NationStates Jolt Archive

affirmative action

It remains that I don't fully understand why it's called "affirmative" action. I mean, what does assent/consent have to do with it? Why do we need to add an unnecessary positive in front of the word action, just to describe this particular sort of action?

*grumbles about government related naming weirdness*

For crying out loud, can this argument over semantics just end?

rac·ism

NOUN:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

dis·crim·i·na·tion

NOUN:

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice:


So racism can be defined as acting with bias, partiality, or prejudice towards a group based on a racial class or category rather than individual merit.

Therefore, if affirmative action is defined (which it has been) as ensuring that there is no discrimination within employment and education opportunities then it is not racism.

If, however, affirmative action is defined (which it has) as discerning and promoting the opportunities of certain racial groups, no matter what the final goal is, can be called racism.

This is entirely irrelevant, however, as simple definitions do not make anything wrong or right.

There has been ample citing of dictionaries to prove that affirmative action is racism, with ample citing by the other side to show that it is not. From what I see, both are right, and both sides are simply talking past each other. This is primarily a faulty argument from those opposed to affirmative action, but too many posts have been wasted trying to refute it.

The appropriate response when affirmative action is deemed racist by someone is "I don't care what you call it or what definitions can apply. Why is it wrong?"

For crying out loud, can this argument over semantics just end?

No

Ahem, is too!

It's pretty pointless to include a dictionary defenition of "Affirmative Action" as an attempt to prove that it's not racist.

Of course the INTENT of Affirmative Action isn't to perpetuate racism, so I wouldn't expect to find it in a dictionary entry. Of course the people who dreamed it up didn't have racism in mind.

But you know what they say about the road to hell...

The fact is, whether there was once a time in which Affirmative Action was apropriate or not, that time has passed.

Affirmative Action essentially creates opportunities for some groups while reducing them for others. This perpetuates the idea of racial inequality.

Think about it: Suppose, in your workplace, you have quotas which dictate percentages of staff by race. Now, knowing that some of the people may have been hired to satisfy those quotas, how can you be assured that a given individual achieved their position by beating out the competition in the job market, as opposed to being buped up due to their ethnic background?

You can't.

The quota may dictate that your office contain x number of whites for y number of blacks. Maybe there was an applicant who was insanely qualified and highly sought after, but hiring him would upset the ratio. How does this benefit the office? How does it benefit the person who has unfairly been barred from employment due to his race?

Bear in mind, as I wrote this example the candidate I was imagining in my head is black. If I understand correctly, quotas can hurt minorities as well as help.

If I misunderstand, and quotas set racial MINIMUMS, then that's worse because in my above example, if the candidate is black, he gets a job. If he's white, he doesn't.

How is that not racist? Good intentions are one thing, but if you objectively examine the impact, you can find that the reality may be very different from the ideal. It's time to stop treating different races as being special and start treating people as people, nothing more.

Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?
Plenty of people think like this. Pat Buchanan, for instance. Strom Thurmond. Rush Limbaugh.

This is where the warning bells should be starting to go off in your head.

It's pretty pointless to include a dictionary defenition of "Affirmative Action" as an attempt to prove that it's not racist...... Snip!

Yeah exactly. The London black cabbies where all in turmoil the other month(and rightly so) because of plans to give those form ethnic backgrounds aid in becoming black cab drivers. This aid was not offered to anybody else.

In the least it is biased, and as the aid was not offered to everybody regardless of race, then it was biased on the grounds of race, in other words it was racist.

There is only one race of humans.

There is only one race of humans.

Surly! But then that renders the word racist useless. I shall hence forth call you Pedant Man!:p

Surly! But then that renders the word racist useless. I shall hence forth call you Pedant Man!:p

Do I get an outfit to go with the title?

It's pretty pointless to include a dictionary defenition of "Affirmative Action" as an attempt to prove that it's not racist.

Of course the INTENT of Affirmative Action isn't to perpetuate racism, so I wouldn't expect to find it in a dictionary entry. Of course the people who dreamed it up didn't have racism in mind.

But you know what they say about the road to hell...

The fact is, whether there was once a time in which Affirmative Action was apropriate or not, that time has passed.

Affirmative Action essentially creates opportunities for some groups while reducing them for others. This perpetuates the idea of racial inequality.

Think about it: Suppose, in your workplace, you have quotas which dictate percentages of staff by race. Now, knowing that some of the people may have been hired to satisfy those quotas, how can you be assured that a given individual achieved their position by beating out the competition in the job market, as opposed to being buped up due to their ethnic background?

You can't.

The quota may dictate that your office contain x number of whites for y number of blacks. Maybe there was an applicant who was insanely qualified and highly sought after, but hiring him would upset the ratio. How does this benefit the office? How does it benefit the person who has unfairly been barred from employment due to his race?

Bear in mind, as I wrote this example the candidate I was imagining in my head is black. If I understand correctly, quotas can hurt minorities as well as help.

If I misunderstand, and quotas set racial MINIMUMS, then that's worse because in my above example, if the candidate is black, he gets a job. If he's white, he doesn't.

How is that not racist? Good intentions are one thing, but if you objectively examine the impact, you can find that the reality may be very different from the ideal. It's time to stop treating different races as being special and start treating people as people, nothing more.

But that 'people as people' thing doesn't happen. Your way of doing things leaves ethnic minorities still disadvantaged, marginalised and discriminated against.

Do I get an outfit to go with the title?

Yep, rather like supermans, but with a great big P on the front. Of course the beauty of that is no mask, just wear your hair differently!

But that 'people as people' thing doesn't happen. Your way of doing things leaves ethnic minorities still disadvantaged, marginalised and discriminated against.

True, yet fighting bias on racial grounds, by indulging in bias on racial grounds can't be the answer can it. Why not hit companies in the pocket if found guilty of racily motivated bias?

True, yet fighting bias on racial grounds, by indulging in bias on racial grounds can't be the answer can it. Why not hit companies in the pocket if found guilty of racily motivated bias?

I believe most companies now actually shy away from the "we don't want no fucking niggers like you here" rejection letter.

I believe most companies now actually shy away from the "we don't want no fucking niggers like you here" rejection letter.

I too believe that. Umm couldn't swear about the police force though.

I too believe that.

So given that almost no companies will be found guilty, what good does fining them do?

Do I get an outfit to go with the title?

Yes, but it must be design by an ethnically diverse committee ;)

It's pretty pointless to include a dictionary defenition of "Affirmative Action" as an attempt to prove that it's not racist.

Almost as pointless as pointing at dictionary definitions as an attempt to prove that Affirmative Action is inherently racist. But for some reason you only object to my response to that argument.

EDIT: I also note that the definition of affirmative action I supplied matches the actual language of affirmative action programs that I gave earlier. So, I'm not relying merely on the dictionary but the actual laws and programs that constitute affirmative action.

Of course the INTENT of Affirmative Action isn't to perpetuate racism, so I wouldn't expect to find it in a dictionary entry. Of course the people who dreamed it up didn't have racism in mind.

But you know what they say about the road to hell...

The fact is, whether there was once a time in which Affirmative Action was apropriate or not, that time has passed.

Really? We've achieved equality? There is no longer rampant discrimination in the workplace? Sorry, but my linked evidence was to the contrary. (And no one has sought to rebut it.)

Affirmative Action essentially creates opportunities for some groups while reducing them for others. This perpetuates the idea of racial inequality.

Meh. First of all, why must equal opportunities be a zero-sum game? Why can't equal opportunity benefit everyone?

Second, if you are going to look at equal opportunity as a zero-sum game, shouldn't those opportunities be fairly and equally distributed?

Think about it: Suppose, in your workplace, you have quotas which dictate percentages of staff by race. Now, knowing that some of the people may have been hired to satisfy those quotas, how can you be assured that a given individual achieved their position by beating out the competition in the job market, as opposed to being buped up due to their ethnic background?

You can't.

The quota may dictate that your office contain x number of whites for y number of blacks. Maybe there was an applicant who was insanely qualified and highly sought after, but hiring him would upset the ratio. How does this benefit the office? How does it benefit the person who has unfairly been barred from employment due to his race?

Bear in mind, as I wrote this example the candidate I was imagining in my head is black. If I understand correctly, quotas can hurt minorities as well as help.

If I misunderstand, and quotas set racial MINIMUMS, then that's worse because in my above example, if the candidate is black, he gets a job. If he's white, he doesn't.

How is that not racist? Good intentions are one thing, but if you objectively examine the impact, you can find that the reality may be very different from the ideal. It's time to stop treating different races as being special and start treating people as people, nothing more.

Meh. I've already established that affirmative action is not quotas, so you can take that strawman argument off the table. You are simply perpetuating myths -- vicious myths.

How does seeking to provide equal opportunity to all treat some races as special? To the contrary, it treats everyone as equals. It is the absence of affirmative action that perpetuates the treatment of white males as special.

Affirmative Action assisting only minorities and women and not helping white males to get a 'foot in the door' is no more bias than Farm Subsidies being used to only help farmers and not non-farmers. The objectives are clearly targeted by their respective mission statements; I admit that the execution of such programs though, can be poorly accomplished sometimes. But dismissing the entire concept as flawed is nothing more than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Clearly the US still has large population centers with disproportionately large minority groups in them that have less opportunities to better themselves and the lives of their children then the families in other areas, and these areas are disproportionately divided among racial lines and these are the targets of Affirmative Action incentives, programs and laws. Just like the rural farm areas are disproportionately the receivers of Farm Subsidies, it goes without question and it only makes sense.

Everyone would agree that Aide should be sent where it is needed, but in the case of high minority unemployment rates and low education opportunities, simply sending a 'check' like annual farm subsidy checks, isn't going to solve the problem. And unlike Farm Subsidies, the whole idea of Affirmative Action is that someday it will work itself out of being needed. But the argument that some have made here that they think that day has already come and passed, clearly has not been paying attention to programs like the No Child Left Behind reports which show inner city schools and the public education failures in minority communities are disproportionately high still AND unemployment rates in black and other minority communities [like native American reservations etc.,], are clearly higher than in other areas of the US. Obviously the opportunities a baby has when they are born in America are not equal across the board, they are different for that baby depending if they are white, black, yellow or red, male or female.

True, yet fighting bias on racial grounds, by indulging in bias on racial grounds can't be the answer can it.

point the first, why not?
point the second, mandating that people not engage in racially biased hiring practices is not itself bias, but rather the negation of it. unless you wish to argue that taking stolen goods back from thieves is stealing...

So given that almost no companies will be found guilty, what good does fining them do?

Sorry don't quite get how you have made that astounding leap there? Are you equating a lack of blatant rasicism, with no evidence of racisim?

point the first, why not?
point the second, mandating that people not engage in racially biased hiring practices is not itself bias, but rather the negation of it. unless you wish to argue that taking stolen goods back from thieves is stealing...

Are you really asking me why a show of racial bias is good from one set of people but bad from another set of people?

Yes I agree with your second point, the negation of racially motivated bias is a good thing.

Are you really asking me why a show of racial bias is good from one set of people but bad from another set of people?

no, i'm asking you why it is impossible to fight a racial bias with an opposing racial bias. it may or may not be a good plan in any particular instance, but i see nothing inherently impossible about it.

Yes I agree with your second point, the negation of racially motivated bias is a good thing.

the negation of racial discrimination necessarily requires the promotion of the discriminated against

Sorry don't quite get how you have made that astounding leap there? Are you equating a lack of blatant rasicism, with no evidence of racisim?

I am saying that it's incredibly hard to prove racial discrimination on a case by case basis. Incredibly hard. As such, anti-discrimination legislation mainly just ensures that said discrimination is a little subtler

no, i'm asking you why it is impossible to fight a racial bias with an opposing racial bias. it may or may not be a good plan in any particular instance, but i see nothing inherently impossible about it.

Ahhh I see, but I did not say that it was impossible. I said that it is not the best way. Here is a lovelry little cliche to demonstrate what I mean. 'two wrongs don't make a right'

the negation of racial discrimination necessarily requires the promotion of the discriminated against

Or the highlighting of the discrimination itself.

Ask your self if this is or is not discriminatory.

I leave uni and go for a job interview. A black male friend of mine that I met at uni goes for the same job. We both achieved the same results, yet he gets offered the job to make sure that the company fulfills it's afirmitive action quota.

I am saying that it's incredibly hard to prove racial discrimination on a case by case basis. Incredibly hard. As such, anti-discrimination legislation mainly just ensures that said discrimination is a little subtler

Perhaps, but do you really feel that afirmitive action, is the best way to tackle it?

Do you know any body that may feel offended to learn that they have a job not because of their merits, or the skills they can bring, but because of some desicion by a manager to fulfill a quota? I certianly do.

Would a feminist applaud the fact that she has been offered a job because she is a woman, rather than because she is the best person for the job?

Ahhh I see, but I did not say that it was impossible. I said that it is not the best way. Here is a lovelry little cliche to demonstrate what I mean. 'two wrongs don't make a right'

Or the highlighting of the discrimination itself.

Ask your self if this is or is not discriminatory.

I leave uni and go for a job interview. A black male friend of mine that I met at uni goes for the same job. We both achieved the same results, yet he gets offered the job to make sure that the company fulfills it's afirmitive action quota.

Perhaps, but do you really feel that afirmitive action, is the best way to tackle it?

Do you know any body that may feel offended to learn that they have a job not because of their merits, or the skills they can bring, but because of some desicion by a manager to fulfill a quota? I certianly do.

Would a feminist applaud the fact that she has been offered a job because she is a woman, rather than because she is the best person for the job?

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be explained that:

(1) affirmative action is not quotas. Quotas are illegal.

(2) the beneficiary of affirmative action must be qualified for the job/college position.

:headbang:

...
I leave uni and go for a job interview. A black male friend of mine that I met at uni goes for the same job. We both achieved the same results, yet he gets offered the job to make sure that the company fulfills it's afirmitive action quota.

That looks like a false or misleading analogy to me.

It's more like:

Lets say 40 years ago (give or take) there were 200 graduates, equally qualified. 90 white males, 10 black males, 90 white females and 10 black females. There was a company with 50 openings, all the students apply. In the old days there would be 40 white males hired, 5 white women and 4 black men and 1 black woman hired. Now, with affirmative action requirements in place, the hiring practices of that company are required to even out the percentages of those hired so that if the same thing happened today, it would be more like: 22 white males, 22 white females, 3 black men and 3 black women hired. The extra percentage going in the favor of those most recently denied opportunity to try and help their communities catch up from the harm caused by past disparities.


A person not hired can’t really go back and claim ‘it was my job’ they stole it away from me! Because there will always be the extra 150 equally qualified people NOT hired.

I have developed a tentative solution that would undermine any claim of hiring based on racial or gender preference and it goes thus:

Faceless Hiring

Every business would be equipped with an interviewing "booth" that renders the applicant firstly unseen and secondly bereft of voice recognition. Much like the televised interviews where a person is shilouetted and the voice is altered to protect identity. So, something like a cofessional booth with a microphone that alters the speaker's voice pattern to an unrecognizable level of neutrality and prevents any visual discrimination.

In this manner no employer can be accused of selecting an applicant based on race or gender.

It's a start. :)

I found an article on this topic. But the way it's written, it doesn't actually say that discrimination has prevented minorities from being hired. It appears to go on how there aren't enough minorities being represented yet doesn't say why.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/280561

Staff at the Toronto school board reflect the city's workforce, but visible minorities are under- represented compared to the city as a whole.

A survey of board employees – principals, school secretaries, teachers and caretakers – in June of 2006 found that overall the board is almost as diverse as the pool of job applicants, but there are a few areas of concern.

Women, for instance, are under-represented among caretakers and skilled trades, and disabled persons are under-represented in teaching.

As well, aboriginals, blacks and gays are under-represented in senior management.

But when measured against the city's population, the report by an independent consultant suggests the board "may wish to focus some of its longer term diversity and employment equity efforts" on recruiting staff from such racial groups as East and South Asians, black Africans and Middle Eastern peoples.

"We know how important it is for kids to see role models reflected in their school," said Gerry Connelly, director of education for the Toronto District School Board. "We are working really, really hard and have done a good job in the last two or three years to try and reflect more of that diversity.

"We hired almost 1,000 new teachers this year and when I looked across the room when I was speaking to them, I saw a real reflection of diversity."

At the University of Toronto, a provincial initiative to give priority to those who are first in their family to go to university has helped, says Jeff Kugler, of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

"It's important for kids to see that it's possible for people like them to become teachers," said Kugler, whose program has 120 student teachers training to teach in inner city schools.

Here's the thing, while diversity is great and everything, shouldn't the Board of Education be focusing on hiring qualified candidates? Putting qualifications ahead of gender and race? Maybe there is a reason why they don't have many women as maintenance staff, such as there aren't many actually apply for that position because it's possible they don't want that job. There are other reasons beyond hiring practices why some groups may be seemingly under-represented in certain positions.

Ask your self if this is or is not discriminatory.

I leave uni and go for a job interview. A black male friend of mine that I met at uni goes for the same job. We both achieved the same results, yet he gets offered the job to make sure that the company fulfills it's afirmitive action quota.

of course not. you've each got the same qualifications. why do you feel entitled to the job over him?

of course not. you've each got the same qualifications. why do you feel entitled to the job over him?

Huh did you even read what I wrote?

of course not. you've each got the same qualifications. why do you feel entitled to the job over him?

Simple, both are unemployed and one might feel he deserves and is entitled to it over the other because well... he needs the job. Nothing more, nothing less. It boils down to survival here.

1.You can't blame everything on the past, things have went a long way since the 1950s.
2. Affirmitive Action has only fueled racism, Ex."I didn't get that job because a minority member who was less qualified for that job got it!I will forever hate that minority!!!"Ok that was a little extreme but it's the basic idea.[/QUOTE]

Well said! I have a sister who blames her entire life on my Father's alcoholism. That's GARBAGE! The rest of us turned out fine because once we became adults we left the situation behind and became responsible for our own lives. She is now 51 yrs old, she still does drugs and abuses alcohol and blames my Father for her own mistakes. Frankly, I'm sick of it. When you give a minority (or any group of people) special privelages above others, that's not only discrimination but it's enabling. Why would you want to give anyone an excuse not to take responsibility for their own lives??

America was founded by whites, conquered by whites. If white Americans should have to surrender what they earned, then any country in the history of forever that has ever attacked and annexed land anywhere in the world should have to surrender it. Essentially, there would no nations left anywhere. Your counters are ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is anyone expecting me to be responsible for something I never did. I paid for my home and my land. I worked for it! If my forefathers offended or stole from your forefathers then let them work it out in heaven or hell. I would not send you to prison fro a crime committed by your Father so get over it, dude!

Huh did you even read what I wrote?

did you?

I'm not a fan of affirmative action/positive discrimination/ call it what you will, but I certainly don't think its racist. Counterproductive, inefficient, and likely to bugger up every institution it touches, but racist? No.

did you?

Umm of course I did, allow me to reproduce it here:

'Ask your self if this is or is not discriminatory.

I leave uni and go for a job interview. A black male friend of mine that I met at uni goes for the same job. We both achieved the same results, yet he gets offered the job to make sure that the company fulfills it's afirmitive action quota.'

Now how did you get the idea that I 'feel entitled to the job over him'?

Also if he got the job because it fulfills some sort of affirmative action criteria, how is that not discriminatory?

Also if he got the job because it fulfills some sort of affirmative action criteria, how is that not discriminatory?

because he was qualified for the job. if multiple people are qualified for a job, we have to choose between them somehow. a discriminatory choice would be one that unjustly excludes a person for reasons of (racial) prejudice. but that is not what happened, so the choice was not made on that basis. what actually happened was that the choice was made on the basis of a worthy societal goal of integration and promotion of equality.

I leave uni and go for a job interview. A black male friend of mine that I met at uni goes for the same job. We both achieved the same results, yet he gets offered the job to make sure that the company fulfills it's afirmitive action quota.'

Now how did you get the idea that I 'feel entitled to the job over him'?
Because you are complaining that an equally qualified person of a different race got the job you wanted as well?

Add to that consistent quality of education, tests that actually work rather then take away class time to learn how to take tests that do not reflect the real world

Those would go a long way

Gee - would hate to think that taking tests not related to the real world is a worthwhile skill... Teaching people to pass a test is a real waste of time...

http://www.passthebar.com/
http://www.yaegercpareview.com/
http://www.testprepreview.com/nclex_practice.htm
http://www.testprepreview.com/cfp_practice.htm
http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/nbde01/index.asp

...ad nauseum

If the name sounds black you have a less chance for a loan

LOL. You mean like

John Black (http://www.soap-passion.com/images/series/yr_1_1792.jpg)

Anastasia Washington (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2744363/)


Riiight. There are no other considerations whatsoever. The underwriters have a rubber stamp of approval for anyone with a name like, oh lets say William E Smith (http://www.the-planets.com/star-biography/Will_Smith_biography.htm)

You need to find a real leg to stand on...

Quick Query: Has anyone brought up the fact yet that Affirmative Action was designed to help women as well as minorities?

Interesting how that aspect of it seems to be entirely glossed over as I discovered during a conversation with my mother last night, whose only problem with Affirmative Action seems to be that it came just after she had already worked twice as hard as any male to get where she did. She did mention that it was a program designed to fail, but didn't expand upon that.

because everyone knows men don't work hard - only women do.

Affirmative action is not founded on the supposed "inferiority" of a "racial" group. Therefore, it is not racist.

Affirmative action proponents have no problem with racial equality and integration... indeed, we tend to advocate affirmative action precisely because we believe in it. Genuine racists, on the other hand, usually advocate for the supremacy of their "race" and the inferiority of the others... advancing racial inequality.

You are mixing your arguments. If affirmative action were about racial equality then affirmative action would be about demanding equal standards be held to all races... It is not. Therfore Affirmative action is not all about equality.

Plenty of people think like this. Pat Buchanan, for instance. Strom Thurmond. Rush Limbaugh.

This is where the warning bells should be starting to go off in your head.

Good grief - you are one of the last people I'd expect to see fall into Godwin's Law.

If affirmative action were about racial equality then affirmative action would be about demanding equal standards be held to all races...

That doesn't follow. Equality doesn't always constitute treating people the same, regardless of circumstances. In fact, rectifying inequality always requires different treatment.

You are mixing your arguments. If affirmative action were about racial equality then affirmative action would be about demanding equal standards be held to all races... It is not. Therfore Affirmative action is not all about equality.

affirmative action is about bringing about racial equality.

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be explained that:

(1) affirmative action is not quotas. Quotas are illegal.



*sigh*
..and No Child Left behind is not about teaching to take tests.

(2) the beneficiary of affirmative action must be qualified for the job/college position.

:headbang

head injuries - that explains it.

"Qualified" is different for the "beneficiary" than it is for the "..."

hmm - what is the opposite of beneficiary?

Well yeah.
I thought that was common knowledge.

That doesn't follow. Equality doesn't always constitute treating people the same,

ROFLMAO!!!

THAT'S CLASSIC!!!

You must've loved 'seperate but equal'...

In fact, rectifying inequality always requires different treatment.
um - if everyone is equal then there is no inequality to rectify. What you are suggesting is that the solution to inequality is inequality. Prettly lame, but not as lame as your first line.

affirmative action is about bringing about racial equality.

You need to click your heels together three times when you say that - it won't make it true but at least it will suit the line.

If you want racial equality then treat the races equal. period.

I think the majority can agree that affirmative action is an attempt, successful or unsuccessful is up to the individual, to right past wrongs and to allow those be held in a disadvantaged state to succeed where, had they not had assistance, they would not have succeeded.

And I believe that the definition pro affirmative action debaters on this thread give to "disadvantaged state" refers to the state the minority is in due to the lack of income they have and how they live relative to the majority because they have, in the past, been oppressed by the majority.

Most can agree that minorities are not dumber than the majority nor do they lack the capacity for learning that the majority has. The minority is in no way biologically disadvantaged from the majority in that they both contain the ability to learn and ability to succeed.

Therefore, the deciding factor is that they are in a poor economic state. However, can one reasonably conclude that ONLY the minority is in a poor economic state? Of course not. Whites as well as Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Inuits, ....whatever.....all have a certain section of the population which is disadvantaged. So why does it make sense that a few races who are disadvantaged financially are preferred over other races?

You cannot bring past American slavery into this argument because it does not explain the entire problem. In addition to Blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans are give preferential status over the white majority, simply in the name to promote diversity. However, I do agree that Whites, at one point or another, may have oppressed these minorities. But what do all these oppressed minorities have in common, they are poor financially. However, so are many Whites.

Now to my point. I agree that past wrongs should be righted. It is without a doubt that many minority families' low income is the result of past oppressions. However, if our goal is to help those financially disadvantaged then we should help ALL who are financially disadvantaged including disadvantaged Whites. How is it that a wealthy black family should get preferential treatment over a poor white family simply because the color of one's skin? AA as it stands today does not break apart stereotypes, but reinforces them that Whites are all wealthy and minorities are all poor. It also reinforces that minorities are not intelligent enough to succeed of their own accord, but only with the sympathetic hand of the White majority. Whites, though they think they are breaking past stereotypes with "diversity" are only reinforcing them and people's perception of each other in regards to intelligence and ability to succeed on one's own.

This boils down to American culture which is highly individualistic. A helping hand hand is seen as not promoting diversity but exacerbating weaknesses. If AA's true goal is to help those in a disadvantaged state then everyone in the category of disadvantaged should be helped. Otherwise it is simply preferential treatment, just opposite from what it used to be.

...

how about you get back to us when you have some sort of basic grasp of both the issue and the nature of fixing problems?

Of course, whites are not the only ones that can be racist, but we do live in a society in which whites are privileged and minorities disadvantaged due to racism -- as I proved with my two posts on the matter. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240390&postcount=162), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240407&postcount=165)) It is a simple fact.




We also know that children from two-parent households are more successful and that blacks are much more likely to not live in two-parent households. Should part of affirmative action include compulsory marriages? Would you force blacks to get and stay married or force non-blacks to marry with them? Come on - we have some serious inequality to rectify and we know that the reason for all negative differences are not only the fault of whites, but also the responsibility of the government to fix.

You must've loved 'seperate but equal'...

That's a stupid comparison, as you know.

um - if everyone is equal then there is no inequality to rectify.

Right. So? Everyone is not equal. We have inequality, and that inequality must be rectified.

What you are suggesting is that the solution to inequality is inequality.

In a manner of speaking, sure: the solution to inequality is targeted treatment aimed at bringing up those at the bottom of the scale.

Sexual equality in today's society requires bringing up women. Economic equality in today's society requires bringing up the poor. And racial equality in today's society requires bringing up underprivileged racial minorities.

Because the "default" is a society that has failed to treat people equally, those who have been deprived of that equality must have specific consideration--otherwise the default is simply maintained.

Objectively, this is not a difficult point to grasp. Anyone who understands, say, arithmetic can understand the principle, and we recognize it as a society whenever we do not insist that firefighters hose every house with water when only one of them is burning.

how about you get back to us when you have some sort of basic grasp of both the issue and the nature of fixing problems?

Awww - kinda soon for you to tuck tail and run - isn't it? Are you upset that I exposed your fallacy? It's not the same as your fallic you know...

That's a stupid comparison, as you know.

No - it is stupid to not see how acurate it really is.



Right. So? Everyone is not equal. We have inequality, and that inequality must be rectified.

oooor. maybe everyone really is equal. try keeping up.


In a manner of speaking, sure: the solution to inequality is targeted treatment aimed at bringing up those at the bottom of the scale.

Targeted treatment? I thoughts that was what we were trying to avoid... On one hand you say that treating people preferentially based on their race is bad - now you say it is good? You think inequality is the solution to inequality? mm'kay.

Sexual equality in today's society requires bringing up women. Economic equality in today's society requires bringing up the poor. And racial equality in today's society requires bringing up underprivileged racial minorities.

Because the "default" is a society that has failed to treat people equally, those who have been deprived of that equality must have specific consideration--otherwise the default is simply maintained.

Objectively, this is not a difficult point to grasp: anyone who understands, say, arithmetic can understand the principle.

Really? You have a responsibility to make up for inequality illegally inflicted on other people by being subjected to mandatory and legal inequality inflicted on yourself? Math can't explain that -unless "collective guilt" is a math term...

*sigh*
..and No Child Left behind is not about teaching to take tests.

head injuries - that explains it.

"Qualified" is different for the "beneficiary" than it is for the "..."

hmm - what is the opposite of beneficiary?

hmmm.

I brought actual substance and proof of what I was saying to this thread.

And you brought .... what? insults from that stellar wit? Oh, snap.

hmmm.

I brought actual substance and proof of what I was saying to this thread.

And you brought .... what? insults from that stellar wit? Oh, snap.

You brought your own rationalizations and snarky insults - and I slapped you up side the head with a simple demonstration that they were rationalizations. Obviously it hurt you... Would you like me to continue or would you prefer your own headbang?

oooor. maybe everyone really is equal.

The evidence is not on your side.

You have a responsibility to make up for inequality illegally inflicted on other people by being subjected to mandatory and legal inequality inflicted on yourself?

Reversing the racial tables--oppressing whites instead of Latinos and African-Americans--would be racist and unacceptable. That would reasonably constitute what you object to.

Rectifying the current imbalances--removing white privilege, removing minority underprivilege--is not racist and is perfectly legitimate, even if it means (as attempts to rectify inequality necessarily do) different treatment for those currently privileged and those currently underprivileged in that process.

The evidence is not on your side.
So then - if you are saying that people are not equal, then you would also agree that they therefore do not need to be treated equal. You must have recently read Mein Kampf. I would be most interested in knowing who you consider superior if everyone is not really equal.


Reversing the racial tables--oppressing whites instead of Latinos and African-Americans--would be racist and unacceptable. That would reasonably constitute what you object to.

Rectifying the current imbalances--removing white privilege, removing minority underprivilege--is not racist and is perfectly legitimate, even if it means (as attempts to rectify inequality necessarily do) different treatment for those currently privileged and those currently underprivileged in that process.

(I changed italic to bold and added one bold to clarify you point)


Ahhh - so now you are making progress. What is the difference between 'different treatment' and 'discrimination'... hint: here it is--> ( )

We also know that children from two-parent households are more successful and that blacks are much more likely to not live in two-parent households. Should part of affirmative action include compulsory marriages? Would you force blacks to get and stay married or force non-blacks to marry with them? Come on - we have some serious inequality to rectify and we know that the reason for all negative differences are not only the fault of whites, but also the responsibility of the government to fix.

Cute. You must really crack yourself up.

But there is an obvious and critical difference between saying that "all negative differences are [] the fault of whites" and saying what I said, which is that "we do live in a society in which whites are privileged and minorities disadvantaged due to racism."

I'd agree the former is not true, but nothing you post addresses the reality of the latter.

As for "the responsibility of the government to fix," you do realize that most affirmative action programs are voluntary programs adopted by the private sector, right? So you know your "point" was empty? Moreover, you must realize there are scores of reasons why the government should undertake affirmative action, including fighting discrimination, seeking diversity, etc.

So then - if you are saying that people are not equal, then you would also agree that they therefore do not need to be treated equal. You must have recently read Mein Kampf. I would be most interested in knowing who you consider superior if everyone is not really equal.


You managed to spectacularly miss the point, godwin yourself and use a hilarious tone of faux superiority all in one tragic paragraph. Congratulations on a truly heroic display of interweb mongery.

You brought your own rationalizations and snarky insults - and I slapped you up side the head with a simple demonstration that they were rationalizations. Obviously it hurt you... Would you like me to continue or would you prefer your own headbang?

Um. Earlier in this thread I brought up copious evidence that affirmative action was not, in fact, quotas and definitions of what affirmative action actually is. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240385&postcount=161))

Your "simple demonstration" amounted to little more than saying "nuh uh" with an "you idiot" slapped on the end to make it seem witty.

Not really as impressive as you think.

When you are capable of debating substance in a mature manner, do give us a visit.

So then - if you are saying that people are not equal, then you would also agree that they therefore do not need to be treated equal. You must have recently read Mein Kampf. I would be most interested in knowing who you consider superior if everyone is not really equal.

Massive fail.

People should have and are entitled to equal opportunities. Unfortunately, people do not have equal opportunities. To the contrary, because of things like racism and sexism, opportunities are extremely unequal.

Saying that people do not have equal opportunities is different from saying that people should not have a right to equal opportunities.



(I changed italic to bold and added one bold to clarify you point)

You bolded it and yet you either failed to understand it or hoped the rest of us wouldn't.

Ahhh - so now you are making progress. What is the difference between 'different treatment' and 'discrimination'... hint: here it is--> ( )

Gee, what is the difference between "different treatment" and unfairness?

What is the difference between fair treatment and unfair discrimination?

Affirmative Action is a poor excuse for reparations. The problem that the OP makes is that they ignore the antecedents to behavior and the problems that cause policies for them to have a need. While someone looking at it from a very basic point of view can say...Well, it give minorities a better chance against majorities so it's racist. They never stop to explain why these policies might be necessary. They don't want to delve back into the history of racism in this country and the world as a whole. They see things in a "good old days" mentality that doesn't account for reality. It doesn't account for the racism and hatred that were still expressed and remain virulent today.

The people who claim this shit is OK are the people who say "it's over so get over it." Let me see you beaten, enslaved, denied basic human rights, denied any form of education, raped repeatedly for hundreds of years, etc. The need for the US Civil Rights movement in America in the 60's proved that the problems of the past were still not settled. So you mean to tell me that after centuries of being treated like "property" you can walk it off in a generation or two? When they finally stop enslaving you but they're still lynching you with smiling faces in pictures in the paper? When you get hung for looking at a white woman "wrong?" Shit, some of these things were happening in the 70's in many states.

So I repeat, affirmative action is allowing people who we have taken so much from, the ability to make it in our world today. It's an attempt to make up for the past and level the playing field again. Stop acting like proud people who taught Greeks and Romans suddenly lost their knowledge through the years. Kusch, Timbuktu, these were centers for learning and cultural understanding. The things were destroyed for the lust of material wealth. So don't cry about it when a kid from Harlem who has had to overcome shitty schools, dangerous streets you wouldn't dare walk even in daylight, gets into college over you. He sure as hell deserves it for overcoming his current reality and the hundreds or thousands of years of slavery and oppression forced upon his people by the very people who are now crying "it's not fair." The past does make a difference as you have to look big picture.

I'd like to continue this but I'm beat. Seriously, think of the root causes that made affirmative action necessary in the first place. Are many of them still there in one form or another?

Cute. You must really crack yourself up.

You make it so easy. ;)


But there is an obvious and critical difference between saying that "all negative differences are [] the fault of whites" and saying what I said, which is that "we do live in a society in which whites are privileged and minorities disadvantaged due to racism."

I'd agree the former is not true, but nothing you post addresses the reality of the latter.
If the former is not true - then how is it that the prior came to be? In addition - how could you honestly consider discrimination to be a constructive policy under any circumstance?


As for "the responsibility of the government to fix," you do realize that most affirmative action programs are voluntary programs adopted by the private sector, right? So you know your "point" was empty?
Really - the government does not participate in 'affirmative action'? You really want to stand by that?

Moreover, you must realize there are scores of reasons why the government should undertake affirmative action, including fighting discrimination, seeking diversity, etc.
Treating people differently based on race IS discrimination - so to say that affirmative action combats discrimination is like saying that carbon emissions combat carbon emissions.

Combating discrimination is a noble cause - but affirmative action as it stands now is not the tool which will achieve it. Seeking diversity as a goal unto itself is not a valid goal - in fact it could be a negative goal so long as it divides people into measured groups instead of uniting them as a single community. Most often 'diversity' is more about dividing people into groups then placing them into close proximity - which is not the same as uniting people regardless of heritage, gender, etc.- which IS a valid goal.

Of course - the optimal method to achieve THAT is still up in the air...

You managed to spectacularly miss the point, godwin yourself and use a hilarious tone of faux superiority all in one tragic paragraph. Congratulations on a truly heroic display of interweb mongery.

I see - so you have a better example of someone who argues that the races are not created equal? Not every mention of Hitler is a Godwin - particularly after a person argues that some people are superior to others. -- and I gave him pleny of opportunities to retract that one.

I see - so you have a better example of someone who argues that the races are not created equal?

All of us who believe that the human species evolved. ;)

Not every mention of Hitler is a Godwin

Yours was.

particularly after a person argues that some people are superior to others.

Look up "equivocation." Even if you think you know what it means, I think you need some review.

and I gave him pleny of opportunities to retract that one.

Your active imagination is not my problem.

Um. Earlier in this thread I brought up copious evidence that affirmative action was not, in fact, quotas and definitions of what affirmative action actually is. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240385&postcount=161))

Your "simple demonstration" amounted to little more than saying "nuh uh" with an "you idiot" slapped on the end to make it seem witty.

Not really as impressive as you think.

When you are capable of debating substance in a mature manner, do give us a visit.

Your 'copious' evidence is nothing but rationalization of other people regurgitated by you. You presume that these are all it takes to justify your own version of racial discrimination and look down upon anyone who would question your immaculate perception.

You are so narrow minded that you simply cannot accept 'unintended consequences' unless they fit within the construct of the rhetoric you have chosen to embrace. - or else you would have responded to the 'no child left behind' comparison I shared much earlier...

I hate to break it to you Sparky, but if you can't take attitude you really shouldn't be dishing it out. You want to have a grownup discussion? Then suck it up and quit being such a little bitch.

All of us who believe that the human species evolved. ;)


Not sure where you are trying to go with that. You did argue earlier that you don't think people are equal - right?


Yours was.

only if you did not really say that all people are not equal. Otherwise it was a very snarky attempt to get you to deny that.



Look up "equivocation." Even if you think you know what it means, I think you need some review.

Your active imagination is not my problem.
Backtracking now are you - care to explain then on exactly what you meant when you said;

The evidence is not on your side.
which was a reply to my statement;
oooor. maybe everyone really is equal. try keeping up.
which was a reply to;
Everyone is not equal.
relied to

if everyone is equal then there is no inequality to rectify.
which relpiled to

Equality doesn't always constitute treating people the same, rectifying inequality always requires different treatment.

So, working it backwards you essentially started with the premise that people are not equal. The premise I believe you intended was that 'people are not treated equal. I tried several times to help you get on track with that - but you were so intent on being right you failed to see that you were making an invalid argument (at least - I hope you did).

The so called 'Godwin' was an attempt to get you back on track. Yet again, you were so intent on being right you completely missed the point of the discussion - which essentially boils down to - you feel treating people unequally is the way to get equal treatment for people. - and also illustrates the absurdity of your entire argument - at least the one you were trying to make before you got distracted with your own cleverness.

Affirmative Action is a poor excuse for reparations. The problem that the OP makes is that they ignore the antecedents to behavior and the problems that cause policies for them to have a need. While someone looking at it from a very basic point of view can say...Well, it give minorities a better chance against majorities so it's racist. They never stop to explain why these policies might be necessary. They don't want to delve back into the history of racism in this country and the world as a whole. They see things in a "good old days" mentality that doesn't account for reality. It doesn't account for the racism and hatred that were still expressed and remain virulent today.

The people who claim this shit is OK are the people who say "it's over so get over it." Let me see you beaten, enslaved, denied basic human rights, denied any form of education, raped repeatedly for hundreds of years, etc. The need for the US Civil Rights movement in America in the 60's proved that the problems of the past were still not settled. So you mean to tell me that after centuries of being treated like "property" you can walk it off in a generation or two? When they finally stop enslaving you but they're still lynching you with smiling faces in pictures in the paper? When you get hung for looking at a white woman "wrong?" Shit, some of these things were happening in the 70's in many states.

So I repeat, affirmative action is allowing people who we have taken so much from, the ability to make it in our world today. It's an attempt to make up for the past and level the playing field again. Stop acting like proud people who taught Greeks and Romans suddenly lost their knowledge through the years. Kusch, Timbuktu, these were centers for learning and cultural understanding. The things were destroyed for the lust of material wealth. So don't cry about it when a kid from Harlem who has had to overcome shitty schools, dangerous streets you wouldn't dare walk even in daylight, gets into college over you. He sure as hell deserves it for overcoming his current reality and the hundreds or thousands of years of slavery and oppression forced upon his people by the very people who are now crying "it's not fair." The past does make a difference as you have to look big picture.

I'd like to continue this but I'm beat. Seriously, think of the root causes that made affirmative action necessary in the first place. Are many of them still there in one form or another?

Nobody denies that black slaves were treated horribly. However, blacks were not the only ones. Also, people of many different ethnicities have come to America from difficult situations. Many arrived worse off than the descendants of slaves were/are. Many blacks in America are NOT descendants of slaves. Most whites are not descendants of slave-owners. Many whites are worse of than some blacks. They do not deserve opportunity any less. Same for asians, jews, hispanics, or anyone else.

Regardless - You will not get an argument from me that racism does not exist. (Too many "nots" let me try again...) I agree that racisms exists. (better) The dispute is whether or not Affirmative Action in it's current state is a useful part of the solution to racism - which I disagree with. I am uncertain what the best answer is, but discrimination based on race is not going to ever be the solution to discrimination based on race. Period.

Yet again, you were so intent on being right you completely missed the point of the discussion - which essentially boils down to - you feel treating people unequally is the way to get equal treatment for people. - and also illustrates the absurdity of your entire argument - at least the one you were trying to make before you got distracted with your own cleverness.

so do you feel that it is 'unfair' to have firefighters spray water on just the burning house rather than all houses equally?

So, working it backwards you essentially started with the premise that people are not equal. The premise I believe you intended was that 'people are not treated equal. I tried several times to help you get on track with that - but you were so intent on being right you failed to see that you were making an invalid argument (at least - I hope you did).

You're laughable.

um - if everyone is equal then there is no inequality to rectify.

Obviously it is you who are using the sense of "treated equal" here... and I ran with it. The fact that you confused yourself is not my fault.

(For what it's worth, both senses of "equality"--positive and normative--are legitimate, and are used routinely. Even if you hadn't yourself introduced the use you criticize, it would still be your equivocation, not my error.)

You brought your own rationalizations and snarky insults - and I slapped you up side the head with a simple demonstration that they were rationalizations. Obviously it hurt you... Would you like me to continue or would you prefer your own headbang?

You also misspelled 'phallic' when making a penis joke. I mean, right now your Fail is so Epic that you put Homer to shame.

You also misspelled 'phallic' when making a penis joke. ...

Yeah Mystic, how dare you misspell phallic in a penis joke! Shame on you!

Nobody denies that black slaves were treated horribly. However, blacks were not the only ones. Also, people of many different ethnicities have come to America from difficult situations. Many arrived worse off than the descendants of slaves were/are. Many blacks in America are NOT descendants of slaves. Most whites are not descendants of slave-owners. Many whites are worse of than some blacks. They do not deserve opportunity any less. Same for asians, jews, hispanics, or anyone else.

Regardless - You will not get an argument from me that racism does not exist. (Too many "nots" let me try again...) I agree that racisms exists. (better) The dispute is whether or not Affirmative Action in it's current state is a useful part of the solution to racism - which I disagree with. I am uncertain what the best answer is, but discrimination based on race is not going to ever be the solution to discrimination based on race. Period.

I disagree. Many white southerners of the time claimed that "slaves rather like slavery." This attitude was not congruent with the fact they were worried about a slave revolt at the time as it was seen to be more dangerous than the Union soldiers. If slaves were happy with slavery why would you fear a revolt. This is not to say there weren't plenty of racists in the north, just to a lesser degree than in the South. This attitude has not died out in the least. The stars and bars are proudly displayed on bumper stickers, flags, etc. in all areas of the south as well as the north. People who do this claim it's "just part of our heritage." This is the wink and nod bullshit at it's finest. Comparing the suffering of slaves to other ethnic groups being called, "Wop, Kike, Spic, etc." is weak to be polite. There is no greater crime in this world than being denied freedom. Add to that the horrible rape, torture, and murder and you have the same system I'd imagine is in hell.

The argument that many blacks in America are not descendants of slaves is also puzzling. Most black people in America are of African descent. Those that are not come from many Caribbean Islands which were populated during the slave trade of early European "discovery" of America. They were also Africans but we'll just called them the people of Hispaniola for the sake of argument. They were enslaved in those lands which is no better than being enslaved in America. Along with the Native Americans they were taken prisoner and abused by European conquerers. They were forced to assimilate into the Christian faith as "the bible is right and all your native culture is wrong." Slavery existed as an institution in and of itself in Africa as well, but that's for another topic. So let's understand clearly that the overwhelming majority of black people in America are the descendants of some form of slavery at the hands of European/American people. So if you can think of anything worse than being denied freedom, rape, torture, and the forced conversion to a foreign religion please let us know about it.

Your 'copious' evidence is nothing but rationalization of other people regurgitated by you. You presume that these are all it takes to justify your own version of racial discrimination and look down upon anyone who would question your immaculate perception.

You clearly didn't look at my copious evidence, but rather dismissed it out of hand as not conforming to your ideological conclusions.

I will grant that some of what I linked were explanations of the law and other facts that come from a viewpoint I agree with -- that doesn't in and of itslef make them invalid, however. I submit they are true.

More critically, I quoted and linked to U.S. Department of Labor guidelines and Supreme Court caselaw, as well as definitions of actual affirmative action programs. These are evidence that affirmative action is not a quota system and that quotas are, in fact, illegal. If you wish to quibble with that fact, you need to provide more than your own bald assertions.

You are so narrow minded that you simply cannot accept 'unintended consequences' unless they fit within the construct of the rhetoric you have chosen to embrace. - or else you would have responded to the 'no child left behind' comparison I shared much earlier...

To make this argument carry any weight, you need to point to some evidence that these "unintended consequences" actually exist and are significant. Given that the laws in question specifically outlaw quotas, the burden is on you to show that they nonetheless result in quotas.

I hate to break it to you Sparky, but if you can't take attitude you really shouldn't be dishing it out. You want to have a grownup discussion? Then suck it up and quit being such a little bitch.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I didn't object to the attitude itself so much as the fact that your posts are all attitude and no substance. You rely on insults as a substitute for logic or facts.

If the former is not true - then how is it that the prior came to be?

Gee, you really cannot tell the difference between "all racial disparities are caused by whites" and "some racial disparities have been and/or are caused by our society?"

No wonder your analysis is so shallow.

In addition - how could you honestly consider discrimination to be a constructive policy under any circumstance?

Affirmative action isn't discrimination -- except in the vaguest sense that any choice among qualified candidates "discriminates."

You also choose to ignore that the bulk of affirmative action is nothing more than equal opportunity programs and recruiting type programs.

Really - the government does not participate in 'affirmative action'? You really want to stand by that?

That is not even close to what I said or meant and you know it. That you would try such a facile rejoinder evidences the weakness of your position.

Treating people differently based on race IS discrimination - so to say that affirmative action combats discrimination is like saying that carbon emissions combat carbon emissions.

The point of affirmative action is not treating people differently based on race, but rather ensuring that people are treated equally regardless of race, sex, etc.

If you cannot tell the difference between equality and inequality, that is not my fault.

Combating discrimination is a noble cause - but affirmative action as it stands now is not the tool which will achieve it.

It is a tool. An important tool. No one said it was the only or a sufficient tool.

Seeking diversity as a goal unto itself is not a valid goal - in fact it could be a negative goal so long as it divides people into measured groups instead of uniting them as a single community. Most often 'diversity' is more about dividing people into groups then placing them into close proximity - which is not the same as uniting people regardless of heritage, gender, etc.- which IS a valid goal.

Seeking diversity is a valid goal in and of itself and it serves other goals.

Of course - the optimal method to achieve THAT is still up in the air...

At least you don't deny that there is a problem that needs a solution. But your hand-waving isn't going to do anything to solve the problem. Affirmative action does.

so do you feel that it is 'unfair' to have firefighters spray water on just the burning house rather than all houses equally?

Invalid metaphor. Let me fix it - I would have a problem if firefighters took twenty minutes to respond to a fire right next door because that is how long it takes them to get the the furthest house in their area.

You're laughable.
you're pathetic.


Obviously it is you who are using the sense of "treated equal" here... and I ran with it. The fact that you confused yourself is not my fault.
It is you who is confuse and is now backpedaling.

(For what it's worth, both senses of "equality"--positive and normative--are legitimate, and are used routinely. Even if you hadn't yourself introduced the use you criticize, it would still be your equivocation, not my error.)
shifting gears - but still pedaling backwards.

You also misspelled 'phallic' when making a penis joke. I mean, right now your Fail is so Epic that you put Homer to shame.

The misspelling was intentional - and part of the phun. Get over yourself.

I figured I'd invite those of you who also feel that this subject is somewhat related to the current resolution (with respect to Discrimination based issues) to also consider roleplaying your national position in the UN forum.

I'm frankly impressed that nearly 200 people have voted in this (currently) 22 page thread, and think it would be nice to see more voices in the UN debates as well.

I disagree. Many white southerners of the time claimed that "slaves rather like slavery." This attitude was not congruent with the fact they were worried about a slave revolt at the time as it was seen to be more dangerous than the Union soldiers. If slaves were happy with slavery why would you fear a revolt. {/quote]
what relevance does this have to athis conersation?
[QUOTE=Liuzzo;13256137]
This is not to say there weren't plenty of racists in the north, just to a lesser degree than in the South. This attitude has not died out in the least. The stars and bars are proudly displayed on bumper stickers, flags, etc. in all areas of the south as well as the north. People who do this claim it's "just part of our heritage." This is the wink and nod bullshit at it's finest.
Then, by that same reasoning, it is true that it is white Americans who fought and died in the civil war to free blacks from their bondage.


Comparing the suffering of slaves to other ethnic groups being called, "Wop, Kike, Spic, etc." is weak to be polite. There is no greater crime in this world than being denied freedom. Add to that the horrible rape, torture, and murder and you have the same system I'd imagine is in hell.
You ned to stop gazing at your navel for long enough to see that blacks are not the only ethnic group to face terrible suffering. You really ought to learn about what 'refugees' are and what they escaped from before coming to America. Take a hard look at what they had when they arrived, what conditions they were subject to, then take a harder look at what they have been able to achieve after arriving. You need to step out of your little ethnic pity-party.

The argument that many blacks in America are not descendants of slaves is also puzzling. Most black people in America are of African descent. Those that are not come from many Caribbean Islands which were populated during the slave trade of early European "discovery" of America. They were also Africans but we'll just called them the people of Hispaniola for the sake of argument. They were enslaved in those lands which is no better than being enslaved in America. Along with the Native Americans they were taken prisoner and abused by European conquerers. They were forced to assimilate into the Christian faith as "the bible is right and all your native culture is wrong." Slavery existed as an institution in and of itself in Africa as well, but that's for another topic. So let's understand clearly that the overwhelming majority of black people in America are the descendants of some form of slavery at the hands of European/American people. So if you can think of anything worse than being denied freedom, rape, torture, and the forced conversion to a foreign religion please let us know about it.

You realy have a chip on your shoulder. Are you one of these "If you're not with us you're against us" people? I have made it quite clear that I do not deny that black people have experienced discrimination and that slavery was a bad thing. I'm not quite sure what it is you're trolling for.

As far as the proportion of blacks in America who can trace their roots to slaves - I would be interested in knowing if there is any census data which would support or disproove your claim.

Regardless - the point is moot when discussing the so called 'merits' of institutionalized discrimination.

You clearly didn't look at my copious evidence, but rather dismissed it out of hand as not conforming to your ideological conclusions.

Simply because I didn't make an entire page of quote-rants does not equal evidence that I didn't read your data. The point is - you data only illustrates what is obvious; black people are discriminated against. It does not illustrate anything about affirmative action being an optimal solution. (nor does it provide evidence af anything resembling 'white priviledge'.) The fact that quotas are 'illegal' bears no merit to our discussion beyond the unintended concenquences comparison to the No Child Left Behind act. It certainly does not legitimize affirmative action.


I will grant that some of what I linked were explanations of the law and other facts that come from a viewpoint I agree with -- that doesn't in and of itslef make them invalid, however. I submit they are true.

More critically, I quoted and linked to U.S. Department of Labor guidelines and Supreme Court caselaw, as well as definitions of actual affirmative action programs. These are evidence that affirmative action is not a quota system and that quotas are, in fact, illegal. If you wish to quibble with that fact, you need to provide more than your own bald assertions.
Why are you trying to argue with me that quotas are illegal wheh I never denied them to be? (though it wasn't that long ago they were) (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/15/bush.aa.transcript/) That does not make affirmative action any less racially discriminatory nor does it negate my comparison to the NCLB act. Quotas have just been swept aside for less obvious forms of discrimination.


To make this argument carry any weight, you need to point to some evidence that these "unintended consequences" actually exist and are significant. Given that the laws in question specifically outlaw quotas, the burden is on you to show that they nonetheless result in quotas.
There is plenty of evidence that many employers have an unspoken 'target'. The logic required to accept them is no more difficult to grasp than the logic it takes to realize that teachers are 'teaching the test' with regards to standardized testing - in spite of the fact that that too is against the rules.

Regardless of wether there are 'unspoken quotes' - the entire point of my argument is not about quotas - it is about discrimination and the hypocracy of Affirmative Action in addressing it.


Perhaps you misunderstood me. I didn't object to the attitude itself so much as the fact that your posts are all attitude and no substance. You rely on insults as a substitute for logic or facts.

You rely on insults as your crutch to avoid critical consideration of arguments contrary to your own. Not every point must be backed up with links and quotes. In fact - your points are often so full of links, insults and quotes that I seldom feel like replying - and judging the volume of replies your posts generate - I'd suggest that is a common sentiment.

1. Simply not true.

(snip)



Late for a dinner date. Ill reply next weekend or so.


-Later

because he was qualified for the job. if multiple people are qualified for a job, we have to choose between them somehow. a discriminatory choice would be one that unjustly excludes a person for reasons of (racial) prejudice. but that is not what happened, so the choice was not made on that basis. what actually happened was that the choice was made on the basis of a worthy societal goal of integration and promotion of equality.

So you essentially suggest I should embrace being overlooked for a job on the grounds that it might help create a peaceful multi-cultural society? Dream on sweetheart.

Affirmative action is a policy that, well intentioned though it might be, is likely only to disadvantage me. Hence, I disagree with it.

Affirmative action is a policy that, well intentioned though it might be, is likely only to disadvantage me. Hence, I disagree with it.

So you disagree with foreign aid? With intervening to prevent genocide?

So you disagree with foreign aid? With intervening to prevent genocide?

If it costs me a penny, yes, in short.:)

If it costs me a penny, yes, in short.:)

You're a lovely human being.

you're pathetic.

Well yeah, but... but you smell funny. And not in ha-ha way, but in that like, Dane Cook way.

Which sucks.

It is you who is confuse and is now backpedaling.

I'm aware this was a typo, but when I read this, I got in image of someone pointing and yelling at the top of his lungs, "YOU IS CONFUSE!". And I laughed for a reason I cannot explain.

So I feel like thanking you for brightening my day, even if it was unintentional.

The misspelling was intentional - and part of the phun. Get over yourself.

On a less light-hearted note, there's something dreadfully ironic about this... but I can't place my finger on it.

So you disagree with foreign aid? With intervening to prevent genocide?

don't mind BC, he's a fascist

AA is not racist, I don't think you understand how the program is implemented:
It has to do with the census, and hiring equally qualified minorities.

I think its sad that we have to acknowledge a concept that has no biological validity, but minority skin color populations do get the shaft in the grand picture of things.

[QUOTE=Liuzzo;13256137] I disagree. Many white southerners of the time claimed that "slaves rather like slavery." This attitude was not congruent with the fact they were worried about a slave revolt at the time as it was seen to be more dangerous than the Union soldiers. If slaves were happy with slavery why would you fear a revolt. {/quote]
what relevance does this have to athis conersation?

Then, by that same reasoning, it is true that it is white Americans who fought and died in the civil war to free blacks from their bondage.


You ned to stop gazing at your navel for long enough to see that blacks are not the only ethnic group to face terrible suffering. You really ought to learn about what 'refugees' are and what they escaped from before coming to America. Take a hard look at what they had when they arrived, what conditions they were subject to, then take a harder look at what they have been able to achieve after arriving. You need to step out of your little ethnic pity-party.


You realy have a chip on your shoulder. Are you one of these "If you're not with us you're against us" people? I have made it quite clear that I do not deny that black people have experienced discrimination and that slavery was a bad thing. I'm not quite sure what it is you're trolling for.

As far as the proportion of blacks in America who can trace their roots to slaves - I would be interested in knowing if there is any census data which would support or disproove your claim.

Regardless - the point is moot when discussing the so called 'merits' of institutionalized discrimination.

Ahh, right! I've never been accused as a "with us or against us person" but then again you haven't been here long enough to know many of my positions. Your knowledge of history itself seems to be weak as you resort to ad homenim attacks instead of just purely debating. "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts." There's no need for me to troll. I'm just making the point that it's a pretty close call between blacks and Jews for recent history suffering. You speak of refugees and I'll agree to that. You want to tell me who the largest population of refugees are? I'll give you a hint and tell you to think of rafts. Blacks and Latinos make up the largest contingent of refugees in America.

My stating of slave revolting was simply to point out how long Africans have been oppressed at the hands of Europeans and the Americans they have become. Denying people their basic human right of freedom, education, and vote was a way to systematically disenfranchise black people. This has not been reversed in the years since slavery has ended. Hell, it hasn't even been sufficed since the civil rights movement. What did white slave masters do to smart slaves? Why they killed them of course! You know what they did with the big, strong, dumb ones? Bred them like dogs they did. Now are you going to deny there is a genetic link to intelligence or shall I just ignore you as being found lacking in reality? Perhaps in the future it will be unnecessary to have a system helping disadvantaged blacks push their way forward, but that time is not the present. Your attempts to ignore the logic that it will take years to overcome this type of depredation are paltry. Europeans systematically destroyed the gene pool of Africans and now you want to play the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" line.

Listen, we don't need census data. Take a look at the logical progression I explained earlier. Africans were brought to many places in the Americas and were mixed with native people in the slave fields. Whether they toiled in the Dominican or Georgia means nothing. Calling slavery "a bad thing" is minimizing the issues but I'm keeping it large. It is factual that a majority of Black people in America are the descendants of Africans who were brought here by Europeans. To summarize, white people created the situation in the black community. Blacks did not find themselves in this situation by their own means. So while one group has wronged another group, and systematically weeded out their genetically superior individuals, there seems to be at least something that can be done to make the scales a little more balanced.

If the situation were merely of refugee situations we can acknowledge that there are people of many kinds who are in this situation. But where are the most dangerous and oppressive places in this world. I think you'll find most of them are in Africa. I don't think I need to remind you that most Africans are black. You minimizing the issue does a disservice to the reality of slavery and oppression. The slave doesn't recover from the wounds of oppression simply because you set him free. Especially when you've done everything you can to set them up to fail. You know, separate but equal type of shit. No go back to telling me slavery was a "bad thing" and that they've merely suffered "discrimination." Shit, discrimination is me calling you a "******" and not letting you into my house. If I tie you to a cross and burn you alive while your family watches? Then I give them the "gift" of death as well?

Back to your regularly scheduled program of white people saying, "oops, my bad."

You're a lovely human being.

No concern of mine at all. I don't pretend to be; I know what I want from life, what I'll need to do to acquire it, and also what I do, and do not, care for.

No concern of mine at all. I don't pretend to be; I know what I want from life, what I'll need to do to acquire it, and also what I do, and do not, care for.

And so presumably you'll have no problems with anybody treating you in the same manor?

don't mind BC, he's a fascist

It's TBC if you're going to abbreviate it, thank you very much.:)

Define fascist anyway. Or is Atlantian fascist as well? And anybody else who has the temerity to disagree with your Islamo-centric world view?

Would it be simpler just to play the Nazi card now and get the whole tedious affair of my responding to whatever delusions you conceive over with?

Simply because I didn't make an entire page of quote-rants does not equal evidence that I didn't read your data. The point is - you data only illustrates what is obvious; black people are discriminated against. It does not illustrate anything about affirmative action being an optimal solution. (nor does it provide evidence af anything resembling 'white priviledge'.) The fact that quotas are 'illegal' bears no merit to our discussion beyond the unintended concenquences comparison to the No Child Left Behind act. It certainly does not legitimize affirmative action.

Why are you trying to argue with me that quotas are illegal wheh I never denied them to be? (though it wasn't that long ago they were) (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/15/bush.aa.transcript/) That does not make affirmative action any less racially discriminatory nor does it negate my comparison to the NCLB act. Quotas have just been swept aside for less obvious forms of discrimination.

1. I don't expect you to have looked at everything I linked in my original post, as most of it was there for background for anyone that was interested. On the other hand, it is rather stupid to assert that I didn't provide evidence of something -- when it is there in what I first posted. Among the things included in my first post were evidence as to (1) what affirmative action programs really are, (2) that such programs are consitent with equal protection under the law, (3) that such programs are necessary, (4) that such programs are effective, etc... All of these facts justify affirmative action and cannot be dismissed as merely as evidence that "black people are discriminated against."

2. You are nonetheless right that I have also included copious evidence that blacks, women, and other minorities are disadvantaged in our society. I am glad that, unlike many others here, you don't appear to challenge this fact. The corollary of this, whether you choose to admit it or not, is that white males are privileged. Moreover, the studies and facts I cited show the existence of white privilege. For example, one study I cited showed that a white applicant with a felony conviction did better than minority job applicants with no criminal background -- despite having otherwise the same credentials and applying for exactly the same job. (my prior link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240407&postcount=165), study itself (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf))

3. I have argued against you that affirmative action is not quotas, because, in your first response to me, you questioned my statement that affirmative action is not quotas. Duh. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13255078&postcount=298)) It is also a common misperception, especially in this thread, that affirmative action means quotas.

4. Your attempt to cite a speech by George W. Bush as evidence that quotas were recently a legal part of affirmative action is laughable. I hate to break it to you, Sparky, but not everything Dubya says is true.

There is plenty of evidence that many employers have an unspoken 'target'. The logic required to accept them is no more difficult to grasp than the logic it takes to realize that teachers are 'teaching the test' with regards to standardized testing - in spite of the fact that that too is against the rules.

1. Then you should have no problem providing some of this "plenty of evidence."

2. I already addressed affirmative action goals, how they are set, what they mean, and how they are enforced.

3. Your analogy to NCLB is feeble. Simply because one program has unintended consequences does not mean that all programs have the opposite effect of what is intended and legal. Laws against drunk driving don't cause drunks to drive.

Regardless of wether there are 'unspoken quotes' - the entire point of my argument is not about quotas - it is about discrimination and the hypocracy of Affirmative Action in addressing it.

You don't seem to be able to make up your mind about whether you are arguing affirmative action involves quotas or not. I have shown evidence that it does not. You appear to rely on myth and vague implication.

Regardless, as I noted earlier, when you claim Affirmative Action is hypocritical, you don't seem to actually be talking about affirmative action programs. You haven't disputed my definitions of what affirmative action really is and you haven't provided any evidence that affirmative action actually discriminates. Just because you keep repeating the allegation doesn't make it true.

You rely on insults as your crutch to avoid critical consideration of arguments contrary to your own.

ROTFLASTC. The pot calls the kettle.

Not every point must be backed up with links and quotes.

When arguing against someone who has provided evidence that X is true, you bear some burden in providing evidence if you wish to argue that X is false.

In fact - your points are often so full of links, insults and quotes that I seldom feel like replying - and judging the volume of replies your posts generate - I'd suggest that is a common sentiment.

Oh, woe is me. Mystic Skeptic doesn't like my posting style and says I include too much substance. Whatever shall I do?

1. I don't expect you to have looked at everything I linked in my original post, as most of it was there for background for anyone that was interested. On the other hand, it is rather stupid to assert that I didn't provide evidence of something -- when it is there in what I first posted. Among the things included in my first post were evidence as to (1) what affirmative action programs really are, (2) that such programs are consitent with equal protection under the law, (3) that such programs are necessary, (4) that such programs are effective, etc... All of these facts justify affirmative action and cannot be dismissed as merely as evidence that "black people are discriminated against."

2. You are nonetheless right that I have also included copious evidence that blacks, women, and other minorities are disadvantaged in our society. I am glad that, unlike many others here, you don't appear to challenge this fact. The corollary of this, whether you choose to admit it or not, is that white males are privileged. Moreover, the studies and facts I cited show the existence of white privilege. For example, one study I cited showed that a white applicant with a felony conviction did better than minority job applicants with no criminal background -- despite having otherwise the same credentials and applying for exactly the same job. (my prior link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240407&postcount=165), study itself (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf))

3. I have argued against you that affirmative action is not quotas, because, in your first response to me, you questioned my statement that affirmative action is not quotas. Duh. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13255078&postcount=298)) It is also a common misperception, especially in this thread, that affirmative action means quotas.

4. Your attempt to cite a speech by George W. Bush as evidence that quotas were recently a legal part of affirmative action is laughable. I hate to break it to you, Sparky, but not everything Dubya says is true.



1. Then you should have no proof providing some of this "plenty of evidence."

2. I already addressed affirmative action goals, how they are set, what they mean, and how they are enforced.

3. Your analogy to NCLB is feeble. Simply because one program has unintended consequences does not mean that all programs have the opposite effect of what is intended and legal. Laws against drunk driving don't cause drunks to drive.



You don't seem to be able to make up your mind about whether you are arguing affirmative action involves quotas or not. I have shown evidence that it does not. You appear to rely on myth and vague implication.

Regardless, as I noted earlier, when you claim Affirmative Action is hypocritical, you don't seem to actually be talking about affirmative action programs. You haven't disputed my definitions of what affirmative action really is and you haven't provided any evidence that affirmative action actually discriminates. Just because you keep repeating the allegation doesn't make it true.



ROTFLASTC. The pot calls the kettle.



When arguing against someone who has provided evidence that X is true, you bear some burden in providing evidence if you wish to argue that X is false.



Oh, woe is me. Mystic Skeptic doesn't like my posting style and says I include too much substance. Whatever shall I do?

Damn you!!!!! You and your links are interfering with my short attention span and lack of attention to detail. I curse you and you entire lineage!

Not every point must be backed up with links and quotes. In fact - your points are often so full of links, insults and quotes that I seldom feel like replying - and judging the volume of replies your posts generate - I'd suggest that is a common sentiment.

Heh. I love this. The ranters always complain when they get overwhelmed the copious amounts of evidence against their false claims.

Did it occur to you the reason that people aren't replying to TCT is that he's right, and he proved it, and most people aren't as anxious to look silly as you appear to be?

Now, can you evidence that white males are disadvantaged because of AA? Can you evidence that white privelege doesn't exist? Can you evidence that AA is actually quotas (yes, I know you're not arguing that except when you are)? I'll tell you what, how about ANY evidence?

I was careful to not provide any links or evidence at all. I know how doing so would have upset you. Now since someone made this request that you, you know, support your claims, how about you provide some support for your position other than "but it's true. Yeah. It is. I swear." See, in the world of rational thought, we don't ignore copious amounts of evidence because some kid on the internet cried about it.

I think the majority can agree that affirmative action is an attempt, successful or unsuccessful is up to the individual, to right past wrongs and to allow those be held in a disadvantaged state to succeed where, had they not had assistance, they would not have succeeded.

And I believe that the definition pro affirmative action debaters on this thread give to "disadvantaged state" refers to the state the minority is in due to the lack of income they have and how they live relative to the majority because they have, in the past, been oppressed by the majority.

Most can agree that minorities are not dumber than the majority nor do they lack the capacity for learning that the majority has. The minority is in no way biologically disadvantaged from the majority in that they both contain the ability to learn and ability to succeed.

Therefore, the deciding factor is that they are in a poor economic state. However, can one reasonably conclude that ONLY the minority is in a poor economic state? Of course not. Whites as well as Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Inuits, ....whatever.....all have a certain section of the population which is disadvantaged. So why does it make sense that a few races who are disadvantaged financially are preferred over other races?

You cannot bring past American slavery into this argument because it does not explain the entire problem. In addition to Blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans are give preferential status over the white majority, simply in the name to promote diversity. However, I do agree that Whites, at one point or another, may have oppressed these minorities. But what do all these oppressed minorities have in common, they are poor financially. However, so are many Whites.

Now to my point. I agree that past wrongs should be righted. It is without a doubt that many minority families' low income is the result of past oppressions. However, if our goal is to help those financially disadvantaged then we should help ALL who are financially disadvantaged including disadvantaged Whites.

You clearly put some thought into this and raise some valid points, so you are owed a serious response.

1. That minorities are economically disadvantaged is one of the ways they are disadvantaged and is evidence of the effects of past and present racism. Poverty is not, however, the only way in which minorities are disadvantaged. Nor is discrimination merely a matter of the past -- as I showed in earlier links, minorities face active discrimination today. (See, e.g., link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240407&postcount=165))

2. Thus the problems and goals being addressed by affirmative action are not merely economic disadvantage. I explained earlier that affirmative action is justified by several moral goals. A program that merely seeks to help the economically disadvantaged would help, but would not adequately serve these goals.

3. There is nothing mutually exclusive about seeking to help the economically disadvantaged and seeking affirmative action. To the contrary, such programs are beneficial to each other.

How is it that a wealthy black family should get preferential treatment over a poor white family simply because the color of one's skin?

Why should a poor white family get preferential treatment over a black family, regardless of their income? Shouldn't everyone get equal opportunities? What is wrong with ensuring equal opportunities to both families?

The short answer is that the issue isn't that simple. And you likely have a distorted vision of what constitutes "preferential treatment" under affirmative action.

Affirmative action seeks to ensure equal opportunities for everyone, not just preferential treatment for some.


AA as it stands today does not break apart stereotypes, but reinforces them that Whites are all wealthy and minorities are all poor. It also reinforces that minorities are not intelligent enough to succeed of their own accord, but only with the sympathetic hand of the White majority. Whites, though they think they are breaking past stereotypes with "diversity" are only reinforcing them and people's perception of each other in regards to intelligence and ability to succeed on one's own.

1. What you are describing is a problem with the way some people view affirmative action. It isn't inherent in affirmative action, but is the result of deep-lying prejudices, resentment of a loss of privilege, the manipulations of politicians, etc...

2. Given that any beneficiary of affirmative action must be qualified for the job, educational opportunity, etc., there is no reason to assume that person lacked the "intelligence and ability to succeed on one's own." To the contrary, affirmative action only partially offsets the obstacles faced by minorities and women -- so such individuals must still overcome more to succeed.

3. I disagree with you that affimative action does not break down stereotypes. Over the last few decades, affirmative action has resulted in greater numbers of minorities and women being in positions of power and responsibility. These examples of success speak for themselves, as do the strength and benefits we gain from diversity.

This boils down to American culture which is highly individualistic. A helping hand hand is seen as not promoting diversity but exacerbating weaknesses. If AA's true goal is to help those in a disadvantaged state then everyone in the category of disadvantaged should be helped. Otherwise it is simply preferential treatment, just opposite from what it used to be.

I think I have addressed this all more than adequately above.

I suggest you look back at my explanation of what affirmative action programs actually consitute. To posit that they are merely preferential treatment for minorities is to fundamentally misunderstand such programs.

Hmm I have a question, If I apply for a "black" college, where whites are in the minority, can I get Affirmative Action to work for me, how about minority scholarships? :D

Sorry, there is no NAAWP and the KKK doesn't give scholarships to anyone. However if you are a Catholic of Irish descent, from County Mayo, left handed, with one leg we might have something for you. :p

Just re-read something that at least indirectly addresses this perpetuation of myths about minority scholarships:

The GAO, in a 1994 study found that at the undergraduate level, scholarships (from all funding sources) for which minority status is the only requirement for eligibility are rare, accounting for less than 0.25% of all scholarship monies; that scholarships for which minority status is one of several requirements for eligibility represent about 3% of scholarship monies; and that scholarships for which minority status is one factor among many considered are somewhat more common. On the other hand, DoEd officials note that there are countless scholarship programs which are limited to white students, at least de facto, because of some condition on family origins, membership in some social or fraternal organization, family affiliation with the particular school, etc.

(source (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa10.html), link to the 99-page GAO study (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED367208&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED367208))

So I see our friend Mystic "skeptic" is going to be one of those who just ignores cognative responses and pretends like the thread was over so he can continue the same argument elsewhere.

No reply is an admission your argument was debunked, friend. And if you are admitting it, then that's a sign you recognize when the evidence is against. Congrats. Glad to find you that rational.

In fairness, IIRC, Mystic Skeptic did say he wouldn't be responding until this weekend.

So let's be patient before concluding he has abandoned the field. :)

*agrees*

In fairness, IIRC, Mystic Skeptic did say he wouldn't be responding until this weekend.

So let's be patient before concluding he has abandoned the field. :)

Ah. Retracted. It's just so often the tactics of similar "they took our jawbs" types that I was being presumptuous.

Liuzzo;

What is your point and how does it relate to any part of our conversation? You are so wrapped up in your own agenda that you are not making any sense whatsoever with regards to this conversation...


I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you arguing that black people have suffered? Then who are you arguing that with? I have never denied that. Are you arguing that discrimination exists? Who with? Not me.

So what then, is your point?


So while one group has wronged another group, and systematically weeded out their genetically superior individuals, there seems to be at least something that can be done to make the scales a little more balanced.

So you consider affirmative action to be the penalty or prize for how closely you skin tone resembles that of people who lived 150 years ago?

Ummm, maybe you missed it - but the groups of people you are referring to (slaves and slaves owners) have been dead for at least one hundred years. Also, to assign all white people as descendants of slave owners would be quite ignorant. Additionally, you conveniently ignore that the union soldiers who fought and won the civil war were mostly whites.

This does not eliminate the need to address modern racism, but your argument is on very weak ground if you are attempting to justify institutionalized racial discrimination based on the suffering of people from over 100 years ago.


I'm just making the point that it's a pretty close call between blacks and Jews for recent history suffering. You speak of refugees and I'll agree to that. You want to tell me who the largest population of refugees are? I'll give you a hint and tell you to think of rafts. Blacks and Latinos make up the largest contingent of refugees in America.

I didn't realize that suffering was some sort of contest.

Regardless - you need to decide if you want to discuss history from 100 years ago or history from one year ago. If you want to discuss the suffering of African refugees you should bear in mind at who's hand they suffered at. (hint: not 150 year old slave owners)

You also should bear in mind that Africans are NOT the largest population of refugees in the US, and only recently became the highest proportion of refugees coming to the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

While you are off gazing at your navel pointlessly arguing who has suffered the most, I have been making the very valid point that refugees from all parts of the world have arrived in the US with far less than those you claim are the descendants of slaves have. Yet a considerably high proportion of them have assimilated and succeeded in US society without the 'benefit' of affirmative action.

snip

Sorry to snip - but this time of year I don't have a whole lot of extra time - certainly not enough to bore myself responding to your bloviation point-by-point. (after this it is tree trimming, outdoor lights, a Christmas carnival, and some home maintenance - and that's just today!)

Suffice to say - you have once again demonstrated your disposition to confuse quantity for quality within your own responses.

My original point was that affirmative action is to quotas as NCLB is to teaching to the test. You quite readily dismiss this because it does not fit in with your political predisposition - yet the rational for each is identical. Your ready dismissal to my reference to the supreme court ruling is more evidence of your ignorance of that which conflicts with your cookie-cutter adoption of your political parties agenda. Your comparison to dui laws is a red herring which you used to dodge a very rational point. You obviously are more comfortable in the land of bloviation than you are in the world of critical consideration in responding to those who disagree with you.

My second point was that affirmative action is institutionalized racial discrimination. Not one link you have posted disputes this. That it has had an effect at resolving racial inequity is irrelevant. Systematically executing white job applicants would also have an effect - it does not make it good. You have don't nothing to justify affirmative action as a fair nor as a good art of the solution to racial prejudice. (which is not the same as racial inequity).

You essentially describe 'white privilege' as an absence of discrimination - yet that is exactly what affirmative action brings. Eliminating discrimination against minorities is a desirable goal - but it would never be described as 'black privilege'...

That black people get discriminated against is undeniable. You repeat yourself consistently on that fact yet I am not disputing it. That this results in blacks not getting the same job opportunities is also not deniable. The point of disagreement is whether or not handicapping all white applicants to compensate for that is the fairest way to resolve the problem caused by employers. It may look good on paper - but getting tick-marks for hiring blacks really does nothing towards solving the root of the problem - racism. Affirmative action is a superficial solution to a deeper problem.

Oh, woe is me. Mystic Skeptic doesn't like my posting style and says I include too much substance. Whatever shall I do?
Don't confuse substance with window dressing. You, my friend, are a fine window-dresser but your 'substance' is arrogant, repetitive, uninspired and mostly irrelevant. The funny part is how easily you bristle when responded to in your own fashion.

Try including more of your own original thought on the topic instead of links to other people's.

In fairness, IIRC, Mystic Skeptic did say he wouldn't be responding until this weekend.

So let's be patient before concluding he has abandoned the field. :)

Thank you - in spite of your peculiar attitude I'm starting to like you.

Heh. I love this. The ranters always complain when they get overwhelmed the copious amounts of evidence against their false claims.
What evidence? I see none and I actually bothered to read it all. (yawn) Maybe you should take time to read MY points before you automatically determine them 'wrong' or not.

Did it occur to you the reason that people aren't replying to TCT is that he's right, and he proved it, and most people aren't as anxious to look silly as you appear to be?
Edited to remove idiotic flame

Now, can you evidence that white males are disadvantaged because of AA? Can you evidence that white privelege doesn't exist? Can you evidence that AA is actually quotas (yes, I know you're not arguing that except when you are)? I'll tell you what, how about ANY evidence?

I was careful to not provide any links or evidence at all. I know how doing so would have upset you. Now since someone made this request that you, you know, support your claims, how about you provide some support for your position other than "but it's true. Yeah. It is. I swear." See, in the world of rational thought, we don't ignore copious amounts of evidence because some kid on the internet cried about it.

I will provide you all this evidence as soon as you provide me one link proving that NCLB is a program designed to make teachers 'teach the test'.

What's that - you can't? Must not be true then...

See - I can shoot the crap out of your argument without any links at all.

What evidence? I see none and I actually bothered to read it all. (yawn) Maybe you should take time to read MY points before you automatically determine them 'wrong' or not.

Edited to remove idiotic flame



Yes, with arguments like this, it seems even you don't think you're right. How unfortunate? So far I've only seen you complain that other people have evidence and flame. You've refused to provide evidence for your claims. Yes, in rational arguments, evidence is required. I'm sorry that you're not used to providing arguments, but that also might be why you're finding it so upsetting that you're losing this argument.


I will provide you all this evidence as soon as you provide me one link proving that NCLB is a program designed to make teachers 'teach the test'.

Amusing. Why would my evidence have anything to do with NCLB? NCLB is not related to affirmative action programs. Your attempt to obscure the issue is just that.



What's that - you can't? Must not be true then...

See - I can shoot the crap out of your argument without any links at all.

You can shoot the crap out of an argument that no one made or supported without links. Yep. Now, try doing it with the arguments that included mountains of evidence. You can't. Which is why you're more interested in flaming and talking about anything but Affirmative Action.

Fortunately, I suspect you won't get a chance to reply to this. See you in a couple days. Perhaps that time you'll be interested in supporting your argument instead of freaking out because you can't.

Sorry to snip - but this time of year I don't have a whole lot of extra time - certainly not enough to bore myself responding to your bloviation point-by-point. (after this it is tree trimming, outdoor lights, a Christmas carnival, and some home maintenance - and that's just today!)

Suffice to say - you have once again demonstrated your disposition to confuse quantity for quality within your own responses.

My original point was that affirmative action is to quotas as NCLB is to teaching to the test. You quite readily dismiss this because it does not fit in with your political predisposition - yet the rational for each is identical. Your ready dismissal to my reference to the supreme court ruling is more evidence of your ignorance of that which conflicts with your cookie-cutter adoption of your political parties agenda. Your comparison to dui laws is a red herring which you used to dodge a very rational point. You obviously are more comfortable in the land of bloviation than you are in the world of critical consideration in responding to those who disagree with you.

My second point was that affirmative action is institutionalized racial discrimination. Not one link you have posted disputes this. That it has had an effect at resolving racial inequity is irrelevant. Systematically executing white job applicants would also have an effect - it does not make it good. You have don't nothing to justify affirmative action as a fair nor as a good art of the solution to racial prejudice. (which is not the same as racial inequity).

You essentially describe 'white privilege' as an absence of discrimination - yet that is exactly what affirmative action brings. Eliminating discrimination against minorities is a desirable goal - but it would never be described as 'black privilege'...

That black people get discriminated against is undeniable. You repeat yourself consistently on that fact yet I am not disputing it. That this results in blacks not getting the same job opportunities is also not deniable. The point of disagreement is whether or not handicapping all white applicants to compensate for that is the fairest way to resolve the problem caused by employers. It may look good on paper - but getting tick-marks for hiring blacks really does nothing towards solving the root of the problem - racism. Affirmative action is a superficial solution to a deeper problem.

Don't confuse substance with window dressing. You, my friend, are a fine window-dresser but your 'substance' is arrogant, repetitive, uninspired and mostly irrelevant. The funny part is how easily you bristle when responded to in your own fashion.

Try including more of your own original thought on the topic instead of links to other people's.

See, this is what you don't understand, you and he both made claims. His links demonstrate his claims to be accurate. Your lack of links show that you're either too lazy or incapable of supporting your argument. I won't either one to be true, but without any support, your argument fails. It's that simple.

I'll show you - my claim is that affirmative action has cuased the blue bird population to increase. Unless you're simply unaware of how arguments are formed, you'd entirely dismiss that claim without evidence.

You've made an argument, not a good one, but an argument. However, you've waffled on major points as soon as you've been pressed, and your initial claims have not been supported at all. In the world of debate, that means you lose. This concludes today's lesson in how not to argue. Tomorrow maybe we'll talk about equivocation and ad hominems.

What evidence? I see none and I actually bothered to read it all. (yawn) Maybe you should take time to read MY points before you automatically determine them 'wrong' or not.

[MODEDIT] Edited to remove idiotic flame[MODEDIT]

will provide you all this evidence as soon as you provide me one link proving that NCLB is a program designed to make teachers 'teach the test'.

What's that - you can't? Must not be true then...

See - I can shoot the crap out of your argument without any links at all.

Mystic Skeptic, you will note that this is slightly different from what you posted. That's because what you posted was a flame. As you undoubtedly know. Warned for flaming.

Quit the "win/lose" nonsense, too.

... <snip>
Fortunately, I suspect you won't get a chance to reply to this. See you in a couple days. Perhaps that time you'll be interested in supporting your argument instead of freaking out because you can't.

Jocabia, a suspicious mind could read this as threatening another poster with a ban. I'm sure a poster as experienced as yourself is familiar with the OSRS section on mods as weapons.

Calm down, folks, it's supposed to be a debate.

Shoudn't we just stop looking at race and just view everyone as humans?

Shoudn't we just stop looking at race and just view everyone as humans?

People would rather divide into competitive groups so they can knock each other around more conveniently. It's the American Way.

I mean, even if race becomes a non-issue (I wish it would), there's culture, religion and politics left to play with.

I think the only way you'd ever see this change is if we made first contact with an intelligent spacefaring alien species. One that wanted to destroy us all.

Shoudn't we just stop looking at race and just view everyone as humans?The simple answer is yes.

But not everyone is willing to do so.

Sorry to snip - but this time of year I don't have a whole lot of extra time - certainly not enough to bore myself responding to your bloviation point-by-point. (after this it is tree trimming, outdoor lights, a Christmas carnival, and some home maintenance - and that's just today!)

Let's see. You had a week to come up with responses to my posts, but you "don't have time" to actually answer them.

You have time to create a whole other thread which you are actively posting in, but you "don't have time" to respond to my arguments.

Just admit you are surrending my points. Don't act like you just "don't have time."

*snip*

You complain about my "bloviation" and then make a long rambling post that doesn't really deal with the points I raised in an orderly fashion.

I may change my mind, but I see no point in responding to your drivel at this time.

Shoudn't we just stop looking at race and just view everyone as humans?
Yes. But affirmitive action fails to do that.

Yes. But affirmitive action fails to do that.

Yes, if only affirmative action would go away, that whole race problem would disappear, right? Can you name for me a time when ignoring a social problem on the level of racism has EVER worked? I mean, didn't that whole women's rights thing solve itself. Oh, right, it didn't. How about religious rights? We've never had to deal with that, right? Oh, yeah, I forgot, it's pretty much constantly being addressed. Well, certainly there is sexuality. That issue solve itself... oops, nope.

These issues have never just gone away. And every time a concerted effort has been made to address them, the priveleged have whined that it's not fair that they aren't gonna be the priveleged anymore, yet, somehow, we white people carry on and continue to prosper. You'd think one of these times the predictions of the evils of social justice would come true, but so far there's only the whining about claimed and unsupported effects.

Liuzzo;

What is your point and how does it relate to any part of our conversation? You are so wrapped up in your own agenda that you are not making any sense whatsoever with regards to this conversation...


I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you arguing that black people have suffered? Then who are you arguing that with? I have never denied that. Are you arguing that discrimination exists? Who with? Not me.

So what then, is your point?



So you consider affirmative action to be the penalty or prize for how closely you skin tone resembles that of people who lived 150 years ago?

Ummm, maybe you missed it - but the groups of people you are referring to (slaves and slaves owners) have been dead for at least one hundred years. Also, to assign all white people as descendants of slave owners would be quite ignorant. Additionally, you conveniently ignore that the union soldiers who fought and won the civil war were mostly whites.

This does not eliminate the need to address modern racism, but your argument is on very weak ground if you are attempting to justify institutionalized racial discrimination based on the suffering of people from over 100 years ago.



I didn't realize that suffering was some sort of contest.

Regardless - you need to decide if you want to discuss history from 100 years ago or history from one year ago. If you want to discuss the suffering of African refugees you should bear in mind at who's hand they suffered at. (hint: not 150 year old slave owners)

You also should bear in mind that Africans are NOT the largest population of refugees in the US, and only recently became the highest proportion of refugees coming to the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

While you are off gazing at your navel pointlessly arguing who has suffered the most, I have been making the very valid point that refugees from all parts of the world have arrived in the US with far less than those you claim are the descendants of slaves have. Yet a considerably high proportion of them have assimilated and succeeded in US society without the 'benefit' of affirmative action.

Keep your snarky attitude to yourself. Here are my points in as crystal clear a way that I can make it.

1. Refugees may be disadvantaged but they were not done so at the direct hands of the US government and corporations such as citigroup and Chase. Your arguments fails because you are not comparing a similar struggle.

2. The United States government was complicite in the systematic disenfranhchisment of African Americans. There effect is DIRECT and therefor more of an issue than refugees from other countries. They have fled their country to come here, but have not suffered at the hands of the United States. Also, how do both parties coming here with no wealth, and one of them being denied freedom as well, make the situation equal. You're taking one hell of a beating in this thread.

3. Discussing history from 100 years ago is relevant to discussing history one day ago. You have been trained poorly in school to eliminate all antecedants to behavior and policy. By denying the lasting effects of hundreds of years of racial discrimination you are doing this argument a disservice. The policies may have "ended" years ago but their effects are far resching and long lasting. Your failure to realize the scope and sequence of the argument makes you willfully ignorant, or rather lacking in intellectually curiosity.

4. People have made an abundent amount of information available to your for review and you have failed to even look into their points. If you refuse to look at an opposing viewpoint that is backed up with actual empirical evidence then there is no real reason to continue debating with you. We present evidence to the contrary, and you stick your fingers in you ears and complain it's too much for you to handle. If you wish for this debate to simply have you echo youself time and time again then do be it. I will give you no more time as you do not afford anyone else the respect of actually looking into their points. You choose to ignore myself and others, so I shall now ignore you. Be clear, I am not conceding to you. I'm just tired of arguing points with someone that refuses try and see another's point of view. At very least you refuse to even explore others ideas. Good luck arguing without presenting any evidence to support your claim. No, Wiki links are pure bullshit.

Edit: And stop ascribing words to others and arguing against your strawman

I'm seeing a common theme in your threads. First, affirmative action is racist, and then evolution is racist.

Yes, if only affirmative action would go away, that whole race problem would disappear, right? Can you name for me a time when ignoring a social problem on the level of racism has EVER worked? I mean, didn't that whole women's rights thing solve itself. Oh, right, it didn't. How about religious rights? We've never had to deal with that, right? Oh, yeah, I forgot, it's pretty much constantly being addressed. Well, certainly there is sexuality. That issue solve itself... oops, nope.

These issues have never just gone away. And every time a concerted effort has been made to address them, the priveleged have whined that it's not fair that they aren't gonna be the priveleged anymore, yet, somehow, we white people carry on and continue to prosper. You'd think one of these times the predictions of the evils of social justice would come true, but so far there's only the whining about claimed and unsupported effects.

I would hardly call the dwellers of Appalachia privileged and its them AA hits, not the rich white suburban dweller. AA actually encourages racism because you've given the white marginalized poor of Appalachia, the deep South, and some areas of the west a reason to be racist. And yes, issues do eventually solve themselves. Opposition to Jews, Catholics, South and Eastern Europeans have dwindled to nothing.

Calling every white privelidged and or wealthy is fanatically ignorant of you. White poor is three and a half times larger than the black poor.

Coincidently, have you ever actually seen a racist? Not on the news or anything, but someone who professes extreme racial hate?

Coincidently, have you ever actually seen a racist? Not on the news or anything, but someone who professes extreme racial hate?

That's the definition of a racist?

That's the definition of a racist?

Not exactly, but its very hard to prove someone's a racist in other circumstances. Without pressing significant unbased character assumptions on the other person. You can't assume that because a black man was fired that he was fired for racial reasons.

Not exactly, but its very hard to prove someone's a racist in other circumstances. Without pressing significant unbased character assumptions on the other person. You can't assume that because a black man was fired that he was fired for racial reasons.

You're right. Which is why the effects of racism are so under appreciated because poeple tend to shy away from advocating apartheid through a megaphone.

Btw, there's an interesting qualifier you used - "extreme" racial hate. Is regular racial hate okay?

Affirmative action is racist. It attempts to stop racism by being racist. In an effort to make everyone equal, we've made the white male completely obselete.

Affirmative action is racist. It attempts to stop racism by being racist. In an effort to make everyone equal, we've made the white male completely obselete.

I wish someone had told me. I'm still rather obviously both white and male.

I would hardly call the dwellers of Appalachia privileged and its them AA hits, not the rich white suburban dweller. AA actually encourages racism because you've given the white marginalized poor of Appalachia, the deep South, and some areas of the west a reason to be racist. And yes, issues do eventually solve themselves. Opposition to Jews, Catholics, South and Eastern Europeans have dwindled to nothing.

Calling every white privelidged and or wealthy is fanatically ignorant of you. White poor is three and a half times larger than the black poor.

Coincidently, have you ever actually seen a racist? Not on the news or anything, but someone who professes extreme racial hate?

First, I'm sorry that you're struggling with this, but no one called every white priveleged. Ever. We are talking about a general problem in the US. The goverment is a shotgun, not a sniper. It cannot address the problem individually without being wildly ineffective. And, yes, some racism has moved to racism against new people. Yay. What a victory.

I sure wish I could learn about white poor people. Of course, being white and having grown up poor, I suppose I wouldn't know anything about that.

You know what's never happened to me. I've never been held back because I'm white. No one has ever been upset I moved into a neighborhood and the value of my house didn't fall due to it. I've never been refused a job because I'm white.

Yes, I know, you're going to talk about quotas, which are illegal and suggest that people are denied jobs because they're white. They CANNOT legally give a job to black person who is less qualified for it, no more than they can give it to a white person.

Your misunderstandings of AA aside, all it does is ensure that your employee demographics are representative of the available workforce. That doesn't harm people in Appalachia or the South or anywhere else unless they weren't qualified for the job in the first place and stopped getting jobs solely because they're white.

And, incidentally, yes, many, many times. Lots of them. Oddly enough, because I'm white and clean-cut, people don't seem to have any problem explaining to me all about how the niggers shouldn't be employed, or how dot-heads are taking over our country, and how Arabs should be destroyed. But, hey, racists don't really exist. There's no KKK. It's defunct. Right? It must be. You couldn't, you know, be completely and utterly wrong. You wanna see racists, hang around here in the summer.

Affirmative action is racist. It attempts to stop racism by being racist. In an effort to make everyone equal, we've made the white male completely obselete.

Did it? I didn't realize. All those suffering white males. I mean, obviously, since what you say must be true, white males are disproportionately poor. Oh, wait. Well, then, they must be disproportionately unemployed. Oh, wait. Well, then they must be disproportionately getting inadequate education. Oh, wait. Hmmm.... one wonders exactly how the general population of white males are suffering due to AA.

I wish someone had told me. I'm still rather obviously both white and male.

Yeah, me too. Golly, I hope some day, I'm not so oppressed.

Yeah, me too. Golly, I hope some day, I'm not so oppressed.

I have a dream that one day we'll have a white male president. That would be symbolic. The current 100% record of white male presidents since the dawn of time is frankly not on.

I have a dream that one day we'll have a white male president. That would be symbolic. The current 100% record of white male presidents since the dawn of time is frankly not on.

Or you know all those white CEO's or various other positions of power. It's just not enough. Clearly if we don't do everything we can to keep white people disproportionately wealthy and in power, we're oppressed. I'm so glad I've been enlightened. I'll go organize a rally to protect us.

First, I'm sorry that you're struggling with this, but no one called every white priveleged. Ever. We are talking about a general problem in the US. The goverment is a shotgun, not a sniper. It cannot address the problem individually without being wildly ineffective. And, yes, some racism has moved to racism against new people. Yay. What a victory.

You probably should've read what I was quoting first, because clearly that was what was said. Of course, I guess people as smart as you don't have to do that, right?


I sure wish I could learn about white poor people. Of course, being white and having grown up poor, I suppose I wouldn't know anything about that.

You know what's never happened to me. I've never been held back because I'm white. No one has ever been upset I moved into a neighborhood and the value of my house didn't fall due to it. I've never been refused a job because I'm white.

Yes, I know, you're going to talk about quotas, which are illegal and suggest that people are denied jobs because they're white. They CANNOT legally give a job to black person who is less qualified for it, no more than they can give it to a white person.

Your misunderstandings of AA aside, all it does is ensure that your employee demographics are representative of the available workforce. That doesn't harm people in Appalachia or the South or anywhere else unless they weren't qualified for the job in the first place and stopped getting jobs solely because they're white.

And, incidentally, yes, many, many times. Lots of them. Oddly enough, because I'm white and clean-cut, people don't seem to have any problem explaining to me all about how the niggers shouldn't be employed, or how dot-heads are taking over our country, and how Arabs should be destroyed. But, hey, racists don't really exist. There's no KKK. It's defunct. Right? It must be. You couldn't, you know, be completely and utterly wrong. You wanna see racists, hang around here in the summer.

Yes, specify where you are and I will drive over there to see real racism. I've heard so much about it, I really want to see a real life example now. After all, the fact that Jews and Asians are so far ahead in our society is clearly an indication of our racism, right?

And I would hardly call you poor if you have internet.

Yes, specify where you are and I will drive over there to see real racism. I've heard so much about it, I really want to see a real life example now. After all, the fact that Jews and Asians are so far ahead in our society is clearly an indication of our racism, right?


If you send out a bunch of CVs with one name sounding white and the other sounding 'ethnic' the white name will get more responses. Why is this?

You probably should've read what I was quoting first, because clearly that was what was said. Of course, I guess people as smart as you don't have to do that, right?

What you quoted was me saying that racism has never just gone away. It's not going away when our focus of racism changes. It's still racism. See how that works.




Yes, specify where you are and I will drive over there to see real racism. I've heard so much about it, I really want to see a real life example now. After all, the fact that Jews and Asians are so far ahead in our society is clearly an indication of our racism, right?

Yes, because some races that aren't white prosper in certain ways, there must be no racism. I forgot that was how racism works.

And, okay, deal. I'll demonstrate some racism for you. I can meet you in Houston or Chicago. Let's do it January. I'll introduce you to some real live racists. Of course, you could just, you know, accept reality. Racism exists. It's absolutely ludicrous to pretend it doesn't.

The KKK exists in other places besides the news and the internet. Those people hold jobs, and occasionally positions of power. And, you know, there's that famous racist who was a senator. But, oh, right, he doesn't exist either. And then there is the racist who was supported running for President. Didn't exist. They "really" only exist if you meet them in person, something you'll conveniently not do, and if you accept that they're racist "enough".




And I would hardly call you poor if you have internet.

I'm not poor now. I'm 33. How much money I have now has very little to do with how much I had 20 years ago when I was growing up. "Of course, being white and having grown up poor." See, once you're grown up, how you grew up is pretty set. I could be multi-billionaire today and it wouldn't change how much I had as a child.

If you send out a bunch of CVs with one name sounding white and the other sounding 'ethnic' the white name will get more responses. Why is this?

No, it doesn't count if you don't meet them face-to-face. Cuz that way, since we can't actually show him racists face-to-face on the internet, he doesn't have to admit how stupid his argument is.

I would hardly call the dwellers of Appalachia privileged and its them AA hits, not the rich white suburban dweller.

1. Do you have any evidence that AA disproportionately impacts white dwellars of Appalachia? My guess is you can't show that AA negative impacts a significant number of white people, period -- let alone a specific group.

2. Even the marginalized poor in our society have an advantage on average if they are white. I've copiously documented the existence of white privilege.

AA actually encourages racism because you've given the white marginalized poor of Appalachia, the deep South, and some areas of the west a reason to be racist.

No. What encourages racism is idiots that act like it is a zero-sum game that hurts whites. If you are honest about what affirmative action is and does, it is evident that everyone benefits from equal opportunities -- especially those that are otherwise marginalized.

And yes, issues do eventually solve themselves. Opposition to Jews, Catholics, South and Eastern Europeans have dwindled to nothing.

So people that are physically indistinguishable from WASP have managed to largely assimilate over decades and decades? How does this show that racism will just go away by itself in any reasonable timeline?

Calling every white privelidged and or wealthy is fanatically ignorant of you. White poor is three and a half times larger than the black poor.

No one called every white person wealthy. But blacks are disproprotionately poor, unemployed, etc.

There is a general white privilege in our society -- which I have shown in numerous ways. For example, this study (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf)(pdf, which I linked earlier) shows that blacks were only half as likely to receive consideration by employers as equally qualified white applicants. In fact, a white applicant with a recent felony conviction (just out of prison) had a better chance of employment than his black counterpart with no criminal background -- even though both applied for the same jobs withthe same creditials (other than the conviction).

Coincidently, have you ever actually seen a racist? Not on the news or anything, but someone who professes extreme racial hate?

Yes, I have. Having lived in Northern Idaho, I've met several members of the Aryan Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations) (prior to them losing their compound in Hayden Lake).

Furthermore, just check out Stormfront for active extreme racism. Or check out the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report. (link (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intpro.jsp))

But the point isn't just how much "extreme racial hate" there is out there. It is everyday racism and discrimination that disadvantages minorities and must be combatted by affirmative action.

Affirmitive action is by definition racist.

It's called reverse discrimination, but that doesn't make it wrong. Consider it racial atonement for all the oppression us whites have put on minorities.

I'm seeing a common theme in your threads. First, affirmative action is racist, and then evolution is racist.

What's next, "racism is racist?" :p

Let's see. You had a week to come up with responses to my posts, but you "don't have time" to actually answer them.

You have time to create a whole other thread which you are actively posting in, but you "don't have time" to respond to my arguments.

Just admit you are surrending my points. Don't act like you just "don't have time."



You complain about my "bloviation" and then make a long rambling post that doesn't really deal with the points I raised in an orderly fashion.

I may change my mind, but I see no point in responding to your drivel at this time.

All I really need to say is what I've already said once;

The funny part is how easily you bristle when responded to in your own fashion.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13275839&postcount=356

Farewell Hypocrite.

All I really need to say is what I've already said once;

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13275839&postcount=356

Farewell Hypocrite.

Heh. So apparently his style is to refuse to provide a lick of evidence for his provably false claims. Oh, wait, that's just you. But, hey, you did manage some good deba... heh. I'm sorry I tried.

So no need to check this thread anymore? You're admitting you cannot demonstrate a link between AA and NCLB or show that it's ineffective or unnecessary? Good. Accepted.

Keep your snarky attitude to yourself. Here are my points in as crystal clear a way that I can make it.

1. Your arguments fails because you are not comparing a similar struggle.

2. You're taking one hell of a beating in this thread.

3. Your failure to realize the scope and sequence of the argument makes you willfully ignorant, or rather lacking in intellectually curiosity.

4. If you refuse to look at an opposing viewpoint that is backed up with actual empirical evidence then there is no real reason to continue debating with you. We present evidence to the contrary, and you stick your fingers in you ears and complain it's too much for you to handle. If you wish for this debate to simply have you echo youself time and time again then do be it. I will give you no more time as you do not afford anyone else the respect of actually looking into their points. You choose to ignore myself and others, so I shall now ignore you. Be clear, I am not conceding to you. I'm just tired of arguing points with someone that refuses try and see another's point of view. At very least you refuse to even explore others ideas. Good luck arguing without presenting any evidence to support your claim. No, Wiki links are pure bullshit.

Edit: And stop ascribing words to others and arguing against your strawman

Sorry Liuzzo - but you have just handed yourself the ignorant post of the year award. You really have NO FUCKING IDEA whatsoever WHAT my argument really is? So how, therefore, can you determine it to be wrong?

You are so caught up in your own self- righteousness that you are arguing only for arguments sake. You have no idea that I've agreed with most everything you've written - so therefore: by disparaging me you are dspariaging your own points. THAT is pretty fucking dumb.

Get some counseling.

Sorry Liuzzo - but you have just handed yourself the ignorant post of the year award. You really have NO FUCKING IDEA whatsoever WHAT my argument really is? So how, therefore, can you determine it to be wrong?

You are so caught up in your own self- righteousness that you are arguing only for arguments sake. You have no idea that I've agreed with most everything you've written - so therefore: by disparaging me you are dspariaging your own points. THAT is pretty fucking dumb.

Get some counseling.

You do realize that one can agree with your conclusion and still disagree that you've made a rational argument, yes? He's fairly effectively demonstrated some of the rather glaring holes in your argument. People aren't required to pretend like you made a good argument just because they happen to agree with what you're attempting to argue. This is probably the most basic part of debate. It's fairly important to the entire thing.

Yes, with arguments like this, it seems even you don't think you're right. How unfortunate? So far I've only seen you complain that other people have evidence and flame. You've refused to provide evidence for your claims. Yes, in rational arguments, evidence is required. I'm sorry that you're not used to providing arguments, but that also might be why you're finding it so upsetting that you're losing this argument.

I agree with Ardcoille, I'm not sure why or even how you got stuck in this win/lose nonsense. I can only presume, by your post, that you consider every argument to require links to other people's opinions and reams of data in order to be valid. Therefore I expect you to be the first person to say thet NCLB is a fine program with no evidence whatsoever that it does anything but promote teaching excellence.

If you will agree with that, then I will agree that Affirmative Action does not in any way create an environment which leads to anything resembling quotas.
'Victory' is at hand - can you grasp it?

Aw shit - you probabaly won't unless I include a link to something for your own self-validation. Here. (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/petty)



Amusing. Why would my evidence have anything to do with NCLB? NCLB is not related to affirmative action programs. Your attempt to obscure the issue is just that.

Really? I don't believe you. Post a link prooving that. You obviously don't have any idea what a comparison is. Here - I'll provide you a link (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/thesaurus/entry;_ylt=AhS1qQZ6FenJ1PBKII83ZTcZvskF?lb=e&p=num%3AC0287600)



You can shoot the crap out of an argument that no one made or supported without links. Yep. Now, try doing it with the arguments that included mountains of evidence. You can't. Which is why you're more interested in flaming and talking about anything but Affirmative Action.
Hmmm. Maybe f any of those links had anything to do about my argument I would be interested. You obviously have no fucking idea what my argument is. Are you just arguing for argument's sake too?

Here - yet ANOTHER link for ya! (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/belligerent) - and this one is actually Relevant! (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/relevant;_ylt=AsewtV3WmY.Xsn6tjQGJ.PUZvskF)


Fortunately, I suspect you won't get a chance to reply to this. See you in a couple days. Perhaps that time you'll be interested in supporting your argument instead of freaking out because you can't.

I have supported my argument, but you are so thick you don't even know what it is or how to properly challenge it. Let me give you a hint.... (and another LINK!! W00TY!!! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+%22responding+to+comparisons%22&btnG=Search)

You do realize that one can agree with your conclusion and still disagree that you've made a rational argument, yes? He's fairly effectively demonstrated some of the rather glaring holes in your argument. People aren't required to pretend like you made a good argument just because they happen to agree with what you're attempting to argue. This is probably the most basic part of debate. It's fairly important to the entire thing.

What glaring holes? You don't even know what my argument is... You posts are pointless.

Heh. So apparently his style is to refuse to provide a lick of evidence for his provably false claims. .

Really? Provably false claims? OK, then proove it.

Oh, wait.. I can't make a claim without linking for you, can I? You are simply incapable of responding to the original thoughts of an individual here. You are completely unarmed at actual debate - you are any adept at playing 'my source can beat up your source'.

Sorry - I overestimated you.

All I really need to say is what I've already said once;

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13275839&postcount=356

Farewell Hypocrite.

So hurling more insults is the solution to your failure to provide substance?

And I'm the hypocrite. Sure, sweetheart.

Sorry to snip - but this time of year I don't have a whole lot of extra time - certainly not enough to bore myself responding to your bloviation point-by-point. (after this it is tree trimming, outdoor lights, a Christmas carnival, and some home maintenance - and that's just today!)

As I already noted and you didn't dispute, you are making false excuses. If you aren't going to respond to my arguments in an orderly fashion, just man up and say so.

My original point was that affirmative action is to quotas as NCLB is to teaching to the test. You quite readily dismiss this because it does not fit in with your political predisposition - yet the rational for each is identical.

I readily dismiss it because the analogy is fundamentally flawed --as I've pointed out numerous times. You seem to think that merely repeating the same flawed comparison over and over makes it have more merit.

Your ready dismissal to my reference to the supreme court ruling is more evidence of your ignorance of that which conflicts with your cookie-cutter adoption of your political parties agenda.

Um. You didn't refer to a Supreme Court ruling. You linked to a speech by George W. Bush talking about a position his administration was taking -- and talking out his ass while doing so.

If you meant to refer to Gratz v. Bollinger (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-516), 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (or Grutter v. Bollinger (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-241.html), 539 U.S. 306 (2003), for that matter) you should have actually referred to the case(s) and explained how it (or they) help your argument.

But before you accuse me of ignorance in the matter, you should note that the ABA Talking Points (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/talking/equal_aa.html) I linked in my very first post in this thread were discussing those two cases. Oops, your bad.

Your comparison to dui laws is a red herring which you used to dodge a very rational point.

It isn't a red herring at all, nor is yours a rational point.

You obviously are more comfortable in the land of bloviation than you are in the world of critical consideration in responding to those who disagree with you.

Someone has some projection issues, I see.

My second point was that affirmative action is institutionalized racial discrimination. Not one link you have posted disputes this.

Um. Yes, yes I have posted links that dispute this. It is a rather blatant misconstruction of what affirmative action is. And I loaded my first post with tons of evidence to that effect. Equal opportunity is not racial discrimination. Period.


That it has had an effect at resolving racial inequity is irrelevant.

Actually, it is rather relevant. And thanks for admitting that affirmative action actually has had an effect at resolving racial inequity.

Systematically executing white job applicants would also have an effect - it does not make it good.

Let's see: excuting white job applicants would obviously cause them harm. Making them compete on equal footing with other candidates doesn't cause significant harm. Of course, you may consider white males not getting all the jobs as not good.

You have don't nothing to justify affirmative action as a fair nor as a good art of the solution to racial prejudice. (which is not the same as racial inequity).

LOL. Many of the links I posted in my first post addressed the fairness of affirmative action and how it works to solve racial prejudice. For example, the Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html) that I linked to is an extensive review of the fairness and effectiveness of affirmative action programs.

You essentially describe 'white privilege' as an absence of discrimination - yet that is exactly what affirmative action brings. Eliminating discrimination against minorities is a desirable goal - but it would never be described as 'black privilege'...

Here you have a major logical disconnect: I didn't describe white privilege as the absence of discrimination. To the contrary, white privilege is a direct corollary of discimination against minorities. The absence of discrimination -- which you right admit is what affirmative action brings -- is equal opportunity without privilege for anyone.

That black people get discriminated against is undeniable. You repeat yourself consistently on that fact yet I am not disputing it. That this results in blacks not getting the same job opportunities is also not deniable.

Good for you. You at least pay lip-service to undisputable facts. But you did try to deny the existence of black disadvantage and white privilege.

The point of disagreement is whether or not handicapping all white applicants to compensate for that is the fairest way to resolve the problem caused by employers.

The point of disagreement is that you are treating equal opportunity as a zero-sum game where whites are victims. That is bullshit.

It may look good on paper - but getting tick-marks for hiring blacks really does nothing towards solving the root of the problem - racism.

Again, you misconstrue what affirmative action is and does. But, nevermind, because increased diversity DOES move us towards solving the problem of racism.

Affirmative action is a superficial solution to a deeper problem.

No, it isn't. And it is obviously less superficial than your proposed solution which is ..... oh, that's right, you said you don't know what the solution would be. Too bad for those disadvantaged minorities.

Well, clearly he's not denying white disadvantage or black disadvantage. Meanwhile, he posts another thread where poverty is choice despite the rather well-known and prevelant phenomena called situational and generational poverty. So let's see, blacks are disproportionately impovershed, but it's a choice.

Hmmm... why do I get the feeling that these are just really poorly-veiled lead-up arguments to what his real problem is... those "colored" people want us to carry them with OUR money?

And he's made it apparent that he can't actually demonstrate his points so he keeps trying to tie random things together, but hey if you make a comparison with support for that comparison, it's a red herring. You gotta give him credit, though, he can spell the logical fallacies. Perhaps next he'll learn how to apply them properly.

Affirimitive action is racist. It is racist in 2 ways, 1. It takes jobs away from majorities and 2.It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves. Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?

I agree that it's racist, but not for those reasons. It's racist because it states that your race should be a deciding factor in whether you're chosen for something or denied, be it work, school, or whatever.

What glaring holes? You don't even know what my argument is... You posts are pointless.

Interesting. So the reason that no one agrees with you isn't your failure at making a valid argument? It's really that we all simply aren't aware of your argument.

None of us noticed that you've tried to rest your point several times on a link you've not demonstrated between NCLB and AA.

None of us noticed that you denied white privelege and then admitted it exist. Denied racism was an issue but admitted it was. Constantly contradicted yourself.

Yep, no glaring holes. Just a thread full of people who simply didn't realize what your points was.

Really? Provably false claims? OK, then proove it.

Oh, wait.. I can't make a claim without linking for you, can I? You are simply incapable of responding to the original thoughts of an individual here. You are completely unarmed at actual debate - you are any adept at playing 'my source can beat up your source'.

Sorry - I overestimated you.

Heh. You're welcome to make points, but if your claim is something that asserrts, you've got to demonstrate that it's true. Many of your claims require actual evidence.

Hell, without a link, demonstrate why affirmative action is necessarily or even likely going to behave like NCLB. You haven't yet. Not even a little.

It doesn't take links to just mention how you claimed AA doesn't work, before you just admitted it does work and then pretended it doesn't matter if it works. You can't constantly contradict yourself and expect anyone to take your argument seriously.

I agree with Ardcoille, I'm not sure why or even how you got stuck in this win/lose nonsense. I can only presume, by your post, that you consider every argument to require links to other people's opinions and reams of data in order to be valid. Therefore I expect you to be the first person to say thet NCLB is a fine program with no evidence whatsoever that it does anything but promote teaching excellence.

If you will agree with that, then I will agree that Affirmative Action does not in any way create an environment which leads to anything resembling quotas.
'Victory' is at hand - can you grasp it?

Aw shit - you probabaly won't unless I include a link to something for your own self-validation. Here. (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/petty)




Really? I don't believe you. Post a link prooving that. You obviously don't have any idea what a comparison is. Here - I'll provide you a link (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/thesaurus/entry;_ylt=AhS1qQZ6FenJ1PBKII83ZTcZvskF?lb=e&p=num%3AC0287600)



Hmmm. Maybe f any of those links had anything to do about my argument I would be interested. You obviously have no fucking idea what my argument is. Are you just arguing for argument's sake too?

Here - yet ANOTHER link for ya! (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/belligerent) - and this one is actually Relevant! (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/relevant;_ylt=AsewtV3WmY.Xsn6tjQGJ.PUZvskF)



I have supported my argument, but you are so thick you don't even know what it is or how to properly challenge it. Let me give you a hint.... (and another LINK!! W00TY!!! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+%22responding+to+comparisons%22&btnG=Search)

And we accept your admission that your argument fails. Or are you going to pretend that when people have a solid point they do EVERYTHING they can to avoid actually talking about that point.

You want to talk about NCLB. We keep bringing you back to AA.

You want to talk about the request for you to support your claims, rather than spending similar time, you know, supporting your claims.

Again, what does NCLB have to do with an argument about AA.

By the way, you happen to know what shifting the burden is? It's why your argument fails.

What makes me angry is that we're lowering the standards of our colleges so we can get equal amounts of minorities in. Last time I checked, colleges were about providing the best education to the best students. Forbidding a smart white male from entering a university because a poor, academically deficient minority girl took his spot is outrageous. What we need to do is have affirmative action with SCHOLARSHIPS, so the poorer races can pay for college. Not have quotas for admissions into schools. And what else, if we're going to try to make this "reverse racism" make everyone equal, then why are 42% of the students at UC Berkeley asian while only 18% are white? Shouldn't it be as close to equal as possible? Oh, it's because they're smarter than the white kids, and have stronger applications. Interesting, because when the white kids are smarter than other people it's completely ignored...

So hurling more insults is the solution to your failure to provide substance?
Works for you...


I readily dismiss it because the analogy is fundamentally flawed --as I've pointed out numerous times. You seem to think that merely repeating the same flawed comparison over and over makes it have more merit.
Actually, no you ahven't you have only dodged it. It is a very valid ccomparison. People claim NCLB causes teachers to teach the test. This is against the rules. People claim AA causes employers to have a quota system of some sort. This is against the law.
The similarity is striking. That you cannot admit it either an indication of your own willfull ignorance or your inablilty to cofront a contradiction you'd rather not justify. Given your tendency to tow the party line - I'd say it's both.


Um. You didn't refer to a Supreme Court ruling. You linked to a speech by George W. Bush talking about a position his administration was taking -- and talking out his ass while doing so.

If you meant to refer to Gratz v. Bollinger (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-516), 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (or Grutter v. Bollinger (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-241.html), 539 U.S. 306 (2003), for that matter) you should have actually referred to the case(s) and explained how it (or they) help your argument.

But before you accuse me of ignorance in the matter, you should note that the ABA Talking Points (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/talking/equal_aa.html) I linked in my very first post in this thread were discussing those two cases. Oops, your bad.
So let me get this right - you chide me for not linking directly to the case, then support yourself by pointing out that you did not link directly to the case? Interesting dichotomy. I'll go with your second one; that the article linked suitable discusses the point on it's own merits.


It isn't a red herring at all, nor is yours a rational point.
As I pointed out severa times, It is a rational point - and that you have expended considerable energy effort dodging it only demonstrates it.

Trying to brush off my comparison with two similarly controversial topics with an invalid comparison to a non-existent dui controversy is so lame that I am actually embarrassed for you. [/quote]


Someone has some projection issues, I see.
As you said...
So hurling more insults is the solution to your failure to provide substance?
and as I said;
The funny part is how easily you bristle when responded to in your own fashion.



Um. Yes, yes I have posted links that dispute this. It is a rather blatant misconstruction of what affirmative action is. And I loaded my first post with tons of evidence to that effect. Equal opportunity is not racial discrimination. Period.

I disagree on both parts. Affirmative Action IS institutionalized racism AND you have not posted a link specifically addressing this since I have joined this thread. Some of the links expressed the OPINION that AA is not institutionalized discrimination, but none were able to conclusively disproove it.

AA disprooves that itself;
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=affirmative+action

affirmative action : an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discrimination
discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually.

Actually, it is rather relevant. And thanks for admitting that affirmative action actually has had an effect at resolving racial inequity.
And thank you for illustrating that you are incapable or reading even a simple paragraph... Unless you actually would support the random execution of white job applicants in the name of resolving racial inequity.


Let's see: excuting white job applicants would obviously cause them harm. Making them compete on equal footing with other candidates doesn't cause significant harm. Of course, you may consider white males not getting all the jobs as not good.

How are programs which are designed to unilaterally help only one set of people, based solely on their skin color, creating "equal footing" for any job candidate not of that color?


LOL. Many of the links I posted in my first post addressed the fairness of affirmative action and how it works to solve racial prejudice. For example, the Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html) that I linked to is an extensive review of the fairness and effectiveness of affirmative action programs.

Um, noo. It really is not. It is a statstical report on the results of AA policies. It does not address AA being any more or less 'fair' than the execution method I joked about. Both of these would have an impact on statistics. If randomly murdering white applicants would produce these same results (which they would), then you cannot say that these results demonstrate fairness. It only measures income distribution, not the 'fariness' of how it was achieved.

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe;13281538]
Here you have a major logical disconnect: I didn't describe white privilege as the absence of discrimination. To the contrary, white privilege is a direct corollary of discimination against minorities. The absence of discrimination -- which you right admit is what affirmative action brings -- is equal opportunity without privilege for anyone.

You will have to do better than that. You are saying that white privilege is the result of racial discrimination? Isn't that illegal? (You know - like quotas.)
Therfore 'white privilege' is already illegal and therfore an invalid term - who's sole purpose is to incite rather than unite.


Good for you. You at least pay lip-service to undisputable facts. But you did try to deny the existence of black disadvantage and white privilege.


I most certainly will deny 'white priviledge' - as per above. Black disadvantages are undisputeable. However - a disadvantage for one does not automatically equal a priviledge for another.


The point of disagreement is that you are treating equal opportunity as a zero-sum game where whites are victims. That is bullshit.

So thn you are saying that blacks are victims of AA? You would not be far off from Clarence Thomas' stand on the issue. The simple fact of the matter is - that if race is a consideration for acceptance in any degree, then the acceptance is based to some degree on prejudice. Simple fact. Bullshit is any attempt to avoid this simple truth with "flowing sanctimony".

Oh, and you should avoid using a zero sum argument for 'white power' if you are going to argiue that AA is not a zero sum program.


Again, you misconstrue what affirmative action is and does. But, nevermind, because increased diversity DOES move us towards solving the problem of racism.
Diversity alone does not solve the issue of racism - some of the most 'diverse' states in the union are also some of the most racially divided. Racial integration is a more uniting goal and effective at addressing racism - but I doubt geting 'tick marks' for hiring blacks is the optimal way to achieve this goal - and could be counterproductive - again citing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick15oct15,0,7107912.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail)


No, it isn't. And it is obviously less superficial than your proposed solution which is ..... oh, that's right, you said you don't know what the solution would be. Too bad for those disadvantaged minorities.
Perish the thought that there may be a better way. It is obvious that AA is perfect in every way. Any discussion to the contrary is heresy and must be forbidden at all cost!







(yawn) REsponding to TCT can be so boring.... Particularly in kind.

And we accept your admission that your argument fails. Or are you going to pretend that when people have a solid point they do EVERYTHING they can to avoid actually talking about that point.

You want to talk about NCLB. We keep bringing you back to AA.

You want to talk about the request for you to support your claims, rather than spending similar time, you know, supporting your claims.

Again, what does NCLB have to do with an argument about AA.

By the way, you happen to know what shifting the burden is? It's why your argument fails.

You really are incapable of carrying on a debate, aren't you? Rather than debate ideas you only debate... what? links?

You simply are incapable of wrapping your mind around something as simple as my comparison. You are only capable of gripeing about the link, source or lack thereof. You seem incapable of holding your own when it comes to original thought. How truely sad.

You are an unarmed debate opponent and every additional post you make avoiding a realy honest debate with me, every attempt to paint my position into something it isn't, each try to falsly attribute negative attributes to me, simply prooves it.

Come back when you are ready to have a real debate.

Mega-pwned.

Mystic Skeptic, thank your lucky stars for this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13281781&postcount=368), because otherwise you'd be banned by now. Check out this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13281908&postcount=3), where I went on at length about you. Cut out the nonsense with Jocabia. Come back to this thread when you've calmed down, and then argue, don't abuse.

You really are incapable of carrying on a debate, aren't you? Rather than debate ideas you only debate... what? links?

You simply are incapable of wrapping your mind around something as simple as my comparison. You are only capable of gripeing about the link, source or lack thereof. You seem incapable of holding your own when it comes to original thought. How truely sad.

You are an unarmed debate opponent and every additional post you make avoiding a realy honest debate with me, every attempt to paint my position into something it isn't, each try to falsly attribute negative attributes to me, simply prooves it.

Come back when you are ready to have a real debate.

Okay, you seem to be missing the point.

Let's say I say that because VA hospitals occasionally accidentally kill people then it's reasonable to say that government employment agencies kill people. A rational reply by you would be, can you show any evidence of employment agencies accidentally killing people? Or you could say, demonstrate why government employment agencies would necessarily behave like VA hospitals. See, that's how it works.

You're claiming that something completely unrelated other than it being a government program has unintended consequences. AA is a goverment program. Therefore it has unintended consequences. That's the entirety of your argument. It's ludicrous, but assuming it's not, demonstrate why AA would necessarily behave like NCLB. If you can't, then that they are both government programs offers nothing to the argument. The connection is tenuous. OR, better yet, demonstrate these unintended consequences are significant. You refuse to do the first and the second one requires links.

Further, you've claimed it increases racism, having the opposite of it's proposed effect. Again, that requires evidence. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of people randomly making claims.

Further, you've claimed that it disadvantages white people and insinuated that it's lowered the standards. Again, that requires evidence. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of people randomly making claims.

Without a clear link or clear evidence for you claims, all it takes to debunk them is "Um, no." Moreso, many, many links have be offered up that demonstrate that AA is effective, does not increase racism and has had an overall positive effect. You're going to have combat the evidence he's presented with more than a tenuous link to completely unrelated program created by a different administration for different reasons, managed in a different way, and using different means.

You just keep dusting off your hands like your point is obvious, but there is no connection. If you can, you know, debate and demonstrate one, please do. So far, there's not even anything to debunk. You've got nothing. You've offered nothing. You've simply flamed, attacked and accused everyone who disagrees with you of being unaware of your point. Debate. That's what we do.

AA disprooves that itself;
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=affirmative+action

affirmative action : an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discrimination
discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually.


You realize that under the same application of the words you've just abused, working to get voting rights for women would be discrimination. Since it was an active effort to improve the rights of women. As would an effort to make marriage available to any two people, since it demonstrably is an effort to allow marriage in homosexual couples. Hell, any time you attempt to make the footing equal for disadvantaged groups, it would discrimination using the definition you are. Since you'd obviously be actively working to improve things for that group.

A poorly worded definition is hardly evidence.

What makes me angry is that we're lowering the standards of our colleges so we can get equal amounts of minorities in. Last time I checked, colleges were about providing the best education to the best students. Forbidding a smart white male from entering a university because a poor, academically deficient minority girl took his spot is outrageous. What we need to do is have affirmative action with SCHOLARSHIPS, so the poorer races can pay for college. Not have quotas for admissions into schools. And what else, if we're going to try to make this "reverse racism" make everyone equal, then why are 42% of the students at UC Berkeley asian while only 18% are white? Shouldn't it be as close to equal as possible? Oh, it's because they're smarter than the white kids, and have stronger applications. Interesting, because when the white kids are smarter than other people it's completely ignored...

Yeah, colleges have always about letting the best and brightest in. Obviously. There's no such thing as getting in because your parent was a famous alumni. That you can find limited examples of poor judgement by colleges is hardly representative of the movement.

Meanwhile, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, colleges do not use and cannot use quotas.

You realize that under the same application of the words you've just abused, working to get voting rights for women would be discrimination. Since it was an active effort to improve the rights of women. As would an effort to make marriage available to any two people, since it demonstrably is an effort to allow marriage in homosexual couples. Hell, any time you attempt to make the footing equal for disadvantaged groups, it would discrimination using the definition you are. Since you'd obviously be actively working to improve things for that group.

A poorly worded definition is hardly evidence.

I probably shouldn't nit-pick (sticking my neck out is likely to end with me getting my head chopped off and all that), but your analogy I bolded there isn't quite right. IF women’s suffrage is applicable to modern day affirmative action, then the situation would need to be like this...

The Situation: Women do not have the right to vote. Action; allow women to vote. Problem; most women live far away from the voting booths and they need a ride to the voting booth or else they still won’t be able to vote. Solution; Rides are government mandated until new voting booths can be built where the women live. The modern affirmative action in that situation would be the "ride to the booth," not the right to vote. IMO. I don't see how else the example compares to Affirmative action.

FYI, I do not think Affirmative action is racist, I am in favor of government assisted 'rides to the booths' until the new booths are made and the rides are not needed anymore.

I probably shouldn't nit-pick (sticking my neck out is likely to end with me getting my head chopped off and all that), but your analogy I bolded there isn't quite right. IF women’s suffrage is applicable to modern day affirmative action, then the situation would need to be like this...

The Situation: Women do not have the right to vote. Action; allow women to vote. Problem; most women live far away from the voting booths and they need a ride to the voting booth or else they still won’t be able to vote. Solution; Rides are government mandated until new voting booths can be built where the women live. The modern affirmative action in that situation would be the "ride to the booth," not the right to vote. IMO. I don't see how else the example compares to Affirmative action.

FYI, I do not think Affirmative action is racist, I am in favor of government assisted 'rides to the booths' until the new booths are made and the rides are not needed anymore.

I would say working towards female suffrage constitutes "an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women"

I would say working towards female suffrage constitutes "an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women"

Yes, which was the point. If we wanted to go with his analogy, one where he wants to make it more complicated, it will just likely get down to details.

I wasn't comparing AA and women's suffrage, actually. I was pointing out by definition, fighting for those rights would constitute discrimination as readily as AA. Unfortunately words have denotative AND connotative tones. You can't ignore either of them.

Yes, which was the point. If we wanted to go with his analogy, one where he wants to make it more complicated, it will just likely get down to details.

I wasn't comparing AA and women's suffrage, actually. I was pointing out by definition, fighting for those rights would constitute discrimination as readily as AA. Unfortunately words have denotative AND connotative tones. You can't ignore either of them.

I knew I might be in trouble for nit-picking, but I think, in the end, Mystic Skeptic isn't objecting to the 'right to vote' (to continue with the example) but is objecting to the government subsidized ride to the booth after the fact, and IMO the argument should revolve around the actual contention between the sides not the definition of the words being used. Mystic Skeptic seems to think everyone is born with an equal opportunity to use the voting booth just because they have been given the right to vote... But just because everyone is granted the 'right' to get a job or go to college does not mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to do so. AA is the method being used to 'equalize' the opportunities for those that are disenfranchised in the system to no fault of their own.

Mystic Skeptic seems to be saying that assisting only those few groups (women or people of color etc.,) to the booth is ‘racism reversed’ because they are the only ones getting the subsidized ride, but the reality is that they are the ones that are farthest away from the booth so the ‘bus’ is designed for them, obviously. The people that live next to the booth don’t need their own bus, it isn’t ‘racism’ that they aren’t given their own bus.

That's why I interjected into this at all, just to point out the actual AA intent and effect. Mystic Skeptic isn't going to be convinced by falsely accusing them of not wanting to allow other people to vote (so to speak), because I’m sure they don’t want to deny rights, they just didn’t see the reason for the subsidy aide...

I knew I might be in trouble for nit-picking, but I think, in the end, Mystic Skeptic isn't objecting to the 'right to vote' (to continue with the example) but is objecting to the government subsidized ride to the booth after the fact, and IMO the argument should revolve around the actual contention between the sides not the definition of the words being used. Mystic Skeptic seems to think everyone is born with an equal opportunity to use the voting booth just because they have been given the right to vote... But just because everyone is granted the 'right' to get a job or go to college does not mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to do so. AA is the method being used to 'equalize' the opportunities for those that are disenfranchised in the system to no fault of their own.

Mystic Skeptic seems to be saying that assisting only those few groups (women or people of color etc.,) to the booth is ‘racism reversed’ because they are the only ones getting the subsidized ride, but the reality is that they are the ones that are farthest away from the booth so the ‘bus’ is designed for them, obviously. The people that live next to the booth don’t need their own bus, it isn’t ‘racism’ that they aren’t given their own bus.

That's why I interjected into this at all, just to point out the actual AA intent and effect. Mystic Skeptic isn't going to be convinced by falsely accusing them of not wanting to allow other people to vote (so to speak), because I’m sure they don’t want to deny rights, they just didn’t see the reason for the subsidy aide...

Um, yes, but you're missing the point. He posted an argument and acted as if it proves that affirmative action is discriminatory. I simply disproved it. No more, no less. I didn't compare AA and women's suffrage. AT ALL. I pointed out that if you claim that the definition of descrimination makes AA discrimination and thus bad, that you must say the same about the women's suffrage movement, because it was equally based around focusing on one group (which is the part of the definition he was stressing).

The rest was adequately addressed by other arguments. You're mentioning that I'm addressing one tree in a forest, but when all the other trees are already cut down, cutting down that last tree is all it takes. You seem to object to my focus on that one tree, but if you focus on just one tree at time, you'll destroy the forest in time. If you try to cut down the whole forest at the same time, or prove it's not a forest, that's just a failed tactic.

Your statement was the equivalent of telling me I can say she ran like a gazelle because she doesn't have horns or hooves. I was just using the gazelle to describe her running, not how she looks. If I want to talk about how she looks, I'll use other methods than her relationship to a gazelle.

As you can see, Sirm recognized the point, that by definition suffrage would also count since it focuses on a group, how it addresses that group isn't relevant to the definitions given. According to the definition he posted, all that is required for descrimination is a focus on the group.

Um, yes, but you're missing the point. He posted an argument and acted as if it proves that affirmative action is discriminatory. I simply disproved it. No more, no less. I didn't compare AA and women's suffrage. AT ALL. I pointed out that if you claim that the definition of descrimination makes AA discrimination and thus bad, that you must say the same about the women's suffrage movement, because it was equally based around focusing on one group (which is the part of the definition he was stressing).

The rest was adequately addressed by other arguments. You're mentioning that I'm addressing one tree in a forest, but when all the other trees are already cut down, cutting down that last tree is all it takes. You seem to object to my focus on that one tree, but if you focus on just one tree at time, you'll destroy the forest in time. If you try to cut down the whole forest at the same time, or prove it's not a forest, that's just a failed tactic.

Your statement was the equivalent of telling me I can say she ran like a gazelle because she doesn't have horns or hooves. I was just using the gazelle to describe her running, not how she looks. If I want to talk about how she looks, I'll use other methods than her relationship to a gazelle.

As you can see, Sirm recognized the point, that by definition suffrage would also count since it focuses on a group, how it addresses that group isn't relevant to the definitions given. According to the definition he posted, all that is required for descrimination is a focus on the group.

Didn't mean to get your feathers all ruffled up, I was just trying to lend a helping hand to the over all effort... But if you think all the trees are cut down except one, then you don't need my help.

*suspects that there are more trees*

Didn't mean to get your feathers all ruffled up, I was just trying to lend a helping hand to the over all effort... But if you think all the trees are cut down except one, then you don't need my help.

*suspects that there are more trees*

I can only address the trees he presents. That's how debate works. It's not about the forest. It's about the trees.

And I'm not ruffled. I'm simply pointing out that in that ONE post I was addressing that ONE claim. A claim which equally says that the women's sufferage movement was discrimination.

Actually, no you ahven't you have only dodged it. It is a very valid ccomparison. People claim NCLB causes teachers to teach the test. This is against the rules. People claim AA causes employers to have a quota system of some sort. This is against the law.
The similarity is striking.


Meh. Your continued repeating of the same argument ad nasuem is tiresome. I've addressed your comparison before and shouldn't need to address it again.

Nonetheless, your comparison is flawed. First, simply because one program has unintended consequences that are counter-productive does not mean that all programs have counter-productive consequences.

Second, if we were really to debate the nitty-gritty, do you have any evidence that NCLB specifically includes laws against teaching the test that are enforced the way laws against quotas are actively enforced? More importanlty, do you have any evidence that affirmative action necessarily results in quotas? I linked not only to evidence that quotas are illegal, but also evidence that affirmative action does not generally result in quotas -- and when AA does create a quota, such quotas are quickly struck down.

So let me get this right - you chide me for not linking directly to the case, then support yourself by pointing out that you did not link directly to the case? Interesting dichotomy. I'll go with your second one; that the article linked suitable discusses the point on it's own merits.

Um, nice try at turning what I said on its head. You chided me for ignorance about a Supreme Court case you said you had linked. I pointed out (1) you didn't link the Supreme Court case but rather a tangentially related speech by George W. Bush and (2) it was rather stupid to call me ignorant of a Supreme Court case when I had linked information about it in my first post.

If you want to claim the speech by Dubya "suitabl[y] discusses the point on its own merits" then I will respectfully LOL.


I disagree on both parts. Affirmative Action IS institutionalized racism AND you have not posted a link specifically addressing this since I have joined this thread. Some of the links expressed the OPINION that AA is not institutionalized discrimination, but none were able to conclusively disproove it.

I offered abundant evidence that AA is not institutional racism in my very first post in this thread, which was long before you joined the thread.

And you've offered "conclusive[]" proof of exactly what? ..... NOTHING!

AA disprooves that itself;
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=affirmative+action

affirmative action : an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discrimination
discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually.

*sigh* We already played the "dictionary game" much earlier in the thread. I'm not going to reargue a point that was already argued into the ground. See, e.g., link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13243752&postcount=246).

And thank you for illustrating that you are incapable or reading even a simple paragraph... Unless you actually would support the random execution of white job applicants in the name of resolving racial inequity.

If you don't mean it, don't say. Especially as you said AA was effective in resolving racial inequity more than once.

As for your exectuing whites example, I answered it directly and you've chosen to ignore that answer.

How are programs which are designed to unilaterally help only one set of people, based solely on their skin color, creating "equal footing" for any job candidate not of that color?

That isn't what affirmative action does, so your argument fails.


LOL. Many of the links I posted in my first post addressed the fairness of affirmative action and how it works to solve racial prejudice. For example, the Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html) that I linked to is an extensive review of the fairness and effectiveness of affirmative action programs.

Um, noo. It really is not. It is a statstical report on the results of AA policies. It does not address AA being any more or less 'fair' than the execution method I joked about. Both of these would have an impact on statistics. If randomly murdering white applicants would produce these same results (which they would), then you cannot say that these results demonstrate fairness. It only measures income distribution, not the 'fariness' of how it was achieved.

Um, yes. It really is. Way to show you haven't actually looked at the Affirmative Action Review that I linked. As explained in the Introduction and referred to throughout the Review, the Review looks at affirmative action programs and seeks to answer for each one (1) "Does it work?" and (2) "Is it fair?" The Introduction (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa01.html) lays out specific criteria for evaluating these questions:

1.2.2 The First Test: Does It Work?

More specifically, the President's first charge was to determine whether the federal government's affirmative action programs work.

Whether a program "works" depends on what goal it seeks to achieve. Above all else, the overriding goal of affirmative action must be to provide equal opportunity for all citizens. In pursuit of that goal, affirmative action has two general justifications -- remediation of discrimination, and promoting inclusion -- both of which are consistent with the traditional American values of opportunity, merit and fairness.

Expanding opportunity by fighting and preventing discrimination. The primary justification for the use of race- and gender-conscious measures is to eradicate discrimination, root and branch. Affirmative action, therefore, is used first and foremost to remedy specific past and current discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination -- used sometimes by court order or settlement, but more often used voluntarily by private parties or by governments. Affirmative action is also used to prevent future discrimination or exclusion from occurring. It does so by ensuring that organizations and decisionmakers end and avoid hiring or other practices that effectively erect barriers. In undertaking such efforts, however, two wrongs don't make a right. Illegal discrimination includes reverse discrimination; reverse discrimination is discrimination, and it is wrong. Affirmative action, when done right, is not reverse discrimination.

Expanding opportunity through inclusion. Vigorous prosecution of proven instances of discrimination will not by itself close the opportunity gap; bias and prejudice have proven too varied and subtle for that. Therefore, to genuinely extend opportunity to all, we must take affirmative steps to bring underrepresented minorities and women into the economic mainstream. The consequences of years of officially sanctioned exclusion and deprivation are powerfully evident in the social and economic ills we observe today. In some circumstances, therefore, race-and gender-conscious measures can also be justified by the compelling importance of inclusion. Affirmative action is sometimes used simply to open institutions and opportunities because doing so will move minorities and women into the economic mainstream, with benefits to them, to those institutions, and to our society as a whole. For example:

*Virtually all educators acknowledge that a college is a better academic enterprise if the student body and faculty are diverse.

*A police department will be more effective in protecting and serving its community if its officers are somewhat reflective of that community.

*The military recognized years ago that sharp imbalances in the representation of minorities and women in the leadership grades of enlisted and commissioned personnel undermined the cohesion and effectiveness of military units, and effectively deprived the armed forces of full use of a portion of our nation's pool of talent. Most major corporations recognize this same challenge.

*Judges and government policymakers must be able to reflect the concerns, aspirations and experiences of the public they serve in order to do their jobs well and enjoy legitimacy.

Ultimately, therefore, the test of whether an affirmative action program works is whether it hastens the eradication of discrimination, and promotes inclusion of everyone in the opportunities America promises us all. As a general matter, increases in the numbers of employees, or students or entrepreneurs from historically underrepresented groups are a measure of increased opportunity. It is very difficult, however, to separate the contribution of affirmative action from the contribution of antidiscrimination enforcement, decreasing prejudice, rising incomes and other forces. At the same time, the fact that we observe so much continuing socioeconomic division and inequality of opportunity does not imply that affirmative action is a failure. It is merely one tool among many that must play a part in creating opportunity.

1.2.3. The Second Test: Is the Program Fair?

For each federal program, at the President's direction, the Review team asked the agency head to apply the following test of essential fairness, stated here with regard to race:

(1) Not quotas. Quotas are intrinsically rigid, and intrinsically relegate qualifications and other factors to secondary status. Does the program effectively avoid quotas for inclusion of racial minorities ?

(2) Race-Neutral Options. In a program's design or reconsideration, have options for using various race-neutral decision factors been analyzed? Were options reasonably rejected, given the available information and experience, because those alternatives are unlikely to be acceptably effective in advancing the program objectives?

(3) Flexible. If race-neutral measures will not work, is the measure applied in a flexible manner, and were less extensive or intrusive uses of race analyzed and rejected based on a determination that they would not have been acceptably effective?

(4) Transitional. Is the measure limited in duration, and does the administering agency periodically review the continuing need for the measure?

(5) Balanced. Is the effect on nonbeneficiaries sufficiently small and diffuse so as not to unduly burden their opportunities? In other words, are other jobs or other similar benefits available, or is the result of the program to close off an irreplaceable benefit?

1.2.4. Affirmative Action: The Right Way and The Wrong Way

In short, we believe that there is a right way to do affirmative action, and a wrong way. This review conducts a preliminary policy analysis of many of the existing programs to assess whether they represent the "right way." This means two things: they must actually work to effectuate the goals of fighting discrimination and encouraging inclusion; and they must be fair -- i.e., no unqualified person can be preferred over another qualified person in the name of affirmative action, decisions will not be made on the basis of race or gender except when there is a special justification for doing so, and these measures will be transitional. Only by applying these principles can we aggressively and simultaneously pursue remedies to discrimination, the inclusion we need in order to strengthen our institutions and our economy, and essential fairness to all.


Sorry about the long quote, but it was necessary to show just how ignorant you were acting.


You will have to do better than that. You are saying that white privilege is the result of racial discrimination? Isn't that illegal? (You know - like quotas.)
Therfore 'white privilege' is already illegal and therfore an invalid term - who's sole purpose is to incite rather than unite.

I've shown that despite discrimination being illegal, it persists -- as does white privilege. You've claimed (rather perversely) that quotas exist, but you've offered no proof. The difference here is a simple one of evidence.


I most certainly will deny 'white priviledge' - as per above. Black disadvantages are undisputeable. However - a disadvantage for one does not automatically equal a priviledge for another.

In reality, it does. Whites are privileged in our society.


So thn you are saying that blacks are victims of AA? You would not be far off from Clarence Thomas' stand on the issue.

Of course I am not. To the contrary, there are no "victims" of affirmative action -- everyone benefits from a system of equal opportunity.

And Clarence Thomas is a fool.

The simple fact of the matter is - that if race is a consideration for acceptance in any degree, then the acceptance is based to some degree on prejudice. Simple fact. Bullshit is any attempt to avoid this simple truth with "flowing sanctimony".

There is a rather obvious difference between ensuring equal opportunity for all and making decisions based on prejudice. If you cannot understand that difference, it goes a long way towards explaining why you are so confused about AA.

Oh, and you should avoid using a zero sum argument for 'white power' if you are going to argiue that AA is not a zero sum program.

Equal opportunity for everyone is not a zero-sum game. Inequality does favor one group over another. It's that simple.

Diversity alone does not solve the issue of racism - some of the most 'diverse' states in the union are also some of the most racially divided. Racial integration is a more uniting goal and effective at addressing racism - but I doubt geting 'tick marks' for hiring blacks is the optimal way to achieve this goal - and could be counterproductive - again citing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick15oct15,0,7107912.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail)

Diversity and integration are essentially the same in this context. Regardless, AA promotes integration. Your argument that AA isn't optimal falis based on your inability to suggest any better alternative. Your argument that it is counter-productive is simply untrue.

And, again, Clarence Thomas is a fool. He has one of the highest positions available in his field and yet he complains he is a "victim" of affirmative action. :rolleyes:

Perish the thought that there may be a better way. It is obvious that AA is perfect in every way. Any discussion to the contrary is heresy and must be forbidden at all cost!

Oooh. Nice set of strawmen there. I never said AA is perfect in everyway or that any discussion to the contrary is forbidden. I did challenge you to actually point to this "better way" you advocate.

I'm getting a very serious sense of deja vu here. Mystic Skeptic, quit now, it's not worth it, trust me.

Okay, you seem to be missing the point.

Let's say I say that because VA hospitals occasionally accidentally kill people then it's reasonable to say that government employment agencies kill people. A rational reply by you would be, can you show any evidence of employment agencies accidentally killing people? Or you could say, demonstrate why government employment agencies would necessarily behave like VA hospitals. See, that's how it works.

You're claiming that something completely unrelated other than it being a government program has unintended consequences. AA is a goverment program. Therefore it has unintended consequences. That's the entirety of your argument. It's ludicrous, but assuming it's not, demonstrate why AA would necessarily behave like NCLB. If you can't, then that they are both government programs offers nothing to the argument. The connection is tenuous. OR, better yet, demonstrate these unintended consequences are significant. You refuse to do the first and the second one requires links.

Further, you've claimed it increases racism, having the opposite of it's proposed effect. Again, that requires evidence. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of people randomly making claims.

Further, you've claimed that it disadvantages white people and insinuated that it's lowered the standards. Again, that requires evidence. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of people randomly making claims.

Without a clear link or clear evidence for you claims, all it takes to debunk them is "Um, no." Moreso, many, many links have be offered up that demonstrate that AA is effective, does not increase racism and has had an overall positive effect. You're going to have combat the evidence he's presented with more than a tenuous link to completely unrelated program created by a different administration for different reasons, managed in a different way, and using different means.

You just keep dusting off your hands like your point is obvious, but there is no connection. If you can, you know, debate and demonstrate one, please do. So far, there's not even anything to debunk. You've got nothing. You've offered nothing. You've simply flamed, attacked and accused everyone who disagrees with you of being unaware of your point. Debate. That's what we do.

Ah, yes, as expected. When you get a careful explanation of what it would take to support your point, with or without links, you ignore it and move. Shocker. That hardly ever happens.

Give it a rest, Jocabia. There are a hundred million reasons someone might choose not to reply to a post -- including discretion. It's an under-rated virtue, but worth a try.

And that is "racist" exactly how?
Okay. Me (white guy) and a black guy have the exact same grades and are trying to get into a college. Unfortunately, this university needs one more black person to get its quota. So the black guy gets in over me why? Because he is black. Tell me that is not racist.

So the black guy gets in over me why? Because he is black. Tell me that is not racist.

Why don't you actually read the thread instead of making me repeat what I've said a dozen times already?

Why don't you actually read the thread instead of making me repeat what I've said a dozen times already?

Your not white, are you?

Your not white, are you?

No. Why do you care?

No. Why do you care?

It's always interesting to see how people's background affect their opinions.

Your not white, are you?

I'm white. Why don't you explain it to me? Affirmative action simply says that your employees should reflect the available pool of employees. So the black guy doesn't get in over you cuz he's black unless a lot of white guys got in over black guys because they were white. That's how it works. As has been said repeatedly, it's not a zero sum game.

Okay. Me (white guy) and a black guy have the exact same grades and are trying to get into a college. Unfortunately, this university needs one more black person to get its quota. So the black guy gets in over me why?

1) read the thread
2) there are no quotas
3) because you, personally, suck, while hypothetical-college-position-stealin'-black-guy is a badass motherfucker, that's why

Give it a rest, Jocabia. There are a hundred million reasons someone might choose not to reply to a post -- including discretion. It's an under-rated virtue, but worth a try.

I didn't realize baiting people into debate was against forum rules. There must have been a change.

Okay. Me (white guy) and a black guy have the exact same grades and are trying to get into a college. Unfortunately, this university needs one more black person to get its quota. So the black guy gets in over me why? Because he is black. Tell me that is not racist.

Um, quotas are illegal and not permitted under Affirmative Action. That's why people are suggesting you catch up.

Okay. Me (white guy) and a black guy have the exact same grades and are trying to get into a college. Unfortunately, this university needs one more black person to get its quota. So the black guy gets in over me why? Because he is black. Tell me that is not racist.

Yeah that would be racist.

Good thing AA doesn't use quotas, isn't it?

It's always interesting to see how people's background affect their opinions.

Now that is racist.

But no surprise from you.

It's always interesting to see how people's background affect their opinions.

Ah, and their skin color is their "background" and the most interesting question you could come up with? Perhaps you could take some time and come up with a post that does more than ask the race of the people you're replying to. Then we could all be interested.

Now that is racist.

But no surprise from you.

Oh yes, I'm very racist. :rolleyes: I'm also against affirmative action. I'm sure that's not surprising either.

You being black (I assume) and defending positions which discriminates FOR blacks may be considered racist too tho.

Oh yes, I'm very racist. :rolleyes: I'm also against affirmative action. I'm sure that's not surprising either.

You being black (I assume) and defending positions which discriminates FOR blacks may be considered racist too tho.

He didn't ask your skin color to determine where your position comes from. Only you did that. That's why your position is racist. You specifically attributed his position to his skin color.

Now, how do you dismiss my position? Let me guess, this isn't going to start with anything that's not a logical fallacy?

Your not white, are you?

Is it unimaginable to you that a "white guy" actually understands AA?

Ah, and their skin color is their "background" and the most interesting question you could come up with? Perhaps you could take some time and come up with a post that does more than ask the race of the people you're replying to. Then we could all be interested.

Not just their colour. It's also interesting to see a rich person criticizing welfare or someone from a very religious family being against homosexuals marriages, etc...

Not just their colour. It's also interesting to see a rich person criticizing welfare or someone from a very religious family being against homosexuals marriages, etc...

Or a white person expressing racist views. Oh, wait, it would racist and nonsensical to suggest such absurd generalities. Thank goodness so many people recognize it for the logical fallacy it is.

So tell me, how do you dismiss my position or did you just come to the thread to talk about how interesting it is to make racist statements?

He didn't ask your skin color to determine where your position comes from. Only you did that. That's why your position is racist. You specifically attributed his position to his skin color.

Now, how do you dismiss my position? Let me guess, this isn't going to start with anything that's not a logical fallacy?

You're clearly part of the liberal conspiracy.

Is it unimaginable to you that a "white guy" actually understands AA?

No, was just guessing. However, I'd also guess that minorities (except Asians) are more pro-AA than whites.

No, was just guessing. However, I'd also guess that minorities (except Asians) are more pro-AA than whites.

Depends on whether or not Indians are considered asian, really.

Oh yes, I'm very racist. :rolleyes: I'm also against affirmative action. I'm sure that's not surprising either.

You being black (I assume) and defending positions which discriminates FOR blacks may be considered racist too tho.

Your not white, are you?

No. Why do you care?

Why are you (assuming) he's black when he's clearly said he wasn't?

Is it unimaginable to you that a "white guy" actually understands AA?

I'm not sure who should be more offended, white people for the insinuation that actually understanding AA is something we're not likely to do, or black people for suggesting their skin color determines their political and social views.

I'm white, Christian, straight, male and rich. Tell me what I support.

No, was just guessing. However, I'd also guess that minorities (except Asians) are more pro-AA than whites.

I'm "Asian", I support AA.

Depends on whether or not Indians are considered asian, really.

I think we're included.

Why are you (assuming) he's black when he's clearly said he wasn't?

He said he wasnt white. He didnt say he wasnt black. But yes, as I said, I assumed.

I think we're included.

No, you're special sub-asians.

It's also interesting to see a rich person criticizing welfare or someone from a very religious family being against homosexuals marriages, etc...

If a rich person criticized welfare or someone from a very religious family attacked gay marriage, I would carefully listen to the arguments they had for their opinion, and respond to them the same way I did to anyone else. If I dismissed what they said out of hand, simply because they were rich or religious, that would absolutely be prejudiced, and unfair.

Of course, if after arguing with them extensively, I recognize that they are simply unwilling to use their reason and empathy to understand the position of gays or the poor, or that they mindlessly reference unsupported myths about gays or the poor to support their position, or that for some other reason their method of argument is blatantly intellectually dishonest, then I might come to believe that their background has blinded them. But I would never presuppose such a thing.

I think we're included.

In North America, Asian usually refers to East Asians. I know it's silly but that's usually the convention.

In North America, Asian usually refers to East Asians. I know it's silly but that's usually the convention.

No, it doesn't. Most of us know geography at least as well as necessary to identify the continents, but thanks for speaking for North America.

I'd say YOU'RE in the majority of people that can't spell.

I'm white, Christian, straight, male and rich. Tell me what I support.

Most white, Christian, straight, male and rich Americans are Republican and against AA. But I'd say your in the minority within that group, given your previous response to me. Membership in groups does give some information, but only sometimes and only to a degree.

No, it doesn't. Most of us know geography at least as well as necessary to identify the continents, but thanks for speaking for North America.

He's somewhat right. Generally as far as censuses and surveys go, if there isn't an explicity "South Asian" or "Indian subcontinent" listed we're expected to jot down "Caucasian" or "White" because we're Caucasian, rather than Asian.

I don't agree with it, but that's the general policy.

In North America, Asian usually refers to East Asians. I know it's silly but that's usually the convention.

I know, I live in America and it's always so fucking annoying. I'm never sure what box to fill on all those standardized tests...

Most white, Christian, straight, male and rich Americans are Republican and against AA. But I'd say your in the minority within that group, given your previous response to me. Membership in groups does give some information, but only sometimes and only to a degree.

And only if you're too lazy to actually address the existence of individuals.

But okay, let's play this game. So I'm the minority given my previous response. So I'm what? Democrat? Come on, make some ignorant assumptions and show us how "interesting" gross generalizations can be.

He's somewhat right. Generally as far as censuses and surveys go, if there isn't an explicity "South Asian" or "Indian subcontinent" listed we're expected to jot down "Caucasian" or "White" because we're Caucasian, rather than Asian.

I don't agree with it, but that's the general policy.

I was actually talking about unofficial usage. Officially, this is what US Census says:

"Asian refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Pakistan, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes "Asian Indian," "Chinese", "Filipino", "Korean", "Japanese", "Taiwanese", "Vietnamese", and "Other Asian".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census#Race

He's somewhat right. Generally as far as censuses and surveys go, if there isn't an explicity "South Asian" or "Indian subcontinent" listed we're expected to jot down "Caucasian" or "White" because we're Caucasian, rather than Asian.

I don't agree with it, but that's the general policy.

He said in North America. That's not the policy of Canada or Mexico, and policy is not the shaper of individual thought. If I asked the majority of people in North America if India was a part of Asia, they'd either have a sixth grade education or they'd be wildly likely to know it is.

You're Asian. And regardless of convention, he either doesn't know better, i.e. he's ignorant of the fact that Indians are Asians, or he prefers to be offensive.

He's somewhat right. Generally as far as censuses and surveys go, if there isn't an explicity "South Asian" or "Indian subcontinent" listed we're expected to jot down "Caucasian" or "White" because we're Caucasian, rather than Asian.

I don't agree with it, but that's the general policy.

Really? I just put other a lot of the time.

I was actually talking about unofficial usage. Officially, this is what US Census says:

"Asian refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Pakistan, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes "Asian Indian," "Chinese", "Filipino", "Korean", "Japanese", "Taiwanese", "Vietnamese", and "Other Asian".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census#Race

So apparently we are Asians according to the Census.

I was actually talking about unofficial usage. Officially, this is what US Census says:

"Asian refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Pakistan, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes "Asian Indian," "Chinese", "Filipino", "Korean", "Japanese", "Taiwanese", "Vietnamese", and "Other Asian".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census#Race

Hmmm... so Asian does include Indians officially. And that's the US, not "North America".

Unofficially, it also means Indian, unless you simply don't know better. Are you saying you don't know India is a part of Asia or you simply pretend not to know?

He said in North America. That's not the policy of Canada or Mexico, and policy is not the shaper of individual thought.


I wasnt talking about the official policy. And I wasnt talking about Mexico.


If I asked the majority of people in North America if India was a part of Asia, they'd either have a sixth grade education or they'd be wildly likely to know it is.

You're Asian. And regardless of convention, he either doesn't know better, i.e. he's ignorant of the fact that Indians are Asians, or he prefers to be offensive.

Neither. I was talking about my personal impression of casual usage of the term.

In North America, Asian usually refers to East Asians. I know it's silly but that's usually the convention.

Really? I just put other a lot of the time.

I almost always put down white.

I wasnt talking about the official policy. And I wasnt talking about Mexico.

Ah, so you not only don't know what Asians are, but you don't know what North Americans are? Hmmm... any other words you wish to use improperly to make your statements?

Neither. I was talking about my personal impression of casual usage of the term.

You mean your excuse for your improper usage. Now tell me would it be offensive at this point to guess various physical things about you?

What's your intelligence? I'm just interested in your background. It's equally interesting to see intelligent people talking about physics as it is to see stupid people having a poor vocabulary.

(To be clear, I'm not actually insulting your intelligence. I'm just showing how ludicrous it is to take tiny bits of information about people and make ridiculous conclusions about them.)

Sorry Liuzzo - but you have just handed yourself the ignorant post of the year award. You really have NO FUCKING IDEA whatsoever WHAT my argument really is? So how, therefore, can you determine it to be wrong?

You are so caught up in your own self- righteousness that you are arguing only for arguments sake. You have no idea that I've agreed with most everything you've written - so therefore: by disparaging me you are dspariaging your own points. THAT is pretty fucking dumb.

Get some counseling.

Once again, snarky attitude. The point I've tried to make to you nearly constantly is that there has not been enough time for social archetypes and attitudes to change to where the system is truly balanced. Claiming that there should be no AA (which isn't quotas but you knew that right?) is basically saying "my bad" to years of discrimination and hate. So if it requires allowing a few more black men from Harlem to go to good schools to help create the equality the system needs then so be it. It's not racist, it's not reverse discrimination (it's all the same shit), it's an attempt to give a chance to a group of people who have not only been neglected but have been abused.

Real social movement in the class system does not exist in America. For every success story there's thousands of kids from the hood who get "left behind." Who are forced to join the military and die for a country that behaves like it doesn't want them. In Vietnam, the VC would ask American soldiers who were black, why they would fight for a country that would rather see them dead? A country that had used them from its inception to build their wealth but denied them equal rights. You and I do not agree that AA is racist. We may agree on certain points, but the battles do not resolve the essential question. Is AA necessary to give a level field to people of African American, Latino, Tejano, etc. descent the ability to truly get what the "American Dream" has to offer. Unless we really want to give the 40 acres and a mule, AA is the closest thing towards bridging the gap between the races. We sure as hell know most of the lilly white politicians aren't voting in favor of the poor and middle class people of any color, much less minorities.

Look, no links required.

You mean your excuse for your improper usage. Now tell me would it be offensive at this point to guess various physical things about you?

What's your intelligence? I'm just interested in your background. It's equally interesting to see intelligent people talking about physics as it is to see stupid people having a poor vocabulary.

(To be clear, I'm not actually insulting your intelligence. I'm just showing how ludicrous it is to take tiny bits of information about people and make ridiculous conclusions about them.)

Which is irrelevant because I already said that those conclusions are only valid to a degree:

Most white, Christian, straight, male and rich Americans are Republican and against AA. But I'd say your in the minority within that group, given your previous response to me. Membership in groups does give some information, but only sometimes and only to a degree.

Or are you claiming group membership is never informative?

Liuzzo;

What is your point and how does it relate to any part of our conversation? You are so wrapped up in your own agenda that you are not making any sense whatsoever with regards to this conversation...


I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you arguing that black people have suffered? Then who are you arguing that with? I have never denied that. Are you arguing that discrimination exists? Who with? Not me.

So what then, is your point?



So you consider affirmative action to be the penalty or prize for how closely you skin tone resembles that of people who lived 150 years ago?

Ummm, maybe you missed it - but the groups of people you are referring to (slaves and slaves owners) have been dead for at least one hundred years. Also, to assign all white people as descendants of slave owners would be quite ignorant. Additionally, you conveniently ignore that the union soldiers who fought and won the civil war were mostly whites.

This does not eliminate the need to address modern racism, but your argument is on very weak ground if you are attempting to justify institutionalized racial discrimination based on the suffering of people from over 100 years ago.



I didn't realize that suffering was some sort of contest.

Regardless - you need to decide if you want to discuss history from 100 years ago or history from one year ago. If you want to discuss the suffering of African refugees you should bear in mind at who's hand they suffered at. (hint: not 150 year old slave owners)

You also should bear in mind that Africans are NOT the largest population of refugees in the US, and only recently became the highest proportion of refugees coming to the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

While you are off gazing at your navel pointlessly arguing who has suffered the most, I have been making the very valid point that refugees from all parts of the world have arrived in the US with far less than those you claim are the descendants of slaves have. Yet a considerably high proportion of them have assimilated and succeeded in US society without the 'benefit' of affirmative action.

Ok, it's not about years ago. It's about the effect of that behavior now. Relax, there will still be plenty of white lawyers, doctors, business executives, Presidents... I'm not talking about refugees 2007, I'm talking about a system that lasted hundreds of years that you expect to have unraveled itself since May 26, 1865 or June 15, 1964. You may think it's a little unfair in current time, but just think of the hundreds of years you have to make up to be on the same level again and call it even.

Which is irrelevant because I already said that those conclusions are only valid to a degree:



Or are you claiming group membership is never informative?

I'm claiming that race isn't a determining factor in your social and political views.

See I could make an completely artificial group. People with big feet. If you did a study, you'd almost certainly find that people with feet over size 12 are more likely to support AA or the opposite, but you'd get something that would equally telling as skin color or wealth or any number of arbitrary designations.

I say people with a poor understanding of the continents are opposed to AA. So let me guess your view? What? I'm right. Well, it must be useful to group that way, then.

I'm claiming that race isn't a determining factor in your social and political views.


Nothing by itself is a determining factor in one's social and political views, except maybe a cardinal personality trait.


See I could make an completely artificial group. People with big feet. If you did a study, you'd almost certainly find that people with feet over size 12 are more likely to support AA or the opposite, but you'd get something that would equally telling as skin color or wealth or any number of arbitrary designations.

I say people with a poor understanding of the continents are opposed to AA. So let me guess your view? What? I'm right. Well, it must be useful to group that way, then.

Ask for clarification of my views if you dont understand before you answer to what you assume I think. That'd be more effective.

And you already seem to be doing what your preaching not to do. See, just because I asked Soheran's race, you thought it was racist and maybe you thought I was racist and based on what you perceived about my group (racist) membership, you assumed that I'd think that race was a determining factor in one's social and political views.

But that's normal, people always make conclusions based on group membership, even if it's on a sub-conscious level.

Nothing by itself is a determining factor in one's social and political views, except maybe a cardinal personality trait.



Ask for clarification of my views if you dont understand before you answer to what you assume I think. That'd be more effective.

Oh, the irony. Why bother? I know you're white. That should plenty. So much so that instead of asking for clarification of others' views, you ask their skin color.

Man, I got you to tell me exactly what was wrong with your tactics in like three posts. There should be a prize for that. I think the previous record has to be at least 10.


And you already seem to be doing what your preaching not to do. See, just because I asked Soheran's race, you thought it was racist and maybe you thought I was racist and based on what you perceived about my group (racist) membership, you assumed that I'd think that race was a determining factor in one's social and political views.

But that's normal, people always make conclusions based on group membership, even if it's on a sub-conscious level.
I've never called you racist. I called the claim that someone's skin color gives you any insight about their views racist. It is. I commented on one thing you said and expounded upon by making similar comments and showing how silly they are.

Interestingly enough, you're now telling me that rather than make assumptions about one's views, one should ask probative questions. It appears I've gotten you to realize exactly what I started out claiming. I must be pretty good.

I'm glad I could help you see how silly that is. You're welcome.

Oh, the irony. Why bother? I know you're white. That should plenty. So much so that instead of asking for clarification of others' views, you ask their skin color.


Straw man. That was never my position.


I've never called you racist. I called the claim that someone's skin color gives you any insight about their views racist. It is. I commented on one thing you said and expounded upon by making similar comments and showing how silly they are.


I'm not saying you did. I was just speculating about your cognitive process. You dont know me. And one of the few things I said to you, you considered it racist. So it is likely that you considered me racist (based on limited first impressions), even if you didnt say so or maybe on a subconscious level. Or, of course, I may be wrong.


Interestingly enough, you're not telling me that rather than make assumptions about one's views, one should ask probative questions. It appears I've gotten you to realize exactly what I started out claiming. I must be pretty good.

I'm glad I could help you see how silly that is. You're welcome.

LOL. Dont be this humble, especially when it isnt warranted.

Straw man. That was never my position.

It wasn't your position. It's what you did and what everyone jumped on you for doing. Last christmas eating turkey with my fingers wasn't my position, but oddly my entire family mentioned it.


I'm not saying you did. I was just speculating about your cognitive process. You dont know me. And one of the few things I said to you, you considered it racist. So it is likely that you considered me racist (based on limited first impressions), even if you didnt say so or maybe on a subconscious level. Or, of course, I may be wrong.

I'm still waiting for you to be right once. I didn't assume you were racist because of one thing you said. I've been here for several years. You think I've just first encountered you. I'll tell you what. Let's play a game. If I search your old posts and find you asking the race of others 30 times you leave NS and never return. Deal?

But hey, my seeing several hundred posts from you is the same as you asking someone's race in response to their position and making comments about how telling it is when people of a certain race believe a certain thing. Isn't it? It must be. It can't be that you're woefully wrong, could it?

Come on, how annoyed are you that I'm white. You want so bad to dismiss my position as just the result of my race, don't you? Take up my challenge.

LOL. Dont be this humble, especially when it isnt warranted.

You pretty much pointed out why your actions were ludicrous. I didn't have to tell you, I just had to make you say it. I'd say that's about as good as it goes.

Oh, the irony. Why bother? I know you're white. That should plenty. So much so that instead of asking for clarification of others' views, you ask their skin color.

Man, I got you to tell me exactly what was wrong with your tactics in like three posts. There should be a prize for that. I think the previous record has to be at least 10.



I've never called you racist. I called the claim that someone's skin color gives you any insight about their views racist. It is. I commented on one thing you said and expounded upon by making similar comments and showing how silly they are.

Interestingly enough, you're now telling me that rather than make assumptions about one's views, one should ask probative questions. It appears I've gotten you to realize exactly what I started out claiming. I must be pretty good.

I'm glad I could help you see how silly that is. You're welcome.

I would say that while race doesn't technically affect one's outlook, it can indirectly. A person's views and outlook are heavily based on the opinions of and treatment by those around them which can be affected by race.

It's not the same thing no, but I can see from something close to his side.

I would say that while race doesn't technically affect one's outlook, it can indirectly. A person's views and outlook are heavily based on the opinions of and treatment by those around them which can be affected by race.

It's not the same thing no, but I can see from something close to his side.

He applied generalizations to individuals. It's an assured way to look silly. As he pointed out, it would make more sense to focus one's questions on something more probative. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.

He applied generalizations to individuals. It's an assured way to look silly. As he pointed out, it would make more sense to focus one's questions on something more probative. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.

You are generalizing generalizations. Now, that is silly. You said you were a str8 male. Now would it be a silly generalization if I assumed that you are primarily interested in women sexually, based on that piece of information? :rolleyes:

I asked Soheran about his race because generally, non-whites are more supportive of AA action compared to whites. I didnt ask him his race to draw definitive conclusions about all his political and social positions. That was your stupid assumption. And now you claim that you made me realize I was wrong. That's extra stupid. You are being conceited when it is hugely unwarranted. And are also making me repeat myself.

You are generalizing generalizations. Now, that is silly. You said you were a str8 male. Now would it be a silly generalization if I assumed that you are primarily interested in women sexually, based on that piece of information? :rolleyes:

So now supporting AA is part of the definition of black? Are you trying to get deeper in the hole?


I asked Soheran about his race because generally, non-whites are more supportive of AA action compared to whites. I didnt ask him his race to draw definitive conclusions about all his political and social positions. That was your stupid assumption. And now you claim that you made me realize I was wrong. That's extra stupid. You are being conceited when it is hugely unwarranted. And are also making me repeat myself.

You made an assumption about his race, twice, actually. Both of your questions included assumptions and were less probative than just discussing his position. I pointed how silly make similar assumptions is, so silly in fact that you're now getting wrapped around the axle.

But since you want to make this a broader discussion of your views, what was the last discussion you were involved in. Could have been another discussion about the color of people's skin? What percentage of your posts would you say focus on race? How many of the people you've argued with have you asked their race as if it's important?

This forum has a search feature. This may surprise you, but I used it. No assumptions required. The only assumptions here were yours.

Interestingly, I did more research than you and yet you're getting upset about making assumptions rather than asking probative questions about one's views. Irony is not a thing you do to wrinkled pants.

EDIT: I'm going to bed, plus I don't want a doozy like comparing straight men desiring women to blacks supporting AA to fall off that page.