualified (and in some cases more qualified, especially in parts of europe), but turned down due to race.

We're talking about the US and choosing between two people who are equally qualified isn't unfair, no matter how much you want to be. You've not shown that more qualified candidates are being shown the door. Your using evidence that hasn't been presented. Forgive me, if I don't accept your assertions since you've shown repeatedly that you don't really know anything about AA.

watch out, once Jocabia sinks his teeth into a thread, he doesn't like to let go for anything as small as the truth. And if you don't answer his same question EVERY time he asks it, obviously it is because you are wrong. if you do answer it every time, then you are being repetitive and should come up with something new to say.

it's sad that you have to filter through so much of this bull to get to the posts that actually have anything useful to say

Oh, yay, a puppet with nothing to add, not even having the fortitude to actually come as themselves. Just a weak attempt at ad hominem. Debunk my points or admit you can't. I'd be interested to see either one. If all you've got is this lame attempt to hide on the internet, then you're post adds nothing but a point to your post count.

Just remember that the actual end to slavery happened... Four to five generations ago?

On top of that, blacks have had the same rights as whites for about only 40 years.

I'm sorry, that is just a very small amount of time.

Racism will burn itself out eventually. It'l take time, but it will still happen.

Affirmative action and all that crap simply won't help too much, if at all.

No, Christmahanikwanzikah, these are not '+1' posts. I never made many posts under my old name either, because I skip threads that are not interesting to me(which is the majority) and do not repost over and over. The value in my post is in paying attention to what it actually says. Don't bother 'debating' Jocabia. It is a waste of time and keystrokes. He will fill up page after page of thread without saying anything. If you want to continue 'debating' go ahead, but you can never claim that i didn't warn you.

Puppet with an ego problem. It's like Avenue Q all over again...

I'm not talking about Hydesland.

If you actually bothered to read through enough of Jocabia's 'work' you would see that the weakness of Hydesland's posts don't have anything to do with it....Jocabia will post over and over requiring proof, whether it is a documented fact or a blatantly false assumption.

I stand on the same side of the issue as Jocabia more often than not, but I get tired of seeing another pointless post where he repeats the same thing he has said for the past 15 pages.

A weak attempt at ad hominem? Then clearly you don't quite grasp the concept of what an ad hominem attack is. I never said I disagree with you, or that your stance on the issue is anything short of completely correct. My issue is your adding of post after post that add no value. Then, you complain if someone complains about you. Try learning from what someone else has to say. When you are wrong, repeating your tired post will never make you right.....and when you are right, posting it 5 times in a row just makes you seem like you have used up everything useful that you have to say, and just want to post a lot

A weak attempt at ad hominem? Then clearly you don't quite grasp the concept of what an ad hominem attack is. I never said I disagree with you, or that your stance on the issue is anything short of completely correct. My issue is your adding of post after post that add no value. Then, you complain if someone complains about you. Try learning from what someone else has to say. When you are wrong, repeating your tired post will never make you right.....and when you are right, posting it 5 times in a row just makes you seem like you have used up everything useful that you have to say, and just want to post a lot

There is a little button at the bottom of a post that reads "quote." I suggest you learn how to use it.

A weak attempt at ad hominem? Then clearly you don't quite grasp the concept of what an ad hominem attack is. I never said I disagree with you, or that your stance on the issue is anything short of completely correct. My issue is your adding of post after post that add no value. Then, you complain if someone complains about you. Try learning from what someone else has to say. When you are wrong, repeating your tired post will never make you right.....and when you are right, posting it 5 times in a row just makes you seem like you have used up everything useful that you have to say, and just want to post a lot

Ad hominem is attack the poster instead of the post. ERGO, you attacked Jocabia by mentioning the notion that Jocabia does nothing but waste his time posting the same thing for 15 pages, both a)ignoring the fact that Jocabia has appealed to Hydesland for evidence critical to the strength of his argument and b)making it seem as though this is all Jocabia does, trying to weaken the claims that Jocabia is posting because "he does this all the time."

It's not a textbook ad hominem... it's just too close to one.

A weak attempt at ad hominem? Then clearly you don't quite grasp the concept of what an ad hominem attack is. I never said I disagree with you, or that your stance on the issue is anything short of completely correct. My issue is your adding of post after post that add no value. Then, you complain if someone complains about you. Try learning from what someone else has to say. When you are wrong, repeating your tired post will never make you right.....and when you are right, posting it 5 times in a row just makes you seem like you have used up everything useful that you have to say, and just want to post a lot

So your post is not to address any argument at all, but simply to insult me? Are you really saying that your entire goal is to break forum rules and act out your little obsession with me? How fresh.

ad hominem is attacking a poster in order to bring discredit to the post. This is clearly not the case, as I express no disagreement with his stance on the subject.

ad hominem is attacking a poster in order to bring discredit to the post. This is clearly not the case, as I express no disagreement with his stance on the subject.

So it's spam and flaming. You really sure that's the tact you want to take?

EDIT: With just a pinch of griefing.

So it's spam and flaming. You really sure that's the tact you want to take?

EDIT: With just a pinch of griefing.

It's not really griefing. Griefing would imply it's having some tangible detrimental effect. So far it's been innocuous and rather ineffective flaming.

I truly doubt that you know how much of your post people are reading. However, I did read it, and it felt like your argument was "let's see how many wrongs we need to make a right!".

quite right.
here's an idea for all you racist people out there: STOP BEING RACIST! we don't need to become racist to prevent it. that is retarded.

i get the point of some of what you (the thread starter) said. i am anti-Israel, but i am not anti-semetic or racist, despite what some (stupid) people say. it pisses me off when people say that.

however, that part in the second paragraph.... that's ridiculous. start acting like a bunch of racists to prevent racism? i fail to see the logic. i doubt there IS any form of good, solid logic employed there.

one of the main flaws (besides the racism): even though you say that this is short term, experiments done about human nature dictate that the "white" people will just end up staying in power for the long term as well. as soon as one group gets favored, the other groups stop being listened to, and the government would take centuries to change back to the way it was (less time if there was a big upheaval).

Read this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger)

The whole reason why the court found in favor of the practice of affirmative action was because "Affirmative Action" gave as many credits to students applying at the law school in Michigan [+20] as other student recieved for having a "Legacy" status (parents went to the same school) [+20] and "Donor Preference" [+20].

And, no, that's not written into the Wiki article... you'd have to do some research/sitting-in-"critical thinking"-class of your own.

It's not really griefing. Griefing would imply it's having some tangible detrimental effect. So far it's been innocuous and rather ineffective flaming.

You'll find that every once in a while posters use the entirety of their postings with a particular nation to simply complain to me that they don't like my style. I'm not sure exactly why I'm supposed to care about the opinion of a person who didn't care about it enough to put their name behind it, but, meh, what can you do? It happens every once in a while. I just giggle and move on.

Quit Flaming And Get Back To Debating The Subject!

Read this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger)

The whole reason why the court found in favor of the practice of affirmative action was because "Affirmative Action" gave as many credits to students applying at the law school in Michigan [+20] as other student recieved for having a "Legacy" status (parents went to the same school) [+20] and "Donor Preference" [+20].

And, no, that's not written into the Wiki article... you'd have to do some research/sitting-in-"critical thinking"-class of your own.

Therefore, if you were applying to the Michigan Law School, your parents went there, and your family donated some grossly large amount of money to the school, you still have a 20 point advantage over a minority.

My point was, the minority is becoming the priority to the commoner when the whole point of the equal rights movement was to *gasp* create equality! Thus commoners and minorities should be equal and their rank in society should be purely based on merit. That was the whole point I was trying to make, that liberals were just making the minority the superior and trying to make the commoner and non-liberal insuperior which creates inequality and defeats the purpose of the equal rights movement.

But *gasp* blacks and whites still aren't equal in our society. I know it was the cat-tribe or someone with a similiar name that had this long list showing blacks lower on the proverbial totem pole then whites. Oh, and as for liberals, heres a hint: They are pratically no different than conservatives. Stop blaming liberals and making them out to be some kind of 'boogeyman'. We are all Americans(over here, in the US) after all.

So what you're basically saying is that blacks have some kind of imaginary advantage (that you can't specify or bring up facts to support) and that whites are the disadvantaged?

And as for Affirmative Action? I always said I don't believe in total affirmative action, but rather for it to be forced on businesses that have a proven history of being bigoted or racist when hiring people of certain race/gender/religion/etc.

Though people like you who whine & complain "Teh Ebil Liberalz" and "Teh Ebil Minorities" just annoy me.

You'll find that every once in a while posters use the entirety of their postings with a particular nation to simply complain to me that they don't like my style. I'm not sure exactly why I'm supposed to care about the opinion of a person who didn't care about it enough to put their name behind it, but, meh, what can you do? It happens every once in a while. I just giggle and move on.

I will be honest that I do find you and many other of the good debators on here faaaar too long-winded. I just can't sit through a half-page microessay, especially when it's 5 or 6 of those in a row back and forth between people. More often than not when I see a post that big, I don't bother reading it, and will just respond to the shorter, more concise posts around it.

Affirmative Action has hurt society, so we'll fix that by reinstating Jim Crow Laws and Separate-But-Equal?

Come on people, why don't you all pretend this is one of my threads and ignore it to oblivion?

Honestly it shouldent make a difference one way or another in my opinion, for instance i'm not going to go out of my way to help someone only because they are in a different race , however if i believe it is a worthy cause i will help anyone no mater who they are.

I will be honest that I do find you and many other of the good debators on here faaaar too long-winded. I just can't sit through a half-page microessay, especially when it's 5 or 6 of those in a row back and forth between people. More often than not when I see a post that big, I don't bother reading it, and will just respond to the shorter, more concise posts around it.

I really am too long-winded. I don't mind admitting it. You should see most of my posts before I reduce the text. Remember I have to write it, read it, edit it and more. It annoys me too. I've just never been good at being concise. The worst is me and Dem1 talking. Ugh. It makes me self-loathe.

I really am too long-winded. I don't mind admitting it. You should see most of my posts before I reduce the text. Remember I have to write it, read it, edit it and more. It annoys me too. I've just never been good at being concise. The worst is me and Dem1 talking. Ugh. It makes me self-loathe.

For good reason.

Jocabia, I don't have time to adress your hugely long and repetative posts. The only thing you have shown is that racism has decreased since the 50s, and affirmative action has also been in place.

You'd think the fact that you have been proven wrong on basic premises of your argument (like affirmative action being "new" and whether racism has increased in the last 50 years) would deter you. Apparently not.

Colleration does not equal causation, this peice of statistical data means nothing and should never be used in a proper debate.

Correlation is not necessarily causation, but that is not the same as saying that it "means nothing and should never be used in a proper debate."

Evidence of correlation is more useful than your assertion that there can be no evidence whatsoever so we must rely on speculation.

If you want to convince me that AA is good, then I need you to show me two things:

1) Evidence of a link between declining rates of racism, and increase in affirmative action.

As for evidence that affirmative action works, you could read some of the following:

Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html)
Making the Case for Affirmative Action - Affirmative Action Works (http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/descriptions/making_the_case/works/index.cfm)
Does affirmative action work? (http://bosfed.org/economic/nerr/rr2005/q1/section3b.pdf)

If you find these inadequate, I can link many more sources.

2) A reason why affirmative action is the only way to have equal access in work, despite the fact that it favours minoritees over whites.

You show a profound misunderstanding of what affirmative action is and how it works.

Regardless, affirmative action is essential to creating equal opportunities because without it we are left with disproportionate privilege for white males. White males enjoy a position of privilege and favortism in our society. Blacks, women, and other groups are disadvantaged. Allowing diversity to be considered among hiring goals between equally qualified candidates only "favours minorities over whites" if you assume that hiring would otherwise favor whites over minorities. An equalization of the playing field is fair, just, and necessary.

Affirmative action.

"Reverse racism" is, for the most part, a fantasy of the privileged--at least insofar as it is supposed to have some sort of substantive effect.That's quite right. In a recent study of affirmative action in the Ivy League universities, it was found that while under Harvard's and Yale's affirmative action program a minority applicant has a 17% better chance of being accepted (which means the program makes a difference), the "penalty" to white students under the program is less than 2%. That means a white applicant is far, far more likely to be denied a place at Harvard because he happens to hail from an over-represented state than because of affirmative action.

Is it "fair" that I don't get into the school I want because they desire geographic diversity? No, it's not fair--it has nothing at all to do with me. Yet few people seem interested in debating that kind of diversity initiative.

But in your case it was hatred for an individual, but affirmative action is having the reverse effect as to what it is suppost to be doing. It's only making more people racist, or at least prejudiced against black workmen.No, racists and sexists will ALWAYS manage to find a convenient explanation for why a woman or a black person gets a promotion or a job over them.

Now it's "she was an affirmative action hire."
Before it was "she MUST be sleeping with the boss."

Empirically, however, research shows that white people who work in diverse environments tend to become LESS racist over time, and men who work with women (as equals) tend to become LESS sexist over time.

I do think there are kinds of oppression that men experience like the current status of custody issues, for example. However, the complaints they have aren't addressing these issues.Indeed, issues like gender disparity favoring women in custody disputes are, in fact, based in good old fashioned sexist notions like the idea that mothers are "innately" more "nurturing" than fathers and other such nonsense.

To that extent, the "oppression" of men to which you refer is intimately related to the oppression of women. Putting an end to it is, by definition, a feminist goal.

That's quite right. In a recent study of affirmative action in the Ivy League universities, it was found that while under Harvard's and Yale's affirmative action program a minority applicant has a 17% better chance of being accepted (which means the program makes a difference), the "penalty" to white students under the program is less than 2%. That means a white applicant is far, far more likely to be denied a place at Harvard because he happens to hail from an over-represented state than because of affirmative action.

Is it "fair" that I don't get into the school I want because they desire geographic diversity? No, it's not fair--it has nothing at all to do with me. Yet few people seem interested in debating that kind of diversity initiative.

It's funny to me that it's always, magically, only important if it supports the racist agenda. The fact that nobody cares if "discrimination" is based on location is such evident proof that the racists aren't fighting for equal treatment but actually worried that it might actually occur.

Indeed, issues like gender disparity favoring women in custody disputes are, in fact, based in good old fashioned sexist notions like the idea that mothers are "innately" more "nurturing" than fathers and other such nonsense.

To that extent, the "oppression" of men to which you refer is intimately related to the oppression of women. Putting an end to it is, by definition, a feminist goal.

Oh, absolutely. Gender roles are the culprit there. The one part I disagree about is that gender roles are damaging to all, not just women. Men should selfishly defend feminism because it's as freeing for them as for women.

Again, there is no way I could provide proof that will satisfy you as there is no scientific way of measuring racism.Umm... what?

There are plenty of scientific ways to measure racism, including unconscious racism. Experimenters have, for instance, shown subjects slides or videos with various depictions of crowds with different degrees of diversity; then they ask subjects to rank interest, or appeal, or beauty, or other factors on a "good-bad" scale. And that's just one way. The people don't know they're making judgments based on race... but they are.

Oh, absolutely. Gender roles are the culprit there. The one part I disagree about is that gender roles are damaging to all, not just women. Men should selfishly defend feminism because it's as freeing for them as for women.

And I, as a man, wholeheartedly defend the idea of feminism, because it is the equality of both sexes, not the prejudice of women over men... and I think that most people don't get that.

What I don't approve of, though, is women that use feminism as a means to their own prejudiced ends.

Umm, sorry. I've read the last 4 pages of the debate between Jocabia and Hydesland, and it seems pretty apparent that the opposite of what you are whining about is exactly what has happened. Hydesland has seemed oblivious to the fact that he has not shown any evidence that affirmative action hasn't worked, Jocabia has again and again asked Hydesland to prove this...

To which Hydesland demanded that Jocabia proves that affirmative action has worked, which, in his own admission, Hydesland has said "is impossible to prove." It's a simple "burden of proof" fallacy, clear as day.

No, you have just fallen for Jocabias manipulative anoying and elitist posting style. He has demanded evidence for something which I have explained COUNTLESS TIMES cannot be provided for, which is impossible, yet he still plays the evidence card to try and make his argument look better by yelling "Look he hasn't provided any evidence look how right I am". I did ask him for evidence that affirmative action works, because apparently there is mountains of it (which he yet has not provided). His whole posting style is manipulative prentious ego boosting bullcrap, and i'm not sure if I want to debate with him any further.

No, you have just fallen for Jocabias manipulative anoying and elitist posting style. He has demanded evidence for something which I have explained COUNTLESS TIMES cannot be provided for, which is impossible, yet he still plays the evidence card to try and make his argument look better by yelling "Look he hasn't provided any evidence look how right I am". I did ask him for evidence that affirmative action works, because apparently there is mountains of it (which he yet has not provided). His whole posting style is manipulative prentious ego boosting bullcrap, and i'm not sure if I want to debate with him any further.

Textbook ad hominem.

And TCT has since provided evidence of such. And I have provided evidence that AA is necessary. Sorry. If you don't want to debate with evidence and want to make countless refutations based on claims without evidence, that's fine. You will have to suffer the consequences, however.

It's logically impossible, as I said, because AA didn't even exist till very recently and had nothing to do with the declining rates of racism from the 50s onwards. I actually have to laugh that you want me to provide evidence that AA didn't have anything to do with this, thats like me asking you to provide evidence for gravity.For the record, the Civil Rights movement didn't make significant strides until the early 60s, and affirmative action has been around since... the mid-60s.

The only significant thing to happen in the 50s was Brown v. Board... but as any educated person will tell you, the Supreme Court's opinion notwithstanding NOTHING HAPPENED for ten years to move on desegregation, until Congress and the President got involved.

Textbook ad hominem.


No shit


And TCT has since provided evidence of such.

Well hes an example of a good debater, who gets to the point and lets you actually debate.


Sorry. If you don't want to debate with evidence and want to make countless refutations based on claims without evidence, that's fine. You will have to suffer the consequences, however.

I have yet to see TCT's evidence so I havn't even had a chance, he may be right and I may not choose to debate it, but don't say stupid shit like that.

Then provide them with a good education, and they should be able to get a job with equal pay.Ah, but it's because of Affirmative Action that they can get a good education. Haven't you been paying attention?

He has demanded evidence for something which I have explained COUNTLESS TIMES cannot be provided for

explained and asserted are distinct concepts. and your assertions on this point are frankly quite silly. i mean, honestly, you claimed as part of your argument that
I could make claims all day about how 99% of experienced economists think AA is a load of crap, which I know to be true but which cannot be proven.but this is clearly an empirical claim for which it would be almost trivially easy to determine its truth value. i mean, all we'd have to do is ask a random sample of 'experienced economists' and we would know one way or another.

explained and asserted are distinct concepts. and your assertions on this point are frankly quite silly. i mean, honestly, you claimed as part of your argument that
but this is clearly an empirical claim for which it would be almost trivially easy to determine its truth value. i mean, all we'd have to do is ask a random sample of 'experienced economists' and we would know one way or another.

I never said that was true, I was just using it as a hypothetical example, since no study so far has actually been done to determine the percentage of "experienced economists" that actually support AA. Way to take it out of context.

No shit


... That's a fairly bad style of an argument.

Well hes an example of a good debater, who gets to the point and lets you actually debate.

The whole point of debate with Jocabia was a)whether or not you understood AA and b)whether or not there was evidence of its effects/detriment to society.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's a fairly decent debate.

I have yet to see TCT's evidence so I havn't even had a chance, he may be right and I may not choose to debate it, but don't say stupid shit like that.

Look, you said in one of your own posts "Go do your own research," or the equivolent of it. First of all, if you want to be considered as a good debator, it is tactless to try to use this strategy. It just plain doesn't work.

Second of all, if you're going to be refuting an argument, it would be a good idea to do reasearch of your own. I wasn't even planning on getting into a drawn-out debate with you three, but I still took the time to a)read your posts and b)look, at the very least on Wiki, for evidence where AA was deemed fair.

I never said that was true, I was just using it as a hypothetical example, since no study so far has actually been done to determine the percentage of "experienced economists" that actually support AA.

ah, so this is some strange new use of the word 'cannot'

Furthermore, it is childish to look at an argument and hold it in regard if it is merely from a "good debator." There are hundreds of "good debators" out there that "get to the point" but make ludicrous conclusions.

It is a matter of looking at the argument itself, rather that the person making the argument.

1) Evidence of a link between declining rates of racism, and increase in affirmative action.Let's start with this (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060410162259.htm)
interesting piece of research. It turns out that when whites are simply put in diverse groups with black people, they are: 1) more amenable to talking openly about racism; 2) more productive; 3) more accurate...

Overall, it basically says that diverse groups are better than homogeneous groups, AND it says that whites are willing to talk about racism in a MORE OPEN way when they are actually forced to sit at a table with minorities.

Oh, absolutely. Men should selfishly defend feminism because it's as freeing for them as for women.

Please elucidate....

... That's a fairly bad style of an argument.


I'm not trying to argue about affirmative action.


The whole point of debate with Jocabia was a)whether or not you understood AA and b)whether or not there was evidence of its effects/detriment to society.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's a fairly decent debate.


That may be the point, but 95% of the crap Jocabia was saying was just completely irellavent.


Look, you said in one of your own posts "Go do your own research," or the equivolent of it. First of all, if you want to be considered as a good debator, it is tactless to try to use this strategy. It just plain doesn't work.


Where did I say that, I can't remember.


Second of all, if you're going to be refuting an argument, it would be a good idea to do reasearch of your own. I wasn't even planning on getting into a drawn-out debate with you three, but I still took the time to a)read your posts and b)look, at the very least on Wiki, for evidence where AA was deemed fair.

I don't have time to do read through pages of research, I really have little time at all to do much right now.

ah, so this is some strange new use of the word 'cannot'

No evidence can be provided, does not mean it's not possible to be provided if someone did some sort of research into this.

That may be the point, but 95% of the crap Jocabia was saying was just completely irellevent.

That may be, depending on who you ask, but insisting that you are not going to be listening to Jocabia and then calling him and his style of debate names isn't a good policy of debate.



Where did I say that, I can't remember.

Page 5, Post #370

"At least i've given examples. You have given absolutely fuck all. It may be difficult for someone without common sense to accept anything without imaginery evidence, which would be impossible to exist for something like this. I've given examples to bottle, do your own damn research."

This was also ad hominem.

I don't have time to do read through pages of research, I really have little time at all to do much right now.

Well, okay. At some point in time, however, please do. It is necessary for this debate to go further.

No evidence can be provided, does not mean it's not possible to be provided if someone did some sort of research into this.I'm sorry, I wasn't really reading most of your ranting.

What is it, exactly, for which you believe there is (or can be) no evidence?

No evidence can be provided, does not mean it's not possible to be provided if someone did some sort of research into this.

ah, but that undermines your point that claims about levels of racism cannot be backed up (which is what you were claiming in the post about economists), as said research has been done and some of it has even been shown to you.

(of course, the fact that you have made your own [contradictory] assertions about the level of racism itself does a fine job in this regard too)

Please elucidate....

The essential idea behind feminism is the equality between men and women, baseless of sex.

The way it is used, however, is somewhat ludicrous at times.

That may be, depending on who you ask, but insisting that you are not going to be listening to Jocabia and then calling him and his style of debate names isn't a good policy of debate.


It was the other way round actually, I attacked his posting style and decided that I don't want to continue to debate with him.


Page 5, Post #370

At least i've given examples. You have given absolutely fuck all. It may be difficult for someone without common sense to accept anything without imaginery evidence, which would be impossible to exist for something like this. I've given examples to bottle, do your own damn research.

This was also ad hominem.


I can't help if it's an ad hominem, I just tick when I debate with Jocabia and get really angry.



Well, okay. At some point in time, however, please do. It is necessary for this debate to go further.

This isn't to say I have never read anything about it. I have read about it from various different places that claim that affirmative action is not nescecerry. But i guess I have never researched whether or not it was or wasn't nescecerry.

I'm sorry, I wasn't really reading most of your ranting.

What is it, exactly, for which you believe there is (or can be) no evidence?

I was saying that it is impossible to provide evidence of how racist a country is, I have not yet seen a single peice of research for it.

as said research has been done and some of it has even been shown to you.


show me then

Please elucidate....

Men benefit in all sorts of way when the oppression of gender roles are dropped. When we no longer have to be "manly" and ignore our health, our hygene, our feelings, our troubles, etc. When we can be nurturing and be seen as nurturing our roles as parents increase, our children benefit and there is reason to ensure our place in our childrens' even in the case of divorce. These are just a couple of examples. Other such examples would be being encouraged to take jobs, any jobs we like. Having the freedom to go after jobs that aren't necessarily enough money to support both a man and his family, like musician, artist, etc., without fear that women will be embarrassed to admit they are the provider and you aren't. There numerous examples. Everyone benefits from equality. The idea that men have a specific role in society is a burden and its one we should all prefer be lifted.

I was saying that it is impossible to provide evidence of how racist a country is, I have not yet seen a single peice of research for it.

Well, saying that America is or isn't racist is an empirical claim because it can be tested. Therefore, it is likely that there is evidence out there (somewhere), hence disproving your theory that there is no evidence that it is impossible to determine "how racist America really is."

show me then

Here's the rub:

Since it is unlikely that we will sway your position by offering evidence (if we do, and have, find it), you must also offer evidence supporting your position.

That's all we ask, really.

Well, saying that America is or isn't racist is an empirical claim because it can be tested. Therefore, it is likely that there is evidence out there (somewhere), hence disproving your theory that there is no evidence that it is impossible to determine "how racist America really is."

Although actually, it was a lot more in depth then that. It was more that I cannot show you good evidence of a link from Affirmative Action to racism, since no research has been done to differentiate the different causes of research in the USA AFAIK(I even admitted that I can't speak for the USA, only europe but they would have none of it).

I was saying that it is impossible to provide evidence of how racist a country is, I have not yet seen a single peice of research for it.

Meh. Let's just say for the sake of argument that such evidence is impossible, what then?

It would be impossible for you to show that racism has been increased by affirmative action (just as it would be impossible to show affirmative action has decreased racism). Thus the question of how affirmative action impacts racism directly is unanswerable.

But, we can show affirmative action has impacted positively the effects of racism. Minority unemployment has been lowered. Minority poverty has been lowered. Minority median wage has increased. Etc, etc, etc.

What evidence do you point to that affirmative action has had a negative effect on society?

(note: I'm not conceding your point regarding evidence of racism. I think it is silly. But, whether true or not, it is not helpful to your argument.)

This isn't to say I have never read anything about it. I have read about it from various different places that claim that affirmative action is not nescecerry. But i guess I have never researched whether or not it was or wasn't nescecerry.

I'm not insinuating that you haven't a clue what you're talking about - it's obvious that you have some prior knowledge of this topic. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so clearly defending your position.

We just need to see some kind of proof of your position; a relevant authority to back up your claims. Saying "there are studies..." or "99% of..." without linking proof is a surrogate proof fallacy.

And I, as a man, wholeheartedly defend the idea of feminism, because it is the equality of both sexes, not the prejudice of women over men... and I think that most people don't get that.

What I don't approve of, though, is women that use feminism as a means to their own prejudiced ends.

yeah. there are some out there. "Men are to blame for all sexist killings!"

there are events in history which dictate that women can be just as ruthless as men.

Here's the rub:

Since it is unlikely that we will sway your position by offering evidence

I don't know why people assume this. I never claimed that I have an actual certain position of whether affirmative action works or not in the USA.

you must also offer evidence supporting your position.


That's all we ask, really.

How about a bit of logic for england. Since there is already equal oppurtunity, free schooling and low racism in england, there is no need for affirmative action in the work place. The problem lies in removing gang culture among minoritees and making sure minoritees are getting equally good education.

I was saying that it is impossible to provide evidence of how racist a country is, I have not yet seen a single peice of research for it.

there was some earlier in this thread. and you spelled "piece" wrong.

Since there is already equal oppurtunity, free schooling and low racism in england, there is no need for affirmative action in the work place. The problem lies in removing gang culture among minoritees and making sure minoritees are getting equally good education.

the second sentence contradicts the first. you spelled opportunity and minorities wrong. i don't think you edit your posts at all.

**EDIT: well.... to some degree anyway

Looking back at my debate now, I can understand that I was being a bit silly and annoying and not debating well. I was really angry at the time (not just because of jocabia, although me and him do seem to clash badly) and wasn't really intending to have a civil debate.

the second sentence contradicts the first.

Removing gang culture isn't affirmative action. I guess you could call the second affirmative action, though in this thread i've only really been talking about work place affirmative action.


you spelled opportunity and minorities wrong. i don't think you edit your posts at all.

**EDIT: well.... to some degree anyway

I've been typing very fast, I have no time for correcting typos.

the second sentence contradicts the first. you spelled opportunity and minorities wrong. i don't think you edit your posts at all.

**EDIT: well.... to some degree anyway

I find it hard to see a contradiction between the first and the second. "Affirmative action" refers to, essentially, giving a preference to minorities due to the relative chances that the majority gets.

Saying that removing the gang culture among minorities is important isn't a contradiction of saying affirmative action is unneccessary.

And referring to someone's spelling difficulties is pointless.

I think almost everyone can agree that vindictiveness by "reverse reverse racism" is not a solution and would only be countered with "reverse reverse reverse racism". As a college student and a recent PhD program applicant, I can tell you first hand how disenfranchising an affirmative action program can be. To be turned down for a program or job in favor of a minority who is not as qualified is a slap in the face plain and simple.

However, the solution is a colorless qualification system on which your ability to be hired is based on merit and scholastic effort in school (in the case of graduate programs at least). Otherwise no one will see each other as being equal because one group believes they are owed something while another believes the group has an unfair advantage. Both is true. We did in fact put blacks and every other minority at a disadvantage until the 1970's. However, I was not even a thought in 1970, and I, as do many other younger Americans believe that we do not owe anyone anything.

The belief that with hard work and dedication will secure yourself a successful future is nothing but bullshit without a pay off that that is actually true. If a white person has more merit than a black person or any other race, then he should be the one who is rewarded for his hard work. In contrast if a black person is more merited than a white person, they should be rewarded. If anything, and if I were black, I would be insulted that the government believes I need a helping hand just to be on the same level as the white majority. That in itself sends a message to me that the government believes I am not capable of success on my own, so I need your help.

The answer is a colorless merit system.

How can this debate still be going on when the pro AA side has been summed up so conclusively by several posters without any relevant rebuttal?

I mean, why?

The argument obviously cannot be made any better than it already has.

Looking back at my debate now, I can understand that I was being a bit silly and annoying and not debating well. I was really angry at the time (not just because of jocabia, although me and him do seem to clash badly) and wasn't really intending to have a civil debate.

This is going to sound sarcastic. It's not. I'm 100% geniune in saying that it's very big of you to say that. I admit that I kind of like getting people out of their zone in debate. They make more mistakes and I find it makes it easier to expose problems in the logic (since as a debater you're actively trying to shore up your holes).

I say that, because you get caught up in small assertions you cannot or won't support, you defend them and it devastates the credibility of the rest of your claims. Abandoning that point isn't enough, or claiming that no one can show your claim, but just say that you concede and move on. You want to focus the debate on your strong points and my weak points. I want to do the opposite. Sometimes you let me and that's what makes you angry. Sometimes you don't let me do such things and you're a formidable opponent when you manage that.

And, no, we needn't get into a debate about whether or not I'm a good debater. I don't really care. I think you are a very capable debater when you don't let people get your goat. That's all I'm trying to say.

This is going to sound sarcastic. It's not. I'm 100% geniune in saying that it's very big of you to say that. I admit that I kind of like getting people out of their zone in debate. They make more mistakes and I find it makes it easier to expose problems in the logic (since as a debater you're actively trying to shore up your holes).

I say that, because you get caught up in small assertions you cannot or won't support, you defend them and it devastates the credibility of the rest of your claims. Abandoning that point isn't enough, or claiming that no one can show your claim, but just say that you concede and move on. You want to focus the debate on your strong points and my weak points. I want to do the opposite. Sometimes you let me and that's what makes you angry. Sometimes you don't let me do such things and you're a formidable opponent when you manage that.

And, no, we needn't get into a debate about whether or not I'm a good debater. I don't really care. I think you are a very capable debater when you don't let people get your goat. That's all I'm trying to say.

Thanks. I think I get too angry on NSG sometimes and this is the second time i've had to apologize to you, it's not like i'll ever meet anyone here and it shouldn't make a difference what people think of me here but I get pissed off anyhow. I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway when attacking your posting style, but I guess we just clash badly and maybe i'll try and avoid going into a direct massive debate with you in future unless I have tonnes of evidence.

Thanks. I think I get too angry on NSG sometimes and this is the second time i've had to apologize to you, it's not like i'll ever meet anyone here and it shouldn't make a difference what people think of me here but I get pissed off anyhow. I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway when attacking your posting style, but I guess we just clash badly and maybe i'll try and avoid going into a direct massive debate with you in future unless I have tonnes of evidence.

You don't offend me. At all. I don't take it personally. And nothing I have to say about your debate or comments is personal either. I wish I could say that I actually remember this stuff when I'm offline or in a couple of weeks, but the truth is I don't really think that much about names of people and just focus on what they post. I suspect that we'd like each other just fine if we were up to other pasttimes.

I think you'd do fine if you just don't get to caught up in making it personal. It helps if you remember that most people you're talking to don't know you and don't care.

To be turned down for a program or job in favor of a minority who is not as qualified is a slap in the face plain and simple.

You said you know this "first-hand"... so how do you know that you were turned down because of affirmative action specifically, and not some other reason?

Otherwise no one will see each other as being equal because one group believes they are owed something while another believes the group has an unfair advantage. Both is true.

Rather, most of one group (correctly) believe that the other is at an unfair advantage, and as such that they are "owed something."

Much of the second group prefers to ignore its privileged status, and as such sees the reversal of the underprivileged status of the other group as giving them an "unfair advantage"--when in reality it is merely a rectification of unfair inequality.

We did in fact put blacks and every other minority at a disadvantage until the 1970's.

Um... US society still put blacks (and Latinos, women, and others) at a disadvantage today. It is merely explicit legal inequality that has been eliminated (for the most part.)

Just as importantly, the historic consequences of past racism continue to unfairly disadvantage members of those groups.

The continued relevance of racism can be seen in the persistence of economic deprivation in minority communities despite the legal advances of the Civil Rights Era.

However, I was not even a thought in 1970, and I, as do many other younger Americans believe that we do not owe anyone anything.

You speak as if you are being punished for something... but securing equality for minorities does not punish the dominant group. At most it deprives that group of unfair privilege; it does not take away anything from them that is theirs by right.

If anything, and if I were black, I would be insulted that the government believes I need a helping hand just to be on the same level as the white majority.

This would only be an "insult" if the reason for aid were founded in some judgment of the inferiority of minority groups. It is not. It is founded in recognition of the role played by racist institutions in their present disadvantaged status.

Indeed, it is the opponents of affirmative action who are more prone to "blame the victim", by asserting that the disadvantaged status of minorities is their own fault despite the persistent systemic racism of our society.

I was saying that it is impossible to provide evidence of how racist a country is, I have not yet seen a single peice of research for it.Ah, that must be because you're not acquainted with social science research on things like "comparative racism."

Check it out. Google would be a fine start.

You said you know this "first-hand"... so how do you know that you were turned down because of affirmative action specifically, and not some other reason?That's a good question.

I've been turned down my fair share in life, and I almost always look at the person(s) who beat me out and think "not as qualified" or "not as smart" or "not as promising"... and, of course, 90% of the time those persons are from similar ethnic/racial/socio-economic backgrounds as myself.

It is human nature to think that we are, in fact, better qualified than the people with whom we compete. Sometimes we may be right, much of the time we're probably wrong. More often than not, the nature of "qualification" is muddy enough that there is no real answer: no matter how much some people would like to believe it, there simply is no mathematical formula that can neatly rank people according to "merit."

I would be surprised indeed if the people complaining about affirmative action have never lost a job or a promotion to a white male who appeared (to them) to be less qualified than they. But they only make an issue out of it when it's a minority and they think they can blame the Great Liberal Conspiracy to Oppress the White Man.

If there is a radical difference in qualifications, then yes: something is wrong. If the minority applicant who succeeds is actually under-qualified in the sense that he/she is NOT qualified for the job (as opposed to "less" qualified), then yes: something is wrong. Situations like these might, in fact, arise under quota-type affirmative action programs in which employers and admissions committees must "take what they can get" in order to fill a quota. But such programs are blatantly illegal for public institutions, and I am not aware of any private entities that use such quotas today.

The fact of the matter is that as long as the people finally selected come from a qualified applicant pool, no one has anything to complain about because businesses and schools have many interests besides finding the "most" qualified person. But we've been over this ground before and I tire of repeating it.

People need to get over the idea of a "pure" merit system. Even if you could figure out a way to reliably measure "merit" (whatever that is), the results would be disastrous--and they would probably be the most surprised of all at how it would work out.

I've sat on a number of hiring panels, and I've learned a lot about the process. The first thing is the resume. Too short, or too long, it barely gets a glance. Terrible formatting, poor spelling, incoherency...in the garbage. It's amazing how few people can put a decent resume together.

Then the actual interview. Gods some people interview poorly. Yes, qualifications are important, but academic or professional qualifications aren't necessarily the most important criteria. One of the biggest questions you ask yourself as an interviewer are...can I work with this person? How will this person present to the public? Interpersonal skills are quite often what decide the issue, and that comes out in the interview. We have taken people who were less qualified 'on paper' simply because they had better interpersonal skills than the other applicants.

Now, because of Freedom of Information and Privacy legislation, we had to do a write up on exactly why we finally chose a certain applicant, in comparison to others...especially if their qualifications didn't quite match the others. We've been challenged on it twice, and were able to show that the decision had been based on valid interview and reference criteria.

So if you are comparing resumes along, you're not going to understand why someone else got chosen over you. You may be super-qualified...and a total asshole with a horrible record of squabbles with former co-workers.

You don't offend me. At all. I don't take it personally.

Your feet smell!

*Runs*

One of the biggest questions you ask yourself as an interviewer are...can I work with this person? How will this person present to the public?This is a critically important point when it comes to affirmative action.

As you express, employers are not necessarily as concerned with an applicant's IQ, GPA, typing speed, etc. as with the overall effect on the workplace and workplace goals of hiring applicant X. Given that an extensive body of research has shown that there are distinctive advantages to a diverse workforce--from better ideas generated by a range of backgrounds to a greater ability to deal with an increasingly diverse clientele--one of the many goals for employers today is to increase diversity within their workforce. They have many other goals that do not relate directly to merit as well.

Of course, I'm happy enough if an employer regards it as a matter of social justice to try increasing diversity... but if it happens through their own self-interest anyway, I'm certainly not going to complain.

Affirmative action (reverse racism) has instilled a dangerous viewpoint in the American people: that discriminating against certain people on the basis of race is acceptable, as long as the people are minorities and the discrimination is positive in result. This is not much different from the Jim Crow era South, except for the fact that minorities are now favored instead of whites. More damaging still is that maleficent tactics have been employed to force people to conform with this liberal idea; those who refuse to use race as a criterion in making decisions are sometimes deemed "racists" for their position. All over the US, people are being coerced into accepting a revolting idea with basis only in prejudice against whites. The scope of this policy has increased exponentially since its birth; now, politically-correct culture demands that "diversity" be a sought-after goal and companies are scrambling over each other to hire as many minority workers as possible, even though they may not be the most qualified candidates for the job. This imperils our economic and social well-being. Thus, a more radical solution than simply ending affirmative action is necessary; the problem has progressed so far and is so prevalent that blacks will still be favored over whites and Asians despite no legal impetus for such racism.

To revert to a state of equality among all races, we must employ reverse reverse racism (the opposite of affirmative action) for a period of time. That is, whites should be given priority over blacks for certain posts in order to combat the persistent and pervasive favoritism in society which rewards blacks over more meretricious whites. Whites have been deprived of an equal opportunity in many fields simply because of their skin color. They have been marginalized in the haste to promote minorities. The only way to stop this trend is to give them a helping hand in order to bring equality to the playing field. This policy should remain in effect until all traces of the racist tenet that minorities should be given a free ride ahead of whites is eradicated.


I agree that "affirmative action" has to go, but I wouldn't go so far as to try making two wrongs equal a right. I do think that race should never be a factor in any decision.

I would consider special assistance to people who are economically disadvantaged, on an individual basis. Other than that, keep it neutral.

Men benefit in all sorts of way when the oppression of gender roles are dropped. When we no longer have to be "manly" and ignore our health, our hygene, our feelings, our troubles, etc. When we can be nurturing and be seen as nurturing our roles as parents increase, our children benefit and there is reason to ensure our place in our childrens' even in the case of divorce. These are just a couple of examples. Other such examples would be being encouraged to take jobs, any jobs we like. Having the freedom to go after jobs that aren't necessarily enough money to support both a man and his family, like musician, artist, etc., without fear that women will be embarrassed to admit they are the provider and you aren't. There numerous examples. Everyone benefits from equality. The idea that men have a specific role in society is a burden and its one we should all prefer be lifted.

Seems like a great "what if?" question in the realm of the age old nature vs nurture debate.

I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too many different things would have to change for that to happen.

Seems like a great "what if?" question in the realm of the age old nature vs nurture debate.

I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too many different things would have to change for that to happen.

Those too many things are gender roles and they are changing. It's already improving. It's becoming increasing common for men to stay at home while their wives work, to rely on their wive's income, to take a greater interest in their health, hygene, etc. It's already happening. It won't be finished soon, but it's been the goal of feminism all along, to create genuine equality.

Those too many things are gender roles and they are changing. It's already improving. It's becoming increasing common for men to stay at home while their wives work, to rely on their wive's income, to take a greater interest in their health, hygene, etc. It's already happening. It won't be finished soon, but it's been the goal of feminism all along, to create genuine equality.

When you can say that for countries like China and Saudi Arabia, then I will join your celebration. :p

When you can say that for countries like China and Saudi Arabia, then I will join your celebration. :p

A little at a time. I walk to work one step at a time. I don't get upset because I can't jump from building to building.

A little at a time. I walk to work one step at a time. I don't get upset because I can't jump from building to building.

Ick! An optimist! Sorry but you don't belong here! :p

Ick! An optimist! Sorry but you don't belong here! :p

What are you new? How could you not know that?

What are you new? How could you not know that?

My time here has jaded my ability to reason. ;)

My time here has jaded my ability to reason. ;)

That or LG is finally beginning to affect you.

Seems like a great "what if?" question in the realm of the age old nature vs nurture debate.

How so? We know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that maleness does not automatically confer masculinity in the sense that our society defines it. We know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that femaleness does not confer femininity as defined by our society. These are constructs. Even with all the outrageous levels of "nurture" pressuring people to conform, we STILL have piles and piles and piles and piles of people who simply say, "Bunk."

The thing is, they don't magically swing to the OTHER extreme, either. Most people have both "masculine" and "feminine" traits. Because they're not masculine or feminine at all. They're people traits.


I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too many different things would have to change for that to happen.
It's already happening. It's been happening, gradually, for a long time. Thank feminism!

I've sat on a number of hiring panels, and I've learned a lot about the process. The first thing is the resume. Too short, or too long, it barely gets a glance. Terrible formatting, poor spelling, incoherency...in the garbage. It's amazing how few people can put a decent resume together.
The last sentence is ironic compared to all the ones before it. "The resume doesn't meet my personal standards for a resume, so whoever made it is incompetent." Companies should just release their own resume papers templates and let people fill it out who want to apply.

The last sentence is ironic compared to all the ones before it. "The resume doesn't meet my personal standards for a resume, so whoever made it is incompetent." Companies should just release their own resume papers templates and let people fill it out who want to apply.

I would think it shows more effort has been put into the application if you've drawn it up yourself rather than wanting your hand held throughout

I would think it shows more effort has been put into the application if you've drawn it up yourself rather than wanting your hand held throughout
So does building your own clay jars at home, but no one does that. Just because you did it yourself does not mean it's better. And if people are being excluded one inability to right resumes to a particular person's personal standard not what is on (or not on) the resumes, there is obviously a problem that needs to be fixed through standardization provided by the company.

So does building your own clay jars at home, but no one does that. Just because you did it yourself does not mean it's better. And if people are being excluded one inability to right resumes to a particular person's personal standard not what is on (or not on) the resumes, there is obviously a problem that needs to be fixed through standardization provided by the company.

If you did it yourself you went the extra distance trying to get the job. It shows more initiative. Your clay jar example is ridiculous and not related to my point.

If you did it yourself you went the extra distance trying to get the job. It shows more initiative. Your clay jar example is ridiculous and not related to my point.

Your point is no more valid than the rest of my point.

In my experience, there's a lot of wiggle room when it comes to resumes.

They aren't going to throw yours out because your margins were 1.5 inches instead of 1 inch. If you choose to write the entire thing in 18-point Comic Sans, however, be prepared for rejections.

A single type-o isn't a real problem, either. But if you've got more than four or five on a two page resume, you're starting to look careless or lazy.

Don't misspell the name of the potential employer. Or the name of your most recent employer.

Most places these days have a standardized form they have people fill in with resume info, but even if they don't it's really easy to find a template that will look simple, clean, and professional.

So does building your own clay jars at home, but no one does that. Just because you did it yourself does not mean it's better. And if people are being excluded one inability to right resumes to a particular person's personal standard not what is on (or not on) the resumes, there is obviously a problem that needs to be fixed through standardization provided by the company.

As someone who has done a lot of hiring and now owns his second company, I don't look for special (personal) standards. I look for someone who actually took the effort to write a good resume. Templates are available online and in word. Word checks your grammar and spelling for you or you can do it the old-fashioned way and put in a little effort. There is NO excuse for submitting a poorly-written resume and if I receive one I can rightfully conclude that you don't take much pride in your work and that you didn't feel that the job you are applying for was worth a reasonable effort.

You might find this surprising, but the world doesn't go out of it's way to make everything super easy for you just because you don't think it's fair that you have to actually put a little effort into impressing people. Sad and shocking as it is, hiring is a process of testing a person to see if they are right for a job. As such, making the entire thing just fill in the blank, particularly when most jobs by nature cannot be that, would be plain silly. Besides McDonald's name for me the job that only requires you to fill out forms and never write emails, document ideas, etc. Form resumes are a solution for jobs where basic grammatical skills are unnecessary. I'm sorry, but that's about 10% of available jobs these days.

Your point is no more valid than the rest of my point.
Actually, it is. There is a world of difference between writing your own resume and building a house out of clay. You'd do well to read what others here have told you as to why this is preferable.

1) I am glad that the argument with Hydesland ended gracefully. :)

2) The belief that one got turned down for a job because of affirmative action is almost always mere speculation on the part of the disappointed job-seeker.

There are lots of reasons why a person may get turned down for a job that have little or nothing at all to do with the applicant him/herself. It can be because of minute differences of presentation between your resume/application and another person's. It may be as simple as a coin-toss decision between two equally valid candidates. It may even be (in fact, often is) because the hiring company over-hyped the job and got applicants who are over-qualified for the postion in reality.

But in most cases, you will never be told why you were turned down because many companies are afraid that, if you don't like their reason, you might try to sue them or otherwise make trouble. It's sort of an HR Department version of "least said, soonest mended."

So to say it was because of affirmative action is merely an assertion without foundation unless you have proof from the hiring company itself about your specific incident.


*Note: I was using the rhetorical "you."

So does building your own clay jars at home, but no one does that. Just because you did it yourself does not mean it's better. And if people are being excluded one inability to right resumes to a particular person's personal standard not what is on (or not on) the resumes, there is obviously a problem that needs to be fixed through standardization provided by the company.
Um, actually, you do have that. Every job that I have ever applied for required me to fill out a job application that, essentially, is a standardized resume form, including background information, work history and references. Depending on the level of the job (say, part-time store clerk versus store manager), you may or may not be expected to supply your own written resume as well.

What you cannot avoid is the fact that, the more high-level job you seek, the tougher your competition for it will be and the more you will have to impress and win over the hirers. Just filling out a form is not going to do it, since even the mentally challenged kids who sweep up at McDonald's could do that much.