|
"The Republican Party chose the first black national chairman in its history Friday, just shy of three months after the nation elected a Democrat as the first African-American president."
--http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Jan/30/gop_elects_first_black_national_party_chairman.html
So now, in one way or another you could say that both major political parties in the United States are being led by a black man. This caused me to ponder the future of and the need for race-based affirmative action in this country.
Now, this thread should not be a debate over whether or not there are racists in America still. There are plenty of people who hate Catholics, Mormons, Jews, LGBTs, and any other subgroup you could name. The question is whether racism is still such a strong force in our country that the government must require institutions to accept or hire a certain number of minorities even if the institution feels there are not enough qualified applicants of that race.
Lets focus on affirmative action as it is now, namely using quotas and race as the dividing factors which President Obama has stated he is against:
I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can't be a quota system and it can't be something that is simply applied without looking at the whole person, whether that person is black, or white, or Hispanic, male or female. --Barack Obama
Here is a poll and I want to hear all opinions.
Poll: Race-based affirmative action should be..
(Vote): Eliminated. Decisions should not be based on one's race
(Vote): Kept the same. It is having good effects.
(Vote): Kept but significantly changed.
|
Sadly I'm too ignorant to have a justifiable opinion on this.
|
I'm not American but i think that affirmative action is a really bad idea.
Why the government should help more a poor black guy than a poor white ? It should help both or none to be fair.
|
I heard some shit on Michael Steele this afternoon on NPR. They made a lot of reference to the barak the magic negro parody song on youtube.
I heard some affirmitive action stuff the other day, basically what they said was that although in the lower ranks there are much more diverse employees, still at the top it is 90% dominated as white male. So affirmitive action imo is just some bullshit corps use in order to look good. like the whole 'green' environment friendly shit they try to play off when in reality the dollar still rules (so maybe they are GREEN after all, lol).
Can someone even tell me the suggested benefit of affirmative action in the first place? It's just capitalist bullshit.
|
I think affirmative action based on race, gender, or religion is no longer needed. However, there is still an argument that can be made to use affirmative action for students that come from poor areas with schools that are not as good among other disadvantages.
|
affirmative action is racism, just inverted. But the fact that it's racism still holds true. Screw it. It just does more harm than good
|
On January 31 2009 11:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
So affirmitive action imo is just some bullshit corps use in order to look good. like the whole 'green' environment friendly shit they try to play off when in reality the dollar still rules (so maybe they are GREEN after all, lol).
.
The company i work for (a grocery store) recycles everything they use, mostly because its cheaper to reuse all the stuff you have (pallets, shrink wrap, plastic wrap for cases, cardboard) than buy new. So for them, its like, public sees they recycle, and the public is happy they are contributing to the environment, yet the company is happy because it costs less for them, meaning they keep more profit.
I myself think that affirmative action is extremely bad for the system because it should be skill based. If a black man is more skilled at the job i do he should deserve to get it over me because of his skills, not his color.
|
This reminds me of South Africa where rugby union teams are required to have a minimum black players in their side. This policy must be counter acted over time but it has had good effects because people have realised that black people actually are often very good and today the RSA team would be no where near as good without the black players. Sometimes you need to have regulation to trigger the initial change and make people realise their mistakes, then regulation can be removed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
kept. only change if you have a replacement in place, some kind of class based aa
|
I only vote for black politicians.
|
CA10828 Posts
i hate race-based AA. they say it's to help minorities, but what about asians who only make up approximately 5% of the US population? imo, you can't pick and choose minorities. (and yes i'm aware of the "model minority" reasoning... it's bs.)
also, i had a few friends that were part native american in high school. they weren't stupid but they were definitely not brilliant by any stretch. and without stellar stats they got accepted into every single university they applied to. their families were well-off and lifestyle-wise, they were practically white.
i don't see why people like this should be favored over asians or whites in an applicant pool. it annoys me because i know a lot of white/asians who are lower middle class and are struggling to get by, and yet somehow they get looked over by the current AA system.
i am for socio-economic class based AA but not this racial AA bs.
|
Affirmative action should of never been brought about. It's discriminatory against white people, and unfortunately a lot of people have gotten into school's they simply would not have gotten into based on merit. I mean, to me, Affirmative action always seemed to be a thing about achieving equality in America [and Canada]. But why is it even race based? Theres a lot of minorities who are doing extremely well, and a lot of whites who are not. If you are going to have ANY kind of aa form [and I dont want that anyways, but im just saying], the only one that has any degree of legitimacy is simply helping the poor, as it would increase social mobility.
I think I remember an interview a few months back, where Obama said he was going to keep affirmative action. Hopefully he rethinks the decision.
Edit: Discriminating against Asians as well. I had no idea they were not getting the benefits of affirmative action. Now thats even more ridiculous. Society had a hugely negative view of asians just a century ago. They worked hard, perceptions changed, and now they are doing fairly well off, generally. The same can be done for any other race of people. They arent anymore incapable than anyone else.
|
On January 31 2009 11:26 Choros wrote:
This reminds me of South Africa where rugby union teams are required to have a minimum black players in their side. This policy must be counter acted over time but it has had good effects because people have realised that black people actually are often very good and today the RSA team would be no where near as good without the black players. Sometimes you need to have regulation to trigger the initial change and make people realise their mistakes, then regulation can be removed.
haha i hope they will do the same for white basketball players in the US.
Oh wait maybe it is retarded to pick a player because of his skin colour ?
Btw South Africa won two WC with almost full-white team except for few players ( like Habana ) who deserved to be in the team not because they are black but because they are skilled.
This new legislation is quite stupid.
|
Whenever people say how affirmative action is so good in bringing minorities to higher levels a lot of facepalming goes on -_-
I don't support affirmative action, but I wouldn't mind if it was changed to help those in poorer areas. Race and especially sex-based affirmative action is retarded. We have people clamoring for greater women representation in math and science (49% is not enough!), but what about male representation in english? lol
There is a facebook group that demands that racial percentage to population should be mirrored in college admissions (idiots)
if that were true, asians would be fucked so hard. Like UCB is 49% asian and the population is 5%. If this were to happen... some P.C. AA lovers are going to get ripped a new asshole, lol
This is another example of how giving somebody a lunch is equivalent to taking away someone else's without their permission
and if there is affirmative action for "underrepresented minorities" in college and work there should damn well be affirmative action for asians in sports.
Every sports team must start at least one asian! New AA policy!
|
United States20661 Posts
Asians continually screwed. Should not be race-based if it's kept at all. Socioeconomic makes SO much more sense.
|
Affirmative Action should be kept, but recalibrated to favour white students. As minority students largely gain a competitive equality through being raised in abusive patriarchal households, limiting their entry into higher education will lower the parents' incentive to abuse their children.
Furthermore such a system will once again favour natural talent, over the inflated admission of en rote learners.
|
It's horrible. There were discussions about affirmative action towards the handicapt. Mentally, psychologically, sensory, physicly. Where do you draw the line.
Turning someone down because he is white is just as wrong as turnuing someone down because he is black. Two wrong don't make it right but double wrong.
Hi Moltke, haven't seen you post in a while.
|
On January 31 2009 11:31 LosingID8 wrote:
i hate race-based AA. they say it's to help minorities, but what about asians who only make up approximately 5% of the US population? imo, you can't pick and choose minorities. (and yes i'm aware of the "model minority" reasoning... it's bs.)
also, i had a few friends that were part native american in high school. they weren't stupid but they were definitely not brilliant by any stretch. and without stellar stats they got accepted into every single university they applied to. their families were well-off and lifestyle-wise, they were practically white.
i don't see why people like this should be favored over asians or whites in an applicant pool. it annoys me because i know a lot of white/asians who are lower middle class and are struggling to get by, and yet somehow they get looked over by the current AA system.
i am for socio-economic class based AA but not this racial AA bs.
On January 31 2009 12:00 Last Romantic wrote:
Asians continually screwed. Should not be race-based if it's kept at all. Socioeconomic makes SO much more sense.
Being Asian makes you (me) an "honorary white", but being an honorary white is about as good as having an honorary degree when it comes to any of the benefits.
|
United States10774 Posts
On January 31 2009 12:00 Last Romantic wrote:
Asians continually screwed. Should not be race-based if it's kept at all. Socioeconomic makes SO much more sense.
|
On January 31 2009 11:03 Bosu wrote:
I think affirmative action based on race, gender, or religion is no longer needed. However, there is still an argument that can be made to use affirmative action for students that come from poor areas with schools that are not as good among other disadvantages.
I think this is essentially what Obama's stance is as well
|
On January 31 2009 12:46 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 12:00 Last Romantic wrote:
Asians continually screwed. Should not be race-based if it's kept at all. Socioeconomic makes SO much more sense.
So true -_-.
|
So long as there is significant inequality in the U.S. that very closely follows color lines, there is reason to have a policy that tries to reverse this by following color lines.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
I'm pretty convinced that in another 50 years, Hispanics will be the new Asians / Indians
|
Yeah basing it on socioeconomic class does seem to make a lot more sense. I guess the original reasoning was that it is harder to get hired as a minority because of racist employers?
|
On January 31 2009 10:58 Savio wrote:
Now, this thread should not be a debate over whether or not there are racists in America still. There are plenty of people who hate Catholics, Mormons, Jews, LGBTs, and any other subgroup you could name.
Not to be a dick, bot none of those are races. I wouldn't equate racism with hatred of religions in most cases.That's just kind of a pet peeve of mine.
As far as affirmative action goes, there are still a lot of places in America where African Americans are still born into poverty directly as a consequence of slavery. That said, I think the best way to eliminate that problem is to invest more into schools in inner cities, ghettos and etc.
Just my two cents.
|
On January 31 2009 13:18 Meta wrote:
As far as affirmative action goes, there are still a lot of places in America where African Americans are still born into poverty directly as a consequence of slavery. That said, I think the best way to eliminate that problem is to invest more into schools in inner cities, ghettos and etc.
Just my two cents.
Agreed. Basically, we give middle/upper class students (who are more often white) a disproportionate amount of educational opportunity through high school, then "offset" this by making it easier for non-Asian minorities to get into college/get jobs. Both illogical and an inefficient use of resources.
It'd be better to give everyone an equal opportunity from the beginning and then treat everyone equally.
|
the republicans are being sly
|
People should be hired based on skills.
|
On January 31 2009 10:58 Savio wrote:
Now, this thread should not be a debate over whether or not there are racists in America still. There are plenty of people who hate Catholics, Mormons, Jews, LGBTs, and any other subgroup you could name. The question is whether racism is still such a strong force in our country that the government must require institutions to accept or hire a certain number of minorities even if the institution feels there are not enough qualified applicants of that race.
Hating a Catholic or Mormon is not racism. It is prejudice.
As for Affirmative-Action, it should be eliminated. In Canada we still have this ridiculous law.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 31 2009 12:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Affirmative Action should be kept, but recalibrated to favour white students. As minority students largely gain a competitive equality through being raised in abusive patriarchal households, limiting their entry into higher education will lower the parents' incentive to abuse their children.
Furthermore such a system will once again favour natural talent, over the inflated admission of en rote learners.
hahahaha
|
On January 31 2009 14:15 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 10:58 Savio wrote:
Now, this thread should not be a debate over whether or not there are racists in America still. There are plenty of people who hate Catholics, Mormons, Jews, LGBTs, and any other subgroup you could name. The question is whether racism is still such a strong force in our country that the government must require institutions to accept or hire a certain number of minorities even if the institution feels there are not enough qualified applicants of that race.
Hating a Catholic or Mormon is not racism. It is prejudice. As for Affirmative-Action, it should be eliminated. In Canada we still have this ridiculous law. There wasn't even any slavery in Canada for god sakes. The only bad thing Canada ever did was the railroads. Generally though, we didn't put our minorities drastically behind.
God damn its stupid. Well to be honest, its stupid to do affirmative action even if your country was involved in slavery or anything that put minority families behind economically. No one should be discriminated against for their ancestors mistakes. Yeah economic inequality is unfortunate, but it will take centuries to undue through hard work...and time. Not discrimination.
|
On January 31 2009 12:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Affirmative Action should be kept, but recalibrated to favour white students. As minority students largely gain a competitive equality through being raised in abusive patriarchal households, limiting their entry into higher education will lower the parents' incentive to abuse their children.
Furthermore such a system will once again favour natural talent, over the inflated admission of en rote learners.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
IT'S FUNNY COZ HE MEANS IT
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
Also, to my fellow asians: Seriously? What the hell are you bitching about. I mean, seriously? Really? LR goes to CAL for fuck's sake, which BTW is legally barred from discriminating by race. The rest of you I'm sure drive cars worth more than all the real estate in Mogadishu combined. The money you pay every year in speeding tickets alone could feed a small sub-saharan nation.
Sometimes I hate my own race. You guys are like the Kanye West of races. You have everything you could ever want, you're viewed as a model minority, employers see us as a BOON, and yet you bitch about how the government doesn't like you. Oh boo hoo, cry me a fucking river and go drown in it, the world could care less.
And christ think for a second. Our success has nothing to do with our "working hard" which some jackass said earlier. It has to do with the fact that the huge ocean that separates us from America guarantees that only the wealthiest and most successful of us could get here.
|
United States20661 Posts
On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 12:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Affirmative Action should be kept, but recalibrated to favour white students. As minority students largely gain a competitive equality through being raised in abusive patriarchal households, limiting their entry into higher education will lower the parents' incentive to abuse their children.
Furthermore such a system will once again favour natural talent, over the inflated admission of en rote learners. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA IT'S FUNNY COZ HE MEANS IT Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL. Also, to my fellow asians: Seriously? What the hell are you bitching about. I mean, seriously? Really? LR goes to CAL for fuck's sake, which BTW is legally barred from discriminating by race. The rest of you I'm sure drive cars worth more than all the real estate in Mogadishu combined. Sometimes I hate my own race. You guys are like the Kanye West of races. You have everything you could ever want, you're viewed as a model minority, employers see us as a BOON, and yet you bitch about how the government doesn't like you. Oh boo hoo, cry me a fucking river and go drown in it, the world could care less. And christ think for a second. Our success has nothing to do with our "working hard" which some jackass said earlier. It has to do with the fact that the huge ocean that separates us from America guarantees that only the wealthiest and most successful of us could get here.
I go to Cal and am incredibly proud of the fact that the University of California is the closest thing to a meritocratic college we have in this bloody country.
-___________-;
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2009 12:52 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 11:03 Bosu wrote:
I think affirmative action based on race, gender, or religion is no longer needed. However, there is still an argument that can be made to use affirmative action for students that come from poor areas with schools that are not as good among other disadvantages. I think this is essentially what Obama's stance is as well It is.
BTW, Savio, I suggest you read this for a great bit of post-modern history.
http://www.amazon.com/When-Affirmative-Action-White-Twentieth-Century/dp/0393052133
|
So because AA requires a sacrifice on behalf of asians we shouldn't do it?
|
11% of America is "African" that's retarded, the best people need to be assigned the jobs, special treatment because you're a different skin tone is absolutely retarded and wrong.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what's the chance of moltke being serious there, like 25%?
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2009 14:51 Last Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 12:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Affirmative Action should be kept, but recalibrated to favour white students. As minority students largely gain a competitive equality through being raised in abusive patriarchal households, limiting their entry into higher education will lower the parents' incentive to abuse their children.
Furthermore such a system will once again favour natural talent, over the inflated admission of en rote learners. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA IT'S FUNNY COZ HE MEANS IT Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL. Also, to my fellow asians: Seriously? What the hell are you bitching about. I mean, seriously? Really? LR goes to CAL for fuck's sake, which BTW is legally barred from discriminating by race. The rest of you I'm sure drive cars worth more than all the real estate in Mogadishu combined. Sometimes I hate my own race. You guys are like the Kanye West of races. You have everything you could ever want, you're viewed as a model minority, employers see us as a BOON, and yet you bitch about how the government doesn't like you. Oh boo hoo, cry me a fucking river and go drown in it, the world could care less. And christ think for a second. Our success has nothing to do with our "working hard" which some jackass said earlier. It has to do with the fact that the huge ocean that separates us from America guarantees that only the wealthiest and most successful of us could get here. I go to Cal and am incredibly proud of the fact that the University of California is the closest thing to a meritocratic college we have in this bloody country. -___________-;
Even if it's true, you're using your own standard of merit which is subtle discrimination in itself. The early CCNY/CUNY open admissions program would be an interesting way to go. Open admissions with extremely rigorous academics, and if you aren't excelling after your sophomore year, you're out. It's a shame Giulliani made them axe it. There's a reason more Nobel laureates graduated from there than your beloved Cal. 
|
On January 31 2009 14:53 ahrara_ wrote:
So because AA requires a sacrifice on behalf of asians we shouldn't do it?
why the hell should we be forced to sacrifice for something
i will gladly deal with this affirmative action crap if there is affirmative action for asians in the NFL/NHL/NBA. And don't give me that Yao ming crap.
|
I don't understand how AA works myself. High schools already give out extra slots for black simply for being black. At least in Chicago. For example, here in Chicago our public college prep schools rate on a 1000 scale. My sister got in, (with like a ridiculous 996), but her friends in the 950s did not. On the other hand all the black students she has asked barely made 800 points (like top 830), but they are all in the school, AND they come from rich families from the way they dress and their parents cars.
Fair right?
And to top it off, after high school these same black kids will get an even better chance at getting into college because of being black. My sister on the other hand will have to get straight A's and a near perfect act/sat to even be looked at.
|
On January 31 2009 15:21 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 14:53 ahrara_ wrote:
So because AA requires a sacrifice on behalf of asians we shouldn't do it? why the hell should we be forced to sacrifice for something i will gladly deal with this affirmative action crap if there is affirmative action for asians in the NFL/NHL/NBA. And don't give me that Yao ming crap.
God forbid you give for your fellow man.
|
On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 12:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Affirmative Action should be kept, but recalibrated to favour white students. As minority students largely gain a competitive equality through being raised in abusive patriarchal households, limiting their entry into higher education will lower the parents' incentive to abuse their children.
Furthermore such a system will once again favour natural talent, over the inflated admission of en rote learners. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA IT'S FUNNY COZ HE MEANS IT Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL. Also, to my fellow asians: Seriously? What the hell are you bitching about. I mean, seriously? Really? LR goes to CAL for fuck's sake, which BTW is legally barred from discriminating by race. The rest of you I'm sure drive cars worth more than all the real estate in Mogadishu combined. The money you pay every year in speeding tickets alone could feed a small sub-saharan nation. Sometimes I hate my own race. You guys are like the Kanye West of races. You have everything you could ever want, you're viewed as a model minority, employers see us as a BOON, and yet you bitch about how the government doesn't like you. Oh boo hoo, cry me a fucking river and go drown in it, the world could care less. And christ think for a second. Our success has nothing to do with our "working hard" which some jackass said earlier. It has to do with the fact that the huge ocean that separates us from America guarantees that only the wealthiest and most successful of us could get here. Affirmative action is racist. Thats why it shouldn't be done. Bringing minorities into the highest levels of social strata isnt the god damn moral mission of the country. We should not be going out of way to ensure Blacks are successful, especially when blacks ARE successful, we have one as the damn president. There is no excuse, no excuse, for government sanctioned racism, especially when this government sanctioned racism is to...get rid of racism. It's idiotic, and just breeds hatred between the races, and re-affirms whatever is still there.
Edit: crap like your "HAAHHAHA" and crap like "Well why cant we do both?" I.e, why cant we discriminate against white people and asians, is the very fucking reason people like moltke pop up and suggest other racist ideas. [Sorry motlke, I don't know you, im not sure if your a racist, I will readily take that back if I misinterpreted what you said].
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yea, blacks just fail because they are inept.
|
CA10828 Posts
On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 12:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Affirmative Action should be kept, but recalibrated to favour white students. As minority students largely gain a competitive equality through being raised in abusive patriarchal households, limiting their entry into higher education will lower the parents' incentive to abuse their children.
Furthermore such a system will once again favour natural talent, over the inflated admission of en rote learners. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA IT'S FUNNY COZ HE MEANS IT Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL. Also, to my fellow asians: Seriously? What the hell are you bitching about. I mean, seriously? Really? LR goes to CAL for fuck's sake, which BTW is legally barred from discriminating by race. The rest of you I'm sure drive cars worth more than all the real estate in Mogadishu combined. The money you pay every year in speeding tickets alone could feed a small sub-saharan nation. Sometimes I hate my own race. You guys are like the Kanye West of races. You have everything you could ever want, you're viewed as a model minority, employers see us as a BOON, and yet you bitch about how the government doesn't like you. Oh boo hoo, cry me a fucking river and go drown in it, the world could care less. And christ think for a second. Our success has nothing to do with our "working hard" which some jackass said earlier. It has to do with the fact that the huge ocean that separates us from America guarantees that only the wealthiest and most successful of us could get here.
people like you who make sweeping generalizations piss me off
-my family of 4 makes under $30,000 a year
-i didn't get a cell phone until i got to college (now currently on a $10/month plan)
-i have never owned a car
-i didn't get my drivers license until i was 19 (just so my insurance rates will be lower in the future)
-i never received allowance from my parents because they couldn't afford it
-i received federal subsidized free lunches from 1st-12th grades
-i didn't attend preschool because my parents couldn't afford it
-i never received any sort of special tutoring program, SAT courses, etc
i worked my ass off when i was younger so that i could get to a good school like USC. i had good grades and a million extracurriculars that i stuck with. if had gotten rejected from other schools that other people had gotten accepted to (because they were of a different minority group) you are telling me that i should not care?
|
United States22883 Posts
|
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace.
|
On January 31 2009 15:36 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 15:21 Caller wrote:On January 31 2009 14:53 ahrara_ wrote:
So because AA requires a sacrifice on behalf of asians we shouldn't do it? why the hell should we be forced to sacrifice for something i will gladly deal with this affirmative action crap if there is affirmative action for asians in the NFL/NHL/NBA. And don't give me that Yao ming crap. God forbid you give for your fellow man.
difference between giving and extorting by force
i donate time and goods to those whom need it all the time. But i would rather not someone mugged me for the money or stole it or whatnot.
|
CA10828 Posts
On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace.
where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group.
In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now.
http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148
That study was done with college students.
|
On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students.
I have to second what Jibba said. You'd have to be extraordinarily outofyourwits naive not to be able to see the discrimination that happens with African Americans. You don't have any idea what that is because you're chinese, or you're white, or you're some other race that doesn't benefit from AA. You only have token black friends and live in fairly diverse communities so you're woefully unaware of the racism that pervades society. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole.
|
Norway28669 Posts
i think AA is principally wrong, but as a pragmatic im still in favour, as it reverses some of the ingrained societal racism.
|
United States22883 Posts
Well, I wouldn't use those forms of racism as a reason to implement AA. I think you'll have better luck with the diversity argument I mentioned before.
Give a significant boost for being poor/going to a shitty school, then give a smaller bump for the sake of diversity. Rich white kids/asians get left out, but they're more likely to get legacy points anyways.
Or go to that open admissions thing.
|
Norway28669 Posts
yea ok I can also agree that there are better ways to go about it than AA. I think AA is significantly easier to administer tho.
|
On January 31 2009 15:38 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Affirmative action is racist. Thats why it shouldn't be done. Bringing minorities into the highest levels of social strata isnt the god damn moral mission of the country. We should not be going out of way to ensure Blacks are successful, especially when blacks ARE successful, we have one as the damn president. There is no excuse, no excuse, for government sanctioned racism, especially when this government sanctioned racism is to...get rid of racism. It's idiotic, and just breeds hatred between the races, and re-affirms whatever is still there.
You're applying blanket principles to every circumstance without weighing the benefits for that instance in particular. Just because something is "racist" or "discriminatory" doesn't mean it's bad. I base my ethics on utilitarianism whenever it is possible -- I think we should go with the option that does the most good or least bad. In this case, any harm done by reverse discrimination is outweighed by the advantage of solving racism.
BTW, blacks are successful -- HAHAHAHAHAHA. Minorities in America have an infant mortality rate resemble that of some ex-Soviet Eastern Bloc countries and they make god knows how much less income on average. And the invisible discrimination that occurs -- plenty of other posters have already described it.
Edit: crap like your "HAAHHAHA" and crap like "Well why cant we do both?" I.e, why cant we discriminate against white people and asians, is the very fucking reason people like moltke pop up and suggest other racist ideas. [Sorry motlke, I don't know you, im not sure if your a racist, I will readily take that back if I misinterpreted what you said].
how the fuck did your interpretation of my repeating a very common and logical argument turn into discriminating against white people and asians in fact what the fuck are you talking about?
|
On January 31 2009 13:18 Meta wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 10:58 Savio wrote:
Now, this thread should not be a debate over whether or not there are racists in America still. There are plenty of people who hate Catholics, Mormons, Jews, LGBTs, and any other subgroup you could name.
Not to be a dick, bot none of those are races. I wouldn't equate racism with hatred of religions in most cases.That's just kind of a pet peeve of mine.
Is hate based on race worse than hate based on some other aspect of a group? Besides, jew is a race and a religion.
|
United States22883 Posts
Jew is not a race... and there is a difference between hatred for inherent attributes and chosen attributes, but both are bad.
|
On January 31 2009 14:15 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 10:58 Savio wrote:
Now, this thread should not be a debate over whether or not there are racists in America still. There are plenty of people who hate Catholics, Mormons, Jews, LGBTs, and any other subgroup you could name. The question is whether racism is still such a strong force in our country that the government must require institutions to accept or hire a certain number of minorities even if the institution feels there are not enough qualified applicants of that race.
Hating a Catholic or Mormon is not racism. It is prejudice. As for Affirmative-Action, it should be eliminated. In Canada we still have this ridiculous law.
I don't think I was clear in OP. What I meant is that there is hate against lots of groups. Racism is one form and hate against a religion is another. What I was saying is that the fact that there are some racists is not by itself justification for affirmative action, because there are other groups who are hated for other reasons who are not getting any special treatment from the government.
I was not trying to say that those religions were races.
|
On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 12:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Affirmative Action should be kept, but recalibrated to favour white students. As minority students largely gain a competitive equality through being raised in abusive patriarchal households, limiting their entry into higher education will lower the parents' incentive to abuse their children.
Furthermore such a system will once again favour natural talent, over the inflated admission of en rote learners. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA IT'S FUNNY COZ HE MEANS IT Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
The point they were making is that rich black kids from well educated, stable homes are also receiving the benefits of AA. Obama used this as what he saw as the problem with AA. He pointed out that his children will get special treatment even though they were raised in privileged circumstances and he doesn't want that cause he doesn't think that is right.
|
On January 31 2009 14:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 12:52 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 11:03 Bosu wrote:
I think affirmative action based on race, gender, or religion is no longer needed. However, there is still an argument that can be made to use affirmative action for students that come from poor areas with schools that are not as good among other disadvantages. I think this is essentially what Obama's stance is as well It is. BTW, Savio, I suggest you read this for a great bit of post-modern history. http://www.amazon.com/When-Affirmative-Action-White-Twentieth-Century/dp/0393052133
LoL, Jibba, I've always wondered if you have read all the stuff you recommend. If so, you are one heck of a well-read guy. You've probably recommended to me over 1000 pages of reading in the months I have been here 
|
The only AA I will ever be able to tolerate is for the Natives, and they get a hell of a lot of help already. Free or nearly free housing on reserves, free college (most courses/classes will be paid for by the Government), and will get hired above any other race on the spot. I find it a bit much and any other AA is complete crap and should be completely banned. I noticed, and we even discussed this in class, most Universities in Canada right now are looking only for Asian professor applicants, and would most definitely get the job. I find this so very sad, especially in Canada, where racism doesn't even really exist, at least not nearly to the extent as in the USA. We just don't need it here.
|
Baltimore, USA22254 Posts
Ahhhhh, before I even opened up the article I knew it would've been Michael Steele. He was the Lt. Governor of my home state while the republicans were in control... It's funny to see the type of people they'll use; as Ehrlich (the republican governor) did not use Steele (a black republican male) as his running mate for his second election; instead he used a blind woman (no joke) to be his Lt. Gov. He lost that one in 2006.
Edit - To keep completely on topic - Yes, AA needs to be done away with. AA is state sponsored recognition of segregation IMO.
|
CA10828 Posts
On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. I have to second what Jibba said. You'd have to be extraordinarily outofyourwits naive not to be able to see the discrimination that happens with African Americans. You don't have any idea what that is because you're chinese, or you're white, or you're some other race that doesn't benefit from AA. You only have token black friends and live in fairly diverse communities so you're woefully unaware of the racism that pervades society. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. i lived in missouri for 4 years. my sister and i were the only two asians in our entire school. i know what racism feels like. my high school was 90%+ white, too and i got my fair share of "ching chong". drop the condescending tone ok?
and i was referring to on-campus, not out in the community. i live in downtown LA, i think i know that racism is prevalent in the "real world"
|
On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students.
An econ article I read in college measured the first price quoted to a person at used car lots. They trained a bunch of people to act the same way, wore the same clothes. They found the highest prices were given to women, then blacks, and the lowest prices to white men. But the interesting thing was, black salesmen discriminated the most against blacks while the white salesmen did so much less.
|
United States22883 Posts
Not all. 
My reading list is stupidly long right now. Working on Look Homeward Angel and then a few books on Ataturk and then Proust and maybe Obama's book if I get time. D: Basically I will get none of those done this semester. My mini-library seriously goes from Peter Drucker to William Blame, though.
|
On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole.
Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race?
I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2009 16:59 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. An econ article I read in college measured the first price quoted to a person at used car lots. They trained a bunch of people to act the same way, wore the same clothes. They found the highest prices were given to women, then blacks, and the lowest prices to white men. But the interesting thing was, black salesmen discriminated the most against blacks while the white salesmen did so much less. White guilt, maybe?
I believe greater percentages of women were against the Equal Rights Amendment than men.
|
Baltimore, USA22254 Posts
Agreed with Savio. AA had it's place 50 years ago, but not now IMO. That doesn't mean racism or prejudice is gone by any means, don't get me wrong, but it will do more harm than good in it's current form IMO.
|
On January 31 2009 17:04 EvilTeletubby wrote:
Agreed with Savio. AA had it's place 50 years ago, but not now IMO. That doesn't mean racism or prejudice is gone by any means, don't get me wrong, but it will do more harm than good in it's current form IMO.
Even though I am fairly conservative, I do think that AA did good when it was instututed probably until about the mid 90's. But it had its time and it needs to go.
BTW, I feel the same about unions. They did their good, now they are causing more harm than good, but I may have just risked derailing this thread....so...if you want to debate me on unions, go to economy thread where that is being actively discussed plz.
|
On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others.
I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people.
There's a lot of talk about principles in this thread. It surprises me how adamant people are to apply general principles broadly to every instance while complaining about how I make the same fallacy of hasty generalization. Because discrimination was wrong in southern segregation doesn't make it wrong in all instances. If you followed that logic, then we shouldn't give flu vaccines to people because the the vaccine actually contains a small dose of the virus. Sometimes you have to swallow the poison to get the cure.
|
On January 31 2009 16:55 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. I have to second what Jibba said. You'd have to be extraordinarily outofyourwits naive not to be able to see the discrimination that happens with African Americans. You don't have any idea what that is because you're chinese, or you're white, or you're some other race that doesn't benefit from AA. You only have token black friends and live in fairly diverse communities so you're woefully unaware of the racism that pervades society. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. i lived in missouri for 4 years. my sister and i were the only two asians in our entire school. i know what racism feels like. my high school was 90%+ white, too and i got my fair share of "ching chong". drop the condescending tone ok? and i was referring to on-campus, not out in the community. i live in downtown LA, i think i know that racism is prevalent in the "real world"
For what it's worth I owe you an apology for being a condescending prick. I reacted in a knee jerk fashion to something that pisses me off.
I still stand by my argument though.
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm pretty sure it generates a lot of resentment against African Americans, even if they don't make the policy. o.o
|
On January 31 2009 16:37 ahrara_ wrote:
In this case, any harm done by reverse discrimination is outweighed by the advantage of solving racism.
Woah, wait a minute. Solving racism? If anything, AA inflames tensions between races. The government shouldn't grant or deny any benefit based on race. If a university or employer wants to implement its own affirmative action program to promote diversity, it should be allowed to, but it shouldn't be forced.
And if I need any street cred in this thread, I lived most of my life in/around Atlanta and had more than token black friends.
|
It is not the federal or states job to make it possible for people who didn't do so hot in school to get further, or someone who isn't as qualified enough to get the job. People should work for their prospects, they shouldn't be handed over merely because someone is a minority and is less qualified. The best and most qualified person should get accepted REGARDLESS of race. The federal government, state (provincial for me), Universities, or whatever, should never adhere to such policies.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2009 17:34 rushz0rz wrote:
It is not the federal or states job to make it possible for people who didn't do so hot in school to get further, or someone who isn't as qualified enough to get the job. People should work for their prospects, they shouldn't be handed over merely because someone is a minority and is less qualified. The best and most qualified person should get accepted REGARDLESS of race.
You need an equalizer when the quality of education blows, plus "qualified" is a subjective term, determined by whoever is in charge which is largely rich, white males. As someone studying for the GRE, I can tell you that the test has absolutely zero bearing on my intelligence nor on my future success in graduate school and beyond, yet it's going to have a huge effect on my entrance and the money I receive. When people say we live in a rich, white man's world, it's absolutely true. Those are the people who make the rules in most institutions, and even if they're not purposefully trying to harm you, they are still biased because of the way they live.
Social mobility (being able to move from one social class to another) is an important part of the "American dream" and it doesn't exist to the extent we believe it does. People at the very top rarely move down and people at the very bottom rarely move up.
|
... what exactly is AA in the United States now anyway? The way people are talking now, it would seem like it's quotas or something.
|
On January 31 2009 17:43 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 17:34 rushz0rz wrote:
It is not the federal or states job to make it possible for people who didn't do so hot in school to get further, or someone who isn't as qualified enough to get the job. People should work for their prospects, they shouldn't be handed over merely because someone is a minority and is less qualified. The best and most qualified person should get accepted REGARDLESS of race. You need an equalizer when the quality of education blows, plus "qualified" is a subjective term, determined by whoever is in charge which is largely rich, white males.
I see no truth to this at all. Qualified isn't as subjective as you make it out to be. Someone who has the right credentials is qualified, someone who doesn't, simply isn't qualified for the job or school. It is not the employer or University's problem if someone bombed a test, regardless if it has bearing on actual intelligence, it's all about credentials to prove yourself. There has to be some kind of standard, especially in all the different fields of expertise and jobs there is today. I hardly think the "rich white males" create "qualified".
|
On January 31 2009 17:45 Funnytoss wrote:
... what exactly is AA in the United States now anyway? The way people are talking now, it would seem like it's quotas or something.
quotas are part of it and they are likely the most controversial and criticized part. Read the wikipedia article on it for a simple overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
Although it is not a very good article. Wiki said the article lacked citations and its neutrality is listed as "disputed"
|
United States22883 Posts
Then who does? The SAT and ACT are good standards? Highschool GPA is a good standard of intelligence?
When setting an achievement goal, you can't NOT look at it through the lens with which you were brought up. A manager with an MBA from Harvard will look at business through a Harvard-taught perspective, which means his judgment on the way business works will cater to other people who were similarly taught at Harvard. This problem is especially true in economics, with the massive differences between Chicago and Harvard and Stockholm and so on. You aren't getting hired at those schools unless you share a similar perspective, and it's not because of purposeful discrimination.
You can even apply it to government. Why is there a hugely disproportionate amount of rich, white males in Congress? Because running a campaign takes $$$ and more $$$ and friends with $$$, and historically who has had the most of that? President Bush sure as hell didn't earn his stake with his terrible oil investments when he ran for governor.
EDIT: I'm not saying it's a problem we can readily fix, and it's likely impossible to fix. Still, you need to at least be cognizant of it.
|
On January 31 2009 18:29 Jibba wrote:
Then who does? The SAT and ACT are good standards? Highschool GPA is a good standard of intelligence?
When setting an achievement goal, you can't NOT look at it through the lens with which you were brought up. A manager with an MBA from Harvard will look at business through a Harvard-taught perspective, which means his judgment on the way business works will cater to other people who were similarly taught at Harvard. This problem is especially true in economics, with the massive differences between Chicago and Harvard and Stockholm and so on. You aren't getting hired at those schools unless you share a similar perspective, and it's not because of purposeful discrimination.
You can even apply it to government. Why is there a hugely disproportionate amount of rich, white males in Congress? Because running a campaign takes $$$ and more $$$ and friends with $$$, and historically who has had the most of that? President Bush sure as hell didn't earn his stake with his terrible oil investments when he ran for governor.
EDIT: I'm not saying it's a problem we can readily fix, and it's likely impossible to fix. Still, you need to at least be cognizant of it.
If Highschool GPA were ever to mean nothing to colleges and Universities, then what would they base acceptance on? Merely a persons good word that they know a lot, that they are intelligent? There needs to be a standard, and who is more likely to be intelligent, the guy getting straight A's or the guy getting barely C's? And which is more proof of a hard worker, who deserves his spot? There should be no catering to people who don't deserve it, and seriously, what does that say about a person if they are intelligent but too lazy to get the good grades and work for their spot. What will employers base their hiring on if they don't look at credentials? "I am more intelligent, believe me! I just got screwed by the system and I was lazy!" Give me a break.
It can be fixed, yes, but there shouldn't be government intervention in this. I believe in generations there will be more diversity in government and everything else, without the help of Affirmative Action. I just don't see how you can justify reverse discrimination on the basis that it will help overcome racism. If anything it creates a whole lot of resentment, and how are black people supposed to feel proud of their accomplishments knowing that they only got there because of their skin colour?
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2009 18:43 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 18:29 Jibba wrote:
Then who does? The SAT and ACT are good standards? Highschool GPA is a good standard of intelligence?
When setting an achievement goal, you can't NOT look at it through the lens with which you were brought up. A manager with an MBA from Harvard will look at business through a Harvard-taught perspective, which means his judgment on the way business works will cater to other people who were similarly taught at Harvard. This problem is especially true in economics, with the massive differences between Chicago and Harvard and Stockholm and so on. You aren't getting hired at those schools unless you share a similar perspective, and it's not because of purposeful discrimination.
You can even apply it to government. Why is there a hugely disproportionate amount of rich, white males in Congress? Because running a campaign takes $$$ and more $$$ and friends with $$$, and historically who has had the most of that? President Bush sure as hell didn't earn his stake with his terrible oil investments when he ran for governor.
EDIT: I'm not saying it's a problem we can readily fix, and it's likely impossible to fix. Still, you need to at least be cognizant of it. If Highschool GPA were ever to mean nothing to colleges and Universities, then what would they base acceptance on? Interviews and essays, or open admission like I said before.
Merely a persons good word that they know a lot, that they are intelligent? There needs to be a standard, and who is more likely to be intelligent, the guy getting straight A's or the guy getting barely C's? That's simply a conjecture on your part. Does getting an A in AP US History mean you're a good thinker or that you even understand history well? Fuck no, it means you excel at rote memorization.
There should be no catering to people who don't deserve it Again, your perception of deserving is based on your own experience of success. You live within your own paradigm but aren't paying attention to others'. You assume that what was successful in the past will be successful in the future, and that's a mistake more and more businesses are trying to avoid.
and seriously, what does that say about a person if they are intelligent but too lazy to get the good grades and work for their spot. One of the principle ideas of going to college is that it will be a crucible for young people. The average human brain is still growing into the early-mid 20s, and I bet you'd find there's not a terrific amount of correlation between being lazy in highschool and lazy in college.
This is what Kuhn was writing about when he analyzed the history of scientific research, and it applies to social problems as well. Your values are not universal.
|
where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group.
i lived in missouri for 4 years. my sister and i were the only two asians in our entire school. i know what racism feels like. my high school was 90%+ white, too and i got my fair share of "ching chong". drop the condescending tone ok?
and i was referring to on-campus, not out in the community. i live in downtown LA, i think i know that racism is prevalent in the "real world"
I was referring to off-campus for what it's worth. But that's kind of the point, you shouldn't only have oases of good. And campuses show how education can help.
As for all this principles (i.e. deontology)/utilitarian argument, let's recognize that in 99.9% of cases, it's never clear cut which philosophy we should follow. That should be obvious (and is for most here).
The meritocracy arguments as principle are flawed in many ways. It's a great principle if everybody was truly born equal (e.g. health and money - how is inheritance meritocratic?), had equally good parenting, and equal opportunities through their life. But obviously that's not true. And we're not even getting in to the "what is merit" question. So while I usually stand on individual rights principles, the situation is extreme enough in this situation (IMO) to take a more utilitarian opinion. I *am* using the "it takes a neighbourhood" argument, btw.
I also can't help but be somewhat amused by the subtle correlations between demographics and opinions in this thread...
|
losingid8 wrote what i would have, but in a cleaner and better way
|
One of the documented problems with affirmative action is that it causes people whom are uncapable of performing at the rigorous standards that some of the elite universities have, and often or not they will end up dropping out or transferring because they can't deal with the work. On the other hand, those whom a race who benefit from AA but can do the work and excel, often have people think "Oh, he/she must have gotten into Harvard by Affirmative Action, etc." Is that type of shame and condescension worth it?
I will note that there was a recent study performed by Princeton University which stated that by removing affirmative action, 3/4 slots lost by underrepresented minorities would have gone to Asian students. One of the biggest issues that Asians thus have with affirmative action is that it does not do anything to cut back on the "old school" networks. Comparatively non-Asian, non-underrepresented minority groups bear little of the burden while espousing it as a boost to diversity and mentioning how it is a way to compensate for slavery. This is perhaps one of my biggest gripes. Last I heard, there were perhaps two Asians that owned slaves in America and they were Siamese twins.
On the other hand, a social-economic based system would really benefit those whom need it, regardless of race. For instance, a lot of slots that would go to African Americans actually go to upper class people whom are already doing well. If the purpose of affirmative action is to help the deprived fight the man and improve diversity, then giving poorer students a chance will definitely do both, instead of by race. I mean, what kind of diversity do you get from taking all of the well-groomed upper class racial minorities in the world and moving them in with all the well-groomed upper class racial majority persons?
fuck i forgot to celebrate my 2000th post. FUCK.
|
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
|
Anyone [losingid8] who suggests reverse discrimination is ok, in a sense, as a form of revenge, is fucking disgusting, and probably a little racist themselves.
Peace!
|
On February 01 2009 03:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Anyone [losingid8] who suggests reverse discrimination is ok, in a sense, as a form of revenge, is fucking disgusting, and probably a little racist themselves.
Peace!
Anyone who replies to logical arguments by calling people disgusting is a dumbass.
BTW, it's good to know you're not at all racist.
|
On February 01 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
I'm so glad people read the whole thread before posting.
On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
On January 31 2009 17:21 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others. I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people.
|
On February 01 2009 02:29 Caller wrote:
One of the documented problems with affirmative action is that it causes people whom are uncapable of performing at the rigorous standards that some of the elite universities have, and often or not they will end up dropping out or transferring because they can't deal with the work. On the other hand, those whom a race who benefit from AA but can do the work and excel, often have people think "Oh, he/she must have gotten into Harvard by Affirmative Action, etc." Is that type of shame and condescension worth it?
I will note that there was a recent study performed by Princeton University which stated that by removing affirmative action, 3/4 slots lost by underrepresented minorities would have gone to Asian students. One of the biggest issues that Asians thus have with affirmative action is that it does not do anything to cut back on the "old school" networks. Comparatively non-Asian, non-underrepresented minority groups bear little of the burden while espousing it as a boost to diversity and mentioning how it is a way to compensate for slavery. This is perhaps one of my biggest gripes. Last I heard, there were perhaps two Asians that owned slaves in America and they were Siamese twins.
On the other hand, a social-economic based system would really benefit those whom need it, regardless of race. For instance, a lot of slots that would go to African Americans actually go to upper class people whom are already doing well. If the purpose of affirmative action is to help the deprived fight the man and improve diversity, then giving poorer students a chance will definitely do both, instead of by race. I mean, what kind of diversity do you get from taking all of the well-groomed upper class racial minorities in the world and moving them in with all the well-groomed upper class racial majority persons?
fuck i forgot to celebrate my 2000th post. FUCK.
First off, I want to point out for the 23498324th time that a socio-economic based system is not mutually exclusive with AA. Just because such a system has merits does not mean we should not do AA, because we can enact both policies at the same time. AA has benefits of its own, specifically, it helps improve race relations. The most common argument against this is that it actually hurts race relations, but I've already addressed this point in my previous post.
However, you do make a good point about old school networks. If that is the case, then it may be that AA is not a good idea. But in most schools, I would argue that such networks have little influence on the admissions process, public universities in particular.
I'd really like to see somebody who insists that AA hurts race relations reply to my argument that it only generates resentment towards the institution, not the individuals who benefit. I just don't see how that argument stands under scrutiny.
The other really good argument against AA is meritocracy, which like ONE person has brought up. This is probably the best argument against AA, and one I'm not so confident isn't true. Still, yutgoyun does a good job of addressing it.
On February 01 2009 01:10 yutgoyun wrote:
The meritocracy arguments as principle are flawed in many ways. It's a great principle if everybody was truly born equal (e.g. health and money - how is inheritance meritocratic?), had equally good parenting, and equal opportunities through their life. But obviously that's not true. And we're not even getting in to the "what is merit" question. So while I usually stand on individual rights principles, the situation is extreme enough in this situation (IMO) to take a more utilitarian opinion. I *am* using the "it takes a neighbourhood" argument, btw.
I also can't help but be somewhat amused by the subtle correlations between demographics and opinions in this thread...
Ultimately, you have to weigh the benefits of AA vs its cost to efficiency. This is hard to do, but I'm willing to try out AA for another generation to see what effects it's had before we decide whether it's valuable.
|
On February 01 2009 04:07 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
I'm so glad people read the whole thread before posting. Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 17:21 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others. I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people.
Ever stop to think that maybe I just really think that it should only be for socio-economic reasons, and anything based on gender, race, etc is bullshit?
|
On February 01 2009 04:15 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 04:07 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
I'm so glad people read the whole thread before posting. On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
On January 31 2009 17:21 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others. I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people. Ever stop to think that maybe I just really think that it should only be for socio-economic reasons, and anything based on gender, race, etc is bullshit?
I don't care what you think if you can't back it up with reasoning. You and dazedspy can jerk off all day to your lofty and naive assumption that we can take deontological approaches to all social problems. I really don't give a shit until you can persuade me otherwise.
|
On January 31 2009 11:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I heard some shit on Michael Steele this afternoon on NPR. They made a lot of reference to the barak the magic negro parody song on youtube.
I heard some affirmitive action stuff the other day, basically what they said was that although in the lower ranks there are much more diverse employees, still at the top it is 90% dominated as white male. So affirmitive action imo is just some bullshit corps use in order to look good. like the whole 'green' environment friendly shit they try to play off when in reality the dollar still rules (so maybe they are GREEN after all, lol).
Can someone even tell me the suggested benefit of affirmative action in the first place? It's just capitalist bullshit.
It's not capitalist at all, you dipshit. A capitalist would say give it to the best qualified, a non-capitalist (i.e. Socialist or Communist) would say that we need things to be "fair," so give it to a person based on something other than qualifications.
The whole idea of it--which is good in principle, but not in practice--is to attempt to eliminate the racial element of hiring people by forcing companies to have minorities on staff. The suggested benefit is that black people aren't automatically disqualified because of race, until the quota is met. The problem is that more qualified people can't be hired into particular positions because someone less qualified is being forced onto a company, which is obviously a bad thing.
At the very top of organizations, while there may be some racism, I just find it very hard to believe that a company would put a less qualified guy in charge of an entire company just because he's white. I just don't see it happening. Businesses exist to make a profit, so you need to put the best people in every position to maximize potential. Hiring strictly based on race doesn't do that, so I really don't think that's the issue there. What I think it is is that white people have had more opportunity to get into better schools, etc, because it's generally white people that have the most money, thus they look like the better option.
|
On February 01 2009 04:20 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 04:15 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 04:07 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
I'm so glad people read the whole thread before posting. On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
On January 31 2009 17:21 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others. I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people. Ever stop to think that maybe I just really think that it should only be for socio-economic reasons, and anything based on gender, race, etc is bullshit? I don't care what you think if you can't back it up with reasoning. You and dazedspy can jerk off all day to your lofty and naive assumption that we can take deontological approaches to all social problems. I really don't give a shit until you can persuade me otherwise.
Damn, ahara really doesn't give a shit about my opinion now because it doesn't agree with his! 
|
On February 01 2009 04:11 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 02:29 Caller wrote:
One of the documented problems with affirmative action is that it causes people whom are uncapable of performing at the rigorous standards that some of the elite universities have, and often or not they will end up dropping out or transferring because they can't deal with the work. On the other hand, those whom a race who benefit from AA but can do the work and excel, often have people think "Oh, he/she must have gotten into Harvard by Affirmative Action, etc." Is that type of shame and condescension worth it?
I will note that there was a recent study performed by Princeton University which stated that by removing affirmative action, 3/4 slots lost by underrepresented minorities would have gone to Asian students. One of the biggest issues that Asians thus have with affirmative action is that it does not do anything to cut back on the "old school" networks. Comparatively non-Asian, non-underrepresented minority groups bear little of the burden while espousing it as a boost to diversity and mentioning how it is a way to compensate for slavery. This is perhaps one of my biggest gripes. Last I heard, there were perhaps two Asians that owned slaves in America and they were Siamese twins.
On the other hand, a social-economic based system would really benefit those whom need it, regardless of race. For instance, a lot of slots that would go to African Americans actually go to upper class people whom are already doing well. If the purpose of affirmative action is to help the deprived fight the man and improve diversity, then giving poorer students a chance will definitely do both, instead of by race. I mean, what kind of diversity do you get from taking all of the well-groomed upper class racial minorities in the world and moving them in with all the well-groomed upper class racial majority persons?
fuck i forgot to celebrate my 2000th post. FUCK. First off, I want to point out for the 23498324th time that a socio-economic based system is not mutually exclusive with AA. Just because such a system has merits does not mean we should not do AA, because we can enact both policies at the same time. AA has benefits of its own, specifically, it helps improve race relations. The most common argument against this is that it actually hurts race relations, but I've already addressed this point in my previous post. However, you do make a good point about old school networks. If that is the case, then it may be that AA is not a good idea. But in most schools, I would argue that such networks have little influence on the admissions process, public universities in particular. I'd really like to see somebody who insists that AA hurts race relations reply to my argument that it only generates resentment towards the institution, not the individuals who benefit. I just don't see how that argument stands under scrutiny. The other really good argument against AA is meritocracy, which like ONE person has brought up. This is probably the best argument against AA, and one I'm not so confident isn't true. Still, yutgoyun does a good job of addressing it. Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 01:10 yutgoyun wrote:
The meritocracy arguments as principle are flawed in many ways. It's a great principle if everybody was truly born equal (e.g. health and money - how is inheritance meritocratic?), had equally good parenting, and equal opportunities through their life. But obviously that's not true. And we're not even getting in to the "what is merit" question. So while I usually stand on individual rights principles, the situation is extreme enough in this situation (IMO) to take a more utilitarian opinion. I *am* using the "it takes a neighbourhood" argument, btw.
I also can't help but be somewhat amused by the subtle correlations between demographics and opinions in this thread... Ultimately, you have to weigh the benefits of AA vs its cost to efficiency. This is hard to do, but I'm willing to try out AA for another generation to see what effects it's had before we decide whether it's valuable.
Although socioeconomic and racial AA may not be mutually exclusive, one would say that if one is simply going to have both kinds of affirmative action, somebody is going to get squeezed out even more. In this case, with both kinds of AA, middle-class and upper-class (non-alumni/old school) Asians and Caucasians will be hit disproportionately hard and have even more applicants compete for a tinier pool.
The argument that affirmative action causes racial tensions I'm not so sure is a strong argument. However, I do know that affirmative action has led both to an increase in drop out rates and transfers of minority students (ostensibly because they cannot deal with the work load) as well as denigration of minority students who deserve to get in, often with people dismissing their admission as "affirmative action."
The meritocracy agreement I also agree is flawed in the sense that those with better parenting and resources have a leg up on other persons. But at the same time, much of the meritocracy issue is important by the individual. Individuals whom stand out of their environment, for instance, regardless of race. For instance, the valedictorian of a poorer school would be comparable to the valedictorian of a richer private school, as the fact that they have done well in their environment would suggest that they are doing well in their respective environments. The New York City Public School System is a good example of this: based on a test one takes, admission to the top public schools, ala Stuyversant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, et. al. But a large majority of those in the top schools are lower class Asians. The fact that they were still able to devote their resources to cram school and the like suggests that it doesn't require abundant resources for academic success.
At the same time, however, a lot of university admissions depend on connections, standardized tests, and the like, all of which do depend on monetary income. For instance, there are test preparation courses, interviews with admissions officers, alumni meetings, etc. etc. etc. These institutional uses are perhaps flawed. But at the same time, one could argue that even if one is filthy rich and received all the preparation one could possibly afford as a result, that if he/she did not make proper use of it they would not succeed. It is thus up to the individual how he/she wants to use whatever resources that he/she has, and admissions would ideally be judged to this standard.
|
Ahara, look at the responses. No one is saying "Damn the system!" They're saying "Damn the guy that got in over me." While that may not be perfectly logical, it is what happens. So, because of the way people ACTUALLY react, it HURTS race relations. And there is absolutely no reason at all that a privileged minority should get something over anyone because he is a minority. Look at the Obama example. How is it fair to anyone that his daughters would get even more special treatment because of their race? They're already going to get loads of special treatment because they're the president's kids (or ex-president depending on what age they are, and will be when applying for jobs/schools), and because they have loads of money. Why throw another benefit towards them? There is no need to try and heal things up with people who already have enough, because it's NOT HELPING RACE RELATIONS. If it were, people would not be replying in the manner in which they are replying. You have a valid point that the hatred, and disgust is being put on the wrong people, but that really doesn't matter, because no one is going to change their views on it. Besides that, the socio-economical will generally favor minorities anyway, because it's generally minorities that are poor, but it won't disqualify a poor white or Asian because they're white or Asian. There's no need to give to those who already have.
I disagree with any affirmative action, personally, because I don't think it's all that helpful (and given the things that Caller is talking about with increased drop-out rates, it would seem that I'm right, because it doesn't appear to be helping at all).
What I am for is something like the Rooney rule in the NFL (for those who don't know, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers made it a priority to give minority candidates a chance to become coaches on his team, and while it's not an actual rule of the NFL, it's used by almost every team). What that does is gives individuals opportunities they may not have had otherwise.
The other thing that I am for is making inner-city schools better. I don't know how to achieve that (if I did, I wouldn't be on this forum, I'm sure), but doing that will also help to alleviate the problems we currently face with discrimination, because people will be given an equal opportunity to succeed, which I (and I imagine almost everyone else in the world) have no problem with. What I have a problem with is things being decided on something other than qualifications. And again, that disgust passes right over the people administering the programs, and goes right to the people receiving the benefits (as shown by the responses here, which you are ignoring, for some reason. And by that, I mean that you're ignoring the clear signs of what I'm saying happens, and saying that it should go to the administration, even though that's clearly not what's actually happening).
|
On February 01 2009 04:46 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 04:20 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 04:15 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 04:07 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 03:10 Hawk wrote:
AA is bullshit. If anything, it should be socio-economic based. All it does is create tension—oh look, that person got in despite having half the credentials I had! And my friend didn't get in cuz of them!
I'm so glad people read the whole thread before posting. On January 31 2009 14:46 ahrara_ wrote:
Anyway, I keep hearing this about how "helping socioeconomically" is a better alternative. But enacting such a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't do AA, because we can do BOTH at the same time. There is no reason we can't have a program that helps impoverished students and black students at the same time. Saying that we can help economically disadvantaged students instead is not a reason to not do affirmative action. The benefit of AA is that it not only helps the disadvantaged, but by promoting minorities into higher social strata, it fights against racial prejudices. For that reason, I'm all for AA, whether or not it may seem fair, because racism does a lot more harm in general than rejecting a few asian kids from CAL.
On January 31 2009 17:21 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 17:02 Savio wrote:On January 31 2009 16:28 ahrara_ wrote:On January 31 2009 16:13 Jibba wrote:On January 31 2009 16:06 LosingID8 wrote:On January 31 2009 16:03 yutgoyun wrote:
I used to be against affirmative action, being a Chinese Canadian. I also used to not understand what the whole race-hype around Obama was.
But since moving to the US to study, I'm actually for it, though just in the US (well, I guess I support AA for natives in Canada). Race relations, specifically regarding blacks (but also latinos) are by far the most evident difference between the US and Canada IMHO. The treatment of blacks is so bad here that a little reverse-racism discrimination makes sense. That said, I support it much more for education than I do in the workplace. where are you going to school? i have never seen black students be treated any differently from any other racial or ethnic group. In Southern California?! Take a black friend into Abercrombie and have him go into a dressing room while you watch the clerks. Hell, take a look at the shit the Bay Area police are in right now. http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2148That study was done with college students. Ya I'd be pissed off if I didn't get into my first pick school because a black student got an advantage because of AA. But at the same time, AA as a whole has the promise of healing those relations once and for all, so that is a worthwhile sacrifice on the whole. Dude are you kidding? You JUST stated you would HATE to be passed over for a less qualified black man, but you think that affirmative action will HEAL race relations? Eventually white people will learn to enjoy being passed over because they weren't the right race? I think that AA is doing more damage than good now in that it stirs up resentment and polls show the people in general do not think that AA is needed anymore so they are going to be even less tolerant of special treatment being given to certain races but not others. I knew I was going to get flack for taking a stance that violates people's "principles" even though there is a utilitarian benefit to the policy. The argument that AA causes resentment is the only viable one I've heard in this thread so far. But AA is not an African American policy. It is federally mandated or state mandated. Any resentment it generates is directed towards the government, unless you wear white robes on the weekends, in which case you're beyond help. Even if AA created resentment towards blacks, it is a small contribution compared to other, more significant parts of the minority stereotype -- particularly the stigma of poverty and crime. Yet the benefits of AA are much greater in magnitude. Minorities are present in colleges where they otherwise would never get a chance. I may be resentful that another person got into a college because of his race, but I won't resent HIM, I'd resent the system. If I met this person and he turned out to be a good student, that would go a long way into destroying my stereotypes of black or hispanic people. Ever stop to think that maybe I just really think that it should only be for socio-economic reasons, and anything based on gender, race, etc is bullshit? I don't care what you think if you can't back it up with reasoning. You and dazedspy can jerk off all day to your lofty and naive assumption that we can take deontological approaches to all social problems. I really don't give a shit until you can persuade me otherwise. Damn, ahara really doesn't give a shit about my opinion now because it doesn't agree with his!
ya i guess that's how it is. why don't you post more about it.
|
AA is partially reasonable but unexcusable for a society such as this. Yes, racism still exists in America. But racism works in many directions, you'd be surprised how much more racism exists for Hispanics and Asians while racism against Blacks have decreased compared to 10 years ago,, especially in grade school nowadays. Blacks have already gotten enough special treatment and sympathy for the suffering they faced many many decades ago. (Heard of Black TV channels? Black colleges? )
The truth is, Affirmative Action DOES take skin color into consideration and that is a big no no, you need to look at individual's skills. Look at the Europeans, they're very well off in America because they can easily adjust and work here. Look at the Asians, they're decently well off too because they push themselves through immense education and work hard. Look at Hispanics, even though they have low education, they're one of the hardest working group of people I know, because they will put themselves through those hard labor jobs. Look at the Jews, their people have gotten massacred and they don't whine about racism and demanding sympathy. What do Blacks do? They ask for everything, some are successful but the majority of them live in poverty.
ahrara's point that although AA is harmful, but overall good to recover the backlashes of current racism does not work The reason being that racism against other races are there but they don't reap the benefits like Blacks. The second point being double negatives does not produce a positive. AA is harmful period. The only people who really benefit from it are Blacks and we've already given them enough, even a president this time.
|
IM BLACK GIVE ME SPECIAL TREATMENT
|
lol in Canada it's infinitely worse, we have actual race and gender quotas with respect to government jobs, and worst of all a travesty of a court called the Humans Right Tribunal which basically nods its head sympathetically and condemns, with legal powers, the opponents of any minority which comes before it. There are a ton of stories about people who are incredibly incompetent at their jobs but can't be fired because the Human Rights Tribunal automatically sides with any complaint given to them by a minority.
|
Affirmative action was created to prevent racism and discrimination, IMO it actually causes it to a certain degree.
|
On February 01 2009 04:31 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2009 11:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I heard some shit on Michael Steele this afternoon on NPR. They made a lot of reference to the barak the magic negro parody song on youtube.
I heard some affirmitive action stuff the other day, basically what they said was that although in the lower ranks there are much more diverse employees, still at the top it is 90% dominated as white male. So affirmitive action imo is just some bullshit corps use in order to look good. like the whole 'green' environment friendly shit they try to play off when in reality the dollar still rules (so maybe they are GREEN after all, lol).
Can someone even tell me the suggested benefit of affirmative action in the first place? It's just capitalist bullshit. It's not capitalist at all, you dipshit. A capitalist would say give it to the best qualified, a non-capitalist (i.e. Socialist or Communist) would say that we need things to be "fair," so give it to a person based on something other than qualifications. The whole idea of it--which is good in principle, but not in practice--is to attempt to eliminate the racial element of hiring people by forcing companies to have minorities on staff. The suggested benefit is that black people aren't automatically disqualified because of race, until the quota is met. The problem is that more qualified people can't be hired into particular positions because someone less qualified is being forced onto a company, which is obviously a bad thing. At the very top of organizations, while there may be some racism, I just find it very hard to believe that a company would put a less qualified guy in charge of an entire company just because he's white. I just don't see it happening. Businesses exist to make a profit, so you need to put the best people in every position to maximize potential. Hiring strictly based on race doesn't do that, so I really don't think that's the issue there. What I think it is is that white people have had more opportunity to get into better schools, etc, because it's generally white people that have the most money, thus they look like the better option.
it is a communistic/socialistic idea/motion but the capitalist idiots use it as a tool to gain more capital.
Why you callin me names?
|
Think about it from a bw perspective: would you support pro teams being forced to give extra points in terms of in-team testing and invites to who gets in-team testing based on race (ie white people get extra pts) because the USA is not as starcraft-infused as Korea, thus giving whites a harder task at improving at bw?
|
On February 01 2009 05:30 cz wrote:
IM BLACK GIVE ME SPECIAL TREATMENT
Quoted for Truth
|
On February 01 2009 05:15 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Ahara, look at the responses. No one is saying "Damn the system!" They're saying "Damn the guy that got in over me." While that may not be perfectly logical, it is what happens. So, because of the way people ACTUALLY react, it HURTS race relations. And there is absolutely no reason at all that a privileged minority should get something over anyone because he is a minority. Look at the Obama example. How is it fair to anyone that his daughters would get even more special treatment because of their race? They're already going to get loads of special treatment because they're the president's kids (or ex-president depending on what age they are, and will be when applying for jobs/schools), and because they have loads of money. Why throw another benefit towards them? There is no need to try and heal things up with people who already have enough, because it's NOT HELPING RACE RELATIONS.
If it were, people would not be replying in the manner in which they are replying. You have a valid point that the hatred, and disgust is being put on the wrong people, but that really doesn't matter, because no one is going to change their views on it. Besides that, the socio-economical will generally favor minorities anyway, because it's generally minorities that are poor, but it won't disqualify a poor white or Asian because they're white or Asian. There's no need to give to those who already have.
I disagree with any affirmative action, personally, because I don't think it's all that helpful (and given the things that Caller is talking about with increased drop-out rates, it would seem that I'm right, because it doesn't appear to be helping at all).
What I am for is something like the Rooney rule in the NFL (for those who don't know, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers made it a priority to give minority candidates a chance to become coaches on his team, and while it's not an actual rule of the NFL, it's used by almost every team). What that does is gives individuals opportunities they may not have had otherwise.
The other thing that I am for is making inner-city schools better. I don't know how to achieve that (if I did, I wouldn't be on this forum, I'm sure), but doing that will also help to alleviate the problems we currently face with discrimination, because people will be given an equal opportunity to succeed, which I (and I imagine almost everyone else in the world) have no problem with. What I have a problem with is things being decided on something other than qualifications. And again, that disgust passes right over the people administering the programs, and goes right to the people receiving the benefits (as shown by the responses here, which you are ignoring, for some reason. And by that, I mean that you're ignoring the clear signs of what I'm saying happens, and saying that it should go to the administration, even though that's clearly not what's actually happening).
Caller, a lot of this applies to your post too, so I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.
After reading some of the arguments here I'm starting to feel like AA isn't as defensible as I believed. Still...
1.) People are not reacting against those receiving the benefit. Nobody has put down black people as a whole because of AA. Most of the vitrol here is directed against the institution of AA, not the people, which is the point. I just don't see the racist tone you say there is in any of the posts here, unless you count my own against asians, but that's just coz I'm an asshole. Still, it would be reckless of me to say there is NO chance of AA exacerbating racial tensions, but I don't see it happening on the very personal level you claim there is. If national attention becomes focused on AA again for whatever reason, I can definitely see a scenario where people will be polarized towards their respective races. So I see what you're saying here.
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. However, I'm beginning to doubt if it will heal racial TENSIONS.
3.) I like your alternatives. Ultimately, I think you may be right in that the benefits of AA for race relations are negligible over a socio-economic only program which is likely to capture many of the advantages of AA because such a large portion of America's poor are minorities.
|
On February 01 2009 05:37 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 04:31 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On January 31 2009 11:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I heard some shit on Michael Steele this afternoon on NPR. They made a lot of reference to the barak the magic negro parody song on youtube.
I heard some affirmitive action stuff the other day, basically what they said was that although in the lower ranks there are much more diverse employees, still at the top it is 90% dominated as white male. So affirmitive action imo is just some bullshit corps use in order to look good. like the whole 'green' environment friendly shit they try to play off when in reality the dollar still rules (so maybe they are GREEN after all, lol).
Can someone even tell me the suggested benefit of affirmative action in the first place? It's just capitalist bullshit. It's not capitalist at all, you dipshit. A capitalist would say give it to the best qualified, a non-capitalist (i.e. Socialist or Communist) would say that we need things to be "fair," so give it to a person based on something other than qualifications. The whole idea of it--which is good in principle, but not in practice--is to attempt to eliminate the racial element of hiring people by forcing companies to have minorities on staff. The suggested benefit is that black people aren't automatically disqualified because of race, until the quota is met. The problem is that more qualified people can't be hired into particular positions because someone less qualified is being forced onto a company, which is obviously a bad thing. At the very top of organizations, while there may be some racism, I just find it very hard to believe that a company would put a less qualified guy in charge of an entire company just because he's white. I just don't see it happening. Businesses exist to make a profit, so you need to put the best people in every position to maximize potential. Hiring strictly based on race doesn't do that, so I really don't think that's the issue there. What I think it is is that white people have had more opportunity to get into better schools, etc, because it's generally white people that have the most money, thus they look like the better option. it is a communistic/socialistic idea/motion but the capitalist idiots use it as a tool to gain more capital. Why you callin me names?
i'm not trying to be an ass but what you just said is hilarious
|
I'd just like to point out that I don't necessarily think that making black men be the spokesmen of your party, right as the nation is going to sh*t, is necessarily doing them a favor.
Also I'm against affirmative action. It is simply a form of weak discrimination, because those who are not "affirmed" are by default "denied" in this world of finite resources. This weak discrimination, which some argue isn't that bad, becomes worse when minorities, generally defined as non-white people, are affirmed. But in either case, whether the effect is more affirmative or more repressive, the end result is friction between races. In fact, it helps keep competition along racial lines in the first place, rather than along, say, geographic, political, or a billion other possible grouping methods.
|
On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races.
What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype.
|
On February 01 2009 06:04 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype. Yup. If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Minorities can succeed on their own, then people will give them credit, they will just want to fight them if they just pop in and take all the jobs.
|
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. However, I'm beginning to doubt if it will heal racial TENSIONS. The integration of different races into the same institutions allows for decreased ghettoization (intellectually and spacially), while the attempt to equalize education across races makes race a non-issue for systemic denial of advancement, both of which reduce racial tensions.
Affirmative action is an evil which pays dividends over time by granting enfranchisement in the economic and decision making apparatuses of our society. The end aim is parity, which is obviously the greatest blow to racial tensions possible.
|
On February 01 2009 06:22 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 06:04 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype. Yup. If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Minorities can succeed on their own, then people will give them credit, they will just want to fight them if they just pop in and take all the jobs.
So it's a black person's fault that society is prejudiced against him and the schools he goes to are poorly funded and staffed? I'm not talking about AA now, I'm talking about your incredibly incredibly naive assumption that we can expect disadvantaged groups in society to simply "reform" themselves, that there are no institutional problems that can't be overcome through personal personal strife.
|
Oh please, protestant hard work saves all people
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 01 2009 06:31 L wrote:
Oh please, protestant hard work saves all people
And your phd in sociology came from where?
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 01 2009 05:37 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 04:31 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On January 31 2009 11:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I heard some shit on Michael Steele this afternoon on NPR. They made a lot of reference to the barak the magic negro parody song on youtube.
I heard some affirmitive action stuff the other day, basically what they said was that although in the lower ranks there are much more diverse employees, still at the top it is 90% dominated as white male. So affirmitive action imo is just some bullshit corps use in order to look good. like the whole 'green' environment friendly shit they try to play off when in reality the dollar still rules (so maybe they are GREEN after all, lol).
Can someone even tell me the suggested benefit of affirmative action in the first place? It's just capitalist bullshit. It's not capitalist at all, you dipshit. A capitalist would say give it to the best qualified, a non-capitalist (i.e. Socialist or Communist) would say that we need things to be "fair," so give it to a person based on something other than qualifications. The whole idea of it--which is good in principle, but not in practice--is to attempt to eliminate the racial element of hiring people by forcing companies to have minorities on staff. The suggested benefit is that black people aren't automatically disqualified because of race, until the quota is met. The problem is that more qualified people can't be hired into particular positions because someone less qualified is being forced onto a company, which is obviously a bad thing. At the very top of organizations, while there may be some racism, I just find it very hard to believe that a company would put a less qualified guy in charge of an entire company just because he's white. I just don't see it happening. Businesses exist to make a profit, so you need to put the best people in every position to maximize potential. Hiring strictly based on race doesn't do that, so I really don't think that's the issue there. What I think it is is that white people have had more opportunity to get into better schools, etc, because it's generally white people that have the most money, thus they look like the better option. it is a communistic/socialistic idea/motion but the capitalist idiots use it as a tool to gain more capital. Why you callin me names? Good lord. I mean everyone knows you're kind of an idiot, but you don't have to go around proving us right all the time.
|
And your phd in sociology came from where? The University of Sarcasm.
|
nope dont like AA
in this day an age it should be based entirely on the person itself. Every race and religon has its fair share of good people and compelte faggots
ex. an employer hiring some dude. he should be interviweing him as if he was wearing a blind fold that makes everything blue (there no skin colours). Then he can just base his decision off of his answers to the interview
|
AA is nothing more than a racist policy and it should be eliminated.
|
On February 01 2009 06:29 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 06:22 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 06:04 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype. Yup. If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Minorities can succeed on their own, then people will give them credit, they will just want to fight them if they just pop in and take all the jobs. So it's a black person's fault that society is prejudiced against him and the schools he goes to are poorly funded and staffed? I'm not talking about AA now, I'm talking about your incredibly incredibly naive assumption that we can expect disadvantaged groups in society to simply "reform" themselves, that there are no institutional problems that can't be overcome through personal personal strife. Asians managed to reform themselves in a society that was a fuckload more racist then we are against blacks. Yes, such a racist society we live in, its not like we just elected a black to lead the country, and we dont have a black running the rnc.
Get the fuck over it. There are some racists against blacks. Some against whites, etc. People WILL and ARE angry at blacks that they get preferential treatment. There can be no god damn parity, nor should there be if it meant discriminating against a group of people. Whites have gotten into good economic states over the development of centuries, you cant achieve parity in a shitty attempt in a few decades to KICK THEM OUT OF SCHOOL AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES.
|
On February 01 2009 07:25 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 06:29 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 06:22 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 06:04 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype. Yup. If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Minorities can succeed on their own, then people will give them credit, they will just want to fight them if they just pop in and take all the jobs. So it's a black person's fault that society is prejudiced against him and the schools he goes to are poorly funded and staffed? I'm not talking about AA now, I'm talking about your incredibly incredibly naive assumption that we can expect disadvantaged groups in society to simply "reform" themselves, that there are no institutional problems that can't be overcome through personal personal strife. Asians managed to reform themselves in a society that was a fuckload more racist then we are against blacks. Yes, such a racist society we live in, its not like we just elected a black to lead the country, and we dont have a black running the rnc. Get the fuck over it. There are some racists against blacks. Some against whites, etc. People WILL and ARE angry at blacks that they get preferential treatment. There can be no god damn parity, nor should there be if it meant discriminating against a group of people. Whites have gotten into good economic states over the development of centuries, you cant achieve parity in a shitty attempt in a few decades to KICK THEM OUT OF SCHOOL AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES.
lol
you think asians "reformed" themselves. take a sociology course. or a history course. read a book. live a little, then come back. i can't argue with somebody that is going to come up with arbitrary explanation for phenomenon they don't understand.
|
On February 01 2009 06:43 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 05:37 CharlieMurphy wrote:On February 01 2009 04:31 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On January 31 2009 11:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I heard some shit on Michael Steele this afternoon on NPR. They made a lot of reference to the barak the magic negro parody song on youtube.
I heard some affirmitive action stuff the other day, basically what they said was that although in the lower ranks there are much more diverse employees, still at the top it is 90% dominated as white male. So affirmitive action imo is just some bullshit corps use in order to look good. like the whole 'green' environment friendly shit they try to play off when in reality the dollar still rules (so maybe they are GREEN after all, lol).
Can someone even tell me the suggested benefit of affirmative action in the first place? It's just capitalist bullshit. It's not capitalist at all, you dipshit. A capitalist would say give it to the best qualified, a non-capitalist (i.e. Socialist or Communist) would say that we need things to be "fair," so give it to a person based on something other than qualifications. The whole idea of it--which is good in principle, but not in practice--is to attempt to eliminate the racial element of hiring people by forcing companies to have minorities on staff. The suggested benefit is that black people aren't automatically disqualified because of race, until the quota is met. The problem is that more qualified people can't be hired into particular positions because someone less qualified is being forced onto a company, which is obviously a bad thing. At the very top of organizations, while there may be some racism, I just find it very hard to believe that a company would put a less qualified guy in charge of an entire company just because he's white. I just don't see it happening. Businesses exist to make a profit, so you need to put the best people in every position to maximize potential. Hiring strictly based on race doesn't do that, so I really don't think that's the issue there. What I think it is is that white people have had more opportunity to get into better schools, etc, because it's generally white people that have the most money, thus they look like the better option. it is a communistic/socialistic idea/motion but the capitalist idiots use it as a tool to gain more capital. Why you callin me names? Good lord. I mean everyone knows you're kind of an idiot, but you don't have to go around proving us right all the time.
HAHAHAHAHA
|
Was going to make a long ass post but decided against it, but I think many people in this thread should read up on the policies of affirmative action, especially in the workplace. You might still disagree with the policy, but it does not just help blacks, it also is for women, disabled, and older people etc.. A minority might get hired instead of a white person but a business does not have to if they are less qualified. If that still seems unfair then that is a fair argument i suppose. They must however, make a good faith effort to hire a representative pool of applicants. If they hire twenty white guys in a row they have to show they were the best people for the job. Many people here might not see a need for it, maybe you're from a place where race isn't an issue, but where I'm from I feel there is still a need for it. My parents went to segregated schools back in the day and even when I was in high school there's still plenty of racism and prejudice to go around.
i do personally find it hilarious the republicans chose a black guy for head of rnc after we elected barack obama, and chose sarah palin for vp candidate to pander to women.
|
On February 01 2009 07:29 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 07:25 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 06:29 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 06:22 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 06:04 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype. Yup. If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Minorities can succeed on their own, then people will give them credit, they will just want to fight them if they just pop in and take all the jobs. So it's a black person's fault that society is prejudiced against him and the schools he goes to are poorly funded and staffed? I'm not talking about AA now, I'm talking about your incredibly incredibly naive assumption that we can expect disadvantaged groups in society to simply "reform" themselves, that there are no institutional problems that can't be overcome through personal personal strife. Asians managed to reform themselves in a society that was a fuckload more racist then we are against blacks. Yes, such a racist society we live in, its not like we just elected a black to lead the country, and we dont have a black running the rnc. Get the fuck over it. There are some racists against blacks. Some against whites, etc. People WILL and ARE angry at blacks that they get preferential treatment. There can be no god damn parity, nor should there be if it meant discriminating against a group of people. Whites have gotten into good economic states over the development of centuries, you cant achieve parity in a shitty attempt in a few decades to KICK THEM OUT OF SCHOOL AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES. lol you think asians "reformed" themselves. take a sociology course. or a history course. read a book. live a little, then come back. i can't argue with somebody that is going to come up with arbitrary explanation for phenomenon they don't understand. lol, you realize the stereotype of asians was that they were dirty and untrustworthy right? Cause even though they were hard working, many of them, as a result of the times, had to rob to survive. They were, like any minority group [yes white groups as well, irish, italian, catholics], in a very bad position in society at one time. Really no point arguing with a racist like you though.
|
You guys are terrible posters, fuck you.
|
On February 01 2009 09:05 CharlieMurphy wrote:
You guys are terrible posters, fuck you.
lolololololol
|
how is that funny? all they did was post some shitty one liner saying im an idiot with no ellaboration or anything else to add to the discussion.
You are doing the same thing.
|
The way I see it...
IF you agree with the incontrovertible fact that non-foreign African Americans as a group have higher than average crime rate, lower standardized test scores and a lower matriculation rate even after adjustments are made for socioeconomic status
then you have two choices:
1. Black people are innately incapable of scoring high, going to college and keeping from committing crimes.
2. There's more to it than just economic class and therefore a race-blind affirmative action will not address the issue (although this does not necessarily mean a race-based one will).
|
United States22883 Posts
What you said is gibberish. Calling someone a capitalist is like accusing someone of having 2 lungs.
In terms of political capital, it's the exact opposite. People use up their political capital pushing through social programs like welfare and affirmative action.
In terms of capital capital (resources), it simply doesn't mean anything. Affirmative action doesn't help politicians get richer.
|
On February 01 2009 08:48 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 07:29 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 07:25 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 06:29 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 06:22 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 06:04 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype. Yup. If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Minorities can succeed on their own, then people will give them credit, they will just want to fight them if they just pop in and take all the jobs. So it's a black person's fault that society is prejudiced against him and the schools he goes to are poorly funded and staffed? I'm not talking about AA now, I'm talking about your incredibly incredibly naive assumption that we can expect disadvantaged groups in society to simply "reform" themselves, that there are no institutional problems that can't be overcome through personal personal strife. Asians managed to reform themselves in a society that was a fuckload more racist then we are against blacks. Yes, such a racist society we live in, its not like we just elected a black to lead the country, and we dont have a black running the rnc. Get the fuck over it. There are some racists against blacks. Some against whites, etc. People WILL and ARE angry at blacks that they get preferential treatment. There can be no god damn parity, nor should there be if it meant discriminating against a group of people. Whites have gotten into good economic states over the development of centuries, you cant achieve parity in a shitty attempt in a few decades to KICK THEM OUT OF SCHOOL AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES. lol you think asians "reformed" themselves. take a sociology course. or a history course. read a book. live a little, then come back. i can't argue with somebody that is going to come up with arbitrary explanation for phenomenon they don't understand. lol, you realize the stereotype of asians was that they were dirty and untrustworthy right? Cause even though they were hard working, many of them, as a result of the times, had to rob to survive. They were, like any minority group [yes white groups as well, irish, italian, catholics], in a very bad position in society at one time. Really no point arguing with a racist like you though.
if you had ever lived a day in your life or, alternatively, read my other posts in this thread, you'd recognize that the cost of immigrating to the states for asians are significantly higher than for many other minorities. we can't just jump a fence, so to speak. this explains the fact that recent asian-american immigrants perform above par socioeconomically. asian americans also have less incentive to migrate -- most that do are usually here for professional opportunities.
further, if you'd ever read a book in your life, you'd recognize that the "third wave" of asian-american immigrants which began in 1980s with the normalization of relations with the PRC is unique from past waves of immigration. the chinese exclusion act that was passed in the 19th century essentially closed the spigot of chinese immigration until the mid 20th century, during which it was opened only to a trickle. this third wave of asian americans are not only uniquely subject to the forces i described above, but are also genealogically distinct from these previous groups. the asian-american population did not so much "reform" as it was entirely reborn.
i'm not as well versed on african-american history, but it seems intuitively obvious to me that comparing asian-americans with blacks or hispanics is absolutely ridiculous. there are countless institutional barriers which make it impossible for these groups as a whole to step out of the cycle of poverty. for one, schools are funded largely through property taxes, yet minorities communities tend to have low real estate values, so their schools are underfunded and poorly staffed. health care is another problem -- african americans have an infant mortality rate almost TRIPLE that of caucasians and (presumably) asians. since health care is a leading cause of bankruptcy and poor health can make it hard to find work, this makes things even worse.
you calling me a racist as you're mouthing off some crackpot theory that some races are inherently able to "reform" better than others is the most ironic thing i've read in years.
ugh, you disgust me. just shut the fuck up please. next time before you post something so stupid and patently false as "asian americans had to rob to survive" either jump off a bridge or educate yourself first.
|
On February 01 2009 09:31 Hippopotamus wrote:
The way I see it...
IF you agree with the incontrovertible fact that non-foreign African Americans as a group have higher than average crime rate, lower standardized test scores and a lower matriculation rate even after adjustments are made for socioeconomic status
What evidence do you have of this?
I think you may be understanding the argument for AA. The point is not to make up for some kind of genetic disadvantage, but to promote more minorities to higher social strata in order to destroy stereotypes.
|
On February 01 2009 06:29 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 06:22 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 06:04 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype. Yup. If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Minorities can succeed on their own, then people will give them credit, they will just want to fight them if they just pop in and take all the jobs. So it's a black person's fault that society is prejudiced against him and the schools he goes to are poorly funded and staffed? I'm not talking about AA now, I'm talking about your incredibly incredibly naive assumption that we can expect disadvantaged groups in society to simply "reform" themselves, that there are no institutional problems that can't be overcome through personal personal strife.
I think you underestimate the power of a positive mindset. The current culture of victimhood, perpetuated by irresponsibility, validated by white guilt, and embraced by leftist culture, considerably lowers the chance that a particular individual will transcend his circumstance. The only racism openly practiced and publicly tolerated by contemporary culture is reverse racism. The true insurmountable challenge for swaths of underprivileged minority youth is a lack of responsiblity training, enforced by poor role models, resulting in apathy and self-fulfilling prophecies.
Of course, concrete economic problems cannot be solved by self-empowerment alone, but without it, there will be no improvement without government intervention (AA, wealth redistribution, and general unfairness against members not of the target group).
|
from what I've heard, if there wasn't negative-affirmative action against asians in college admissions, up to 70% of all college students would be asian.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 01 2009 10:28 Polyphasic wrote:
from what I've heard, if there wasn't negative-affirmative action against asians in college admissions, up to 70% of all college students would be asian.
I think you heard completely wrong. It's not as if 4.0 asians are failing to go to college because of AA, they're failing to make it into their first choices.
|
United States10774 Posts
On February 01 2009 10:31 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 10:28 Polyphasic wrote:
from what I've heard, if there wasn't negative-affirmative action against asians in college admissions, up to 70% of all college students would be asian. I think you heard completely wrong. It's not as if 4.0 asians are failing to go to college because of AA, they're failing to make it into their first choices.
Hmm it would make more sense if it were top elite colleges? Not sure.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
institutional racist reaches into the mellow present quite tenaciously. we are not merely talking about formal rights to vote and education, but also a host of conditions that made life hard for entire racial groups in the US. these conditions alter the playing field, and thus alter the present results of competition.
racial aa is in principle justifiable, but like other social policies it needs to be sensitive to specific regional conditions. affluent blacks in good neighborhoods may not seem like the most deserving recipients for preferential treatment, but suppose we are talking about a black teen coming from a ghetto created by decades of restrictive covenants, or someone who lives in a poor school district. they obviously are not playing on a fair field. these historical injustices matter. just ask yourself whether you deserve aa if your family is suddenly sold to different parts of the country and you are kicked out of school.
other minorities should also get preferential treatment by this "fairness" principle, but for whatever reason it is not the only operative standard. so we have the other consideration of existing inequalities, often understood independent of history. so, correcting racial underrepresentation has been fronted as a major argument for aa, and it is no surprise that some people find it inadequate. nevertheless, the main moral drive here is historical inequalities, not merely present ones.
whether aa should be doled out by the general category of race is a real question, but doing away with aa entirely is a nonstarter.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 01 2009 10:18 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 06:29 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 06:22 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 06:04 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype. Yup. If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Minorities can succeed on their own, then people will give them credit, they will just want to fight them if they just pop in and take all the jobs. So it's a black person's fault that society is prejudiced against him and the schools he goes to are poorly funded and staffed? I'm not talking about AA now, I'm talking about your incredibly incredibly naive assumption that we can expect disadvantaged groups in society to simply "reform" themselves, that there are no institutional problems that can't be overcome through personal personal strife. I think you underestimate the power of a positive mindset. The current culture of victimhood, perpetuated by irresponsibility, validated by white guilt, and embraced by leftist culture, considerably lowers the chance that a particular individual will transcend his circumstance. The only racism openly practiced and publicly tolerated by contemporary culture is reverse racism. The true insurmountable challenge for swaths of underprivileged minority youth is a lack of responsiblity training, enforced by poor role models, resulting in apathy and self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, concrete economic problems cannot be solved by self-empowerment alone, but without it, there will be no improvement without government intervention (AA, wealth redistribution, and general unfairness against members not of the target group). you should read more oakeshott and ditch the hannity
"Locke was the apostle of the liberalism which is more conservative than conservatism itself, the liberalism characterised, not by insensitiveness, but by a sinister and destructive sensitiveness to the influx of the new, the liberalism which is sure of its limits, which has a horror of extremes, which lays its paralysing hand of respectability upon whatever is dangerous and revolutionary."
at least the dissonance he possessed is more flavorful than repellent
|
I believe it was ahrara that was stating asian immigrants came to the USA with more than other immigrants and thus had a leg up on them. Just want to chime in that my grand parents came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, worked the stereotypical poor immigrant asian jobs such as dish washing and laundromat stuff, and as a result my parents grew up in awful neighborhoods. My mother in particular grew up in a predominantly black area actually so she went to the same schools and lived in similar conditions. Both worked their asses off to make it into college and succeed. It's insulting that someone would try to take away from all the hardship they went through to get to where they are today by saying that they were privileged or somehow had an advantage.
I'm against racial AA. If my grand parents and parents can make it, so should anyone else. Without the government's help. If they can't make it, that tells me something about them. Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the set of cultural values that led to that type of success, which is found with certain blacks too, is not in itself a choice.
|
On February 01 2009 14:30 Phyre wrote:
I believe it was ahrara that was stating asian immigrants came to the USA with more than other immigrants and thus had a leg up on them. Just want to chime in that my grand parents came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, worked the stereotypical poor immigrant asian jobs such as dish washing and laundromat stuff, and as a result my parents grew up in awful neighborhoods. My mother in particular grew up in a predominantly black area actually so she went to the same schools and lived in similar conditions. Both worked their asses off to make it into college and succeed. It's insulting that someone would try to take away from all the hardship they went through to get to where they are today by saying that they were privileged or somehow had an advantage.
I'm against racial AA. If my grand parents and parents can make it, so should anyone else. Without the government's help. If they can't make it, that tells me something about them. Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough.
i agree, same with my asian parents. started with barely anything, worked their way up to success. truly, they deserve what they earned. totally agree with the bolded line
|
On February 01 2009 14:30 Phyre wrote:
I believe it was ahrara that was stating asian immigrants came to the USA with more than other immigrants and thus had a leg up on them. Just want to chime in that my grand parents came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, worked the stereotypical poor immigrant asian jobs such as dish washing and laundromat stuff, and as a result my parents grew up in awful neighborhoods. My mother in particular grew up in a predominantly black area actually so she went to the same schools and lived in similar conditions. Both worked their asses off to make it into college and succeed. It's insulting that someone would try to take away from all the hardship they went through to get to where they are today by saying that they were privileged or somehow had an advantage.
I'm against racial AA. If my grand parents and parents can make it, so should anyone else. Without the government's help. If they can't make it, that tells me something about them. Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough.
Kudos to your grandparents. There are always exceptions to the rule. But to outright deny that there aren't strong institutional disadvantages for most minorities is silly. I'll quote what I wrote before.
i'm not as well versed on african-american history, but it seems intuitively obvious to me that comparing asian-americans with blacks or hispanics is absolutely ridiculous. there are countless institutional barriers which make it impossible for these groups as a whole to step out of the cycle of poverty. for one, schools are funded largely through property taxes, yet minorities communities tend to have low real estate values, so their schools are underfunded and poorly staffed. health care is another problem -- african americans have an infant mortality rate almost TRIPLE that of caucasians and (presumably) asians. since health care is a leading cause of bankruptcy and poor health can make it hard to find work, this makes things even worse.
In this climate, it is certainly possible to go to succeed without AA. But you'd have to have an extraordinarily good roll of the dice: you'd need a supportive family, dependable friends, the good fortune of not being placed into bankruptcy by some kind of chronic illness in the family, and some good genes.
What it comes down to is a logical flaw. One exception doesn't disprove the rule. I'll tell you what's really insulting: when successful americans absolve themselves of responsibility for the less fortunate by resorting to the myth of the American Dream. Opportunity and social mobility in America is considerably more accessible here than elsewhere, but serious institutional and sociological barriers remain.
|
On February 01 2009 10:18 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 06:29 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 06:22 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 06:04 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype. Yup. If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Minorities can succeed on their own, then people will give them credit, they will just want to fight them if they just pop in and take all the jobs. So it's a black person's fault that society is prejudiced against him and the schools he goes to are poorly funded and staffed? I'm not talking about AA now, I'm talking about your incredibly incredibly naive assumption that we can expect disadvantaged groups in society to simply "reform" themselves, that there are no institutional problems that can't be overcome through personal personal strife. I think you underestimate the power of a positive mindset. The current culture of victimhood, perpetuated by irresponsibility, validated by white guilt, and embraced by leftist culture, considerably lowers the chance that a particular individual will transcend his circumstance. The only racism openly practiced and publicly tolerated by contemporary culture is reverse racism. The true insurmountable challenge for swaths of underprivileged minority youth is a lack of responsiblity training, enforced by poor role models, resulting in apathy and self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, concrete economic problems cannot be solved by self-empowerment alone, but without it, there will be no improvement without government intervention (AA, wealth redistribution, and general unfairness against members not of the target group).
Good point brought up here. AA strengthens the "culture of victimhood" in this country. That may be its worst aspect. The idea that blacks should succeed only because the white "leaders" help them succeed is a serious problem. This is the culture we need to get away from. When has a group that was assigned "victim" status and given special treatment ever thrived? Did it work for the Native Americans with their free health care, tax exempt status and large subsidies? Are they better off now? We have had over a century to raise them up by treating them as victims and did it work?
Then think of other repressed groups who were not treated as victims. Catholics, Indians, Chinese, Jews, you name it.
This culture we create by telling blacks they need special help is NOT helping them.
|
On February 01 2009 15:03 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 14:30 Phyre wrote:
I believe it was ahrara that was stating asian immigrants came to the USA with more than other immigrants and thus had a leg up on them. Just want to chime in that my grand parents came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, worked the stereotypical poor immigrant asian jobs such as dish washing and laundromat stuff, and as a result my parents grew up in awful neighborhoods. My mother in particular grew up in a predominantly black area actually so she went to the same schools and lived in similar conditions. Both worked their asses off to make it into college and succeed. It's insulting that someone would try to take away from all the hardship they went through to get to where they are today by saying that they were privileged or somehow had an advantage.
I'm against racial AA. If my grand parents and parents can make it, so should anyone else. Without the government's help. If they can't make it, that tells me something about them. Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough. Kudos to your grandparents. There are always exceptions to the rule. But to outright deny that there aren't strong institutional disadvantages for most minorities is silly. I'll quote what I wrote before. Show nested quote +i'm not as well versed on african-american history, but it seems intuitively obvious to me that comparing asian-americans with blacks or hispanics is absolutely ridiculous. there are countless institutional barriers which make it impossible for these groups as a whole to step out of the cycle of poverty. for one, schools are funded largely through property taxes, yet minorities communities tend to have low real estate values, so their schools are underfunded and poorly staffed. health care is another problem -- african americans have an infant mortality rate almost TRIPLE that of caucasians and (presumably) asians. since health care is a leading cause of bankruptcy and poor health can make it hard to find work, this makes things even worse.
I think one of those institutional disadvantages as of right now (mid 90's and on) IS affirmative action itself. See my previous post for why.
|
On February 01 2009 15:06 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 10:18 HeadBangaa wrote:On February 01 2009 06:29 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 06:22 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 06:04 Hawk wrote:On February 01 2009 05:40 ahrara_ wrote:
2.) The benefit of giving a minority special privileges is that it helps combat racial perceptions. There are considerably more minorities in selective colleges with AA than there were before AA. In this respect, I think such programs do tremendously help destroy stereotypes about other races. What, that they weren't intelligent enough to get in in the first place? By giving them extra help, all it does is adds ammo for people perpetuating that stereotype. Yup. If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Minorities can succeed on their own, then people will give them credit, they will just want to fight them if they just pop in and take all the jobs. So it's a black person's fault that society is prejudiced against him and the schools he goes to are poorly funded and staffed? I'm not talking about AA now, I'm talking about your incredibly incredibly naive assumption that we can expect disadvantaged groups in society to simply "reform" themselves, that there are no institutional problems that can't be overcome through personal personal strife. I think you underestimate the power of a positive mindset. The current culture of victimhood, perpetuated by irresponsibility, validated by white guilt, and embraced by leftist culture, considerably lowers the chance that a particular individual will transcend his circumstance. The only racism openly practiced and publicly tolerated by contemporary culture is reverse racism. The true insurmountable challenge for swaths of underprivileged minority youth is a lack of responsiblity training, enforced by poor role models, resulting in apathy and self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, concrete economic problems cannot be solved by self-empowerment alone, but without it, there will be no improvement without government intervention (AA, wealth redistribution, and general unfairness against members not of the target group). Good point brought up here. AA strengthens the "culture of victimhood" in this country. That may be its worst aspect. The idea that blacks should succeed only because the white "leaders" help them succeed is a serious problem. This the the culture we need to get away from. When has a group that assigned "victim" status and given special treatment ever thrived? Did it work for the Native Americans with their free health care, tax exempt status and large subsidies? Are they better off now? We have had over a century to raise them up by treating them as victims and did it work? Then think of other repressed groups who were not treated as victims. Catholics, Indians, Chinese, Jews, you name it. This culture we create by telling blacks they need special help is NOT helping them.
Ya I didn't reply to headbangaa because appeals to abstract unquantifiable factors like culture lead to heated debates about retarded unmeasurable things that at best plays a tiny role. worse, people start throwing slippery slope fallacies around where they hold "culture" responsible for all the problems involved with race. so can we not go down this path?
|
On February 01 2009 15:09 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 15:03 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 14:30 Phyre wrote:
I believe it was ahrara that was stating asian immigrants came to the USA with more than other immigrants and thus had a leg up on them. Just want to chime in that my grand parents came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, worked the stereotypical poor immigrant asian jobs such as dish washing and laundromat stuff, and as a result my parents grew up in awful neighborhoods. My mother in particular grew up in a predominantly black area actually so she went to the same schools and lived in similar conditions. Both worked their asses off to make it into college and succeed. It's insulting that someone would try to take away from all the hardship they went through to get to where they are today by saying that they were privileged or somehow had an advantage.
I'm against racial AA. If my grand parents and parents can make it, so should anyone else. Without the government's help. If they can't make it, that tells me something about them. Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough. Kudos to your grandparents. There are always exceptions to the rule. But to outright deny that there aren't strong institutional disadvantages for most minorities is silly. I'll quote what I wrote before. i'm not as well versed on african-american history, but it seems intuitively obvious to me that comparing asian-americans with blacks or hispanics is absolutely ridiculous. there are countless institutional barriers which make it impossible for these groups as a whole to step out of the cycle of poverty. for one, schools are funded largely through property taxes, yet minorities communities tend to have low real estate values, so their schools are underfunded and poorly staffed. health care is another problem -- african americans have an infant mortality rate almost TRIPLE that of caucasians and (presumably) asians. since health care is a leading cause of bankruptcy and poor health can make it hard to find work, this makes things even worse. I think one of those institutional disadvantages as of right now (mid 90's and on) IS affirmative action itself. See my previous post for why.
I've already retracted my position on AA, though I still feel like the program does not provoke racial tensions enough as to not be worth continuing for a few more decades, so we can try to quantify the benefits, if there are any. I think what we're talking about now is the whole idea of individualism and whether or not we are somewhat responsible for the welfare of the less fortunate in America.
Your argument bothers me because it can applied to the impoverished as a whole: You're saying by having welfare programs, you send the message to America's poor that they need help from the government to get out of poverty. Thus the poor remain poor, because they won't be motivated to work themselves out of poverty.
One thing that frustrates me in discussing anything with anybody online is when they make HUGE assertions like the above without any empirical evidence. Anybody and everybody can have theories about anything and everything, but to make that theory worthwhile, you need some evidence. I find it REALLY hard to believe that a.) welfare has such an effect on culture b.) that even if it did, it could essentially erase or significantly damage the benefits of the program.
On February 01 2009 10:18 HeadBangaa wrote:I think you underestimate the power of a positive mindset. The current culture of victimhood, perpetuated by irresponsibility, validated by white guilt, and embraced by leftist culture, considerably lowers the chance that a particular individual will transcend his circumstance. The only racism openly practiced and publicly tolerated by contemporary culture is reverse racism. The true insurmountable challenge for swaths of underprivileged minority youth is a lack of responsiblity training, enforced by poor role models, resulting in apathy and self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, concrete economic problems cannot be solved by self-empowerment alone, but without it, there will be no improvement without government intervention (AA, wealth redistribution, and general unfairness against members not of the target group).
But I will add that the bolded text is patently false and extremely naive.
|
[QUOTE]On January 31 2009 18:59 Jibba wrote:
[QUOTE]On January 31 2009 18:43 rushz0rz wrote:
[QUOTE]On January 31 2009 18:29 Jibba wrote:
If Highschool GPA were ever to mean nothing to colleges and Universities, then what would they base acceptance on? [/quote]Interviews and essays, or open admission like I said before.
[quote]Merely a persons good word that they know a lot, that they are intelligent? There needs to be a standard, and who is more likely to be intelligent, the guy getting straight A's or the guy getting barely C's? [/quote]That's simply a conjecture on your part. Does getting an A in AP US History mean you're a good thinker or that you even understand history well? Fuck no, it means you excel at rote memorization.
[quote]There should be no catering to people who don't deserve it[/quote]Again, your perception of deserving is based on your own experience of success. You live within your own paradigm but aren't paying attention to others'. You assume that what was successful in the past will be successful in the future, and that's a mistake more and more businesses are trying to avoid.
[/QUOTE]
It seems as if you have no faith in the education system, maybe because you're American, and I wouldn't blame you. I have not been "successful" in the past, in fact I was an underachiever, and I've worked hard to get the good grades I am getting now and worked extremely hard to go to college, and will work extremely hard to go to University, and will work extremely hard to get into law school. I would be severely pissed off to get rubbed out by people who don't deserve the spot I am working so hard for. People should have to earn what they get, it shouldn't just be given to them, REGARDLESS of race. I believe AA is so morally wrong that the very idea of it is just plain retarded.
EDIT: dunno how to fix it, deal with it.
|
On February 01 2009 05:32 cz wrote:
lol in Canada it's infinitely worse, we have actual race and gender quotas with respect to government jobs, and worst of all a travesty of a court called the Humans Right Tribunal which basically nods its head sympathetically and condemns, with legal powers, the opponents of any minority which comes before it. There are a ton of stories about people who are incredibly incompetent at their jobs but can't be fired because the Human Rights Tribunal automatically sides with any complaint given to them by a minority.
Yeah, I know. The only reason we're the most diverse and multicultural country is because it's forced on us, whites are pretty much suppressed and minorities given extra special treatment.
|
On February 01 2009 15:24 rushz0rz wrote:
It seems as if you have no faith in the education system, maybe because you're American, and I wouldn't blame you. I have not been "successful" in the past, in fact I was an underachiever, and I've worked hard to get the good grades I am getting now and worked extremely hard to go to college, and will work extremely hard to go to University, and will work extremely hard to get into law school. I would be severely pissed off to get rubbed out by people who don't deserve the spot I am working so hard for. People should have to earn what they get, it shouldn't just be given to them, REGARDLESS of race. I believe AA is so morally wrong that the very idea of it is just plain retarded.
EDIT: dunno how to fix it, deal with it.
On February 01 2009 14:30 Phyre wrote:
I believe it was ahrara that was stating asian immigrants came to the USA with more than other immigrants and thus had a leg up on them. Just want to chime in that my grand parents came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, worked the stereotypical poor immigrant asian jobs such as dish washing and laundromat stuff, and as a result my parents grew up in awful neighborhoods. My mother in particular grew up in a predominantly black area actually so she went to the same schools and lived in similar conditions. Both worked their asses off to make it into college and succeed. It's insulting that someone would try to take away from all the hardship they went through to get to where they are today by saying that they were privileged or somehow had an advantage.
I'm against racial AA. If my grand parents and parents can make it, so should anyone else. Without the government's help. If they can't make it, that tells me something about them. Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
|
On February 01 2009 15:31 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 15:24 rushz0rz wrote:
It seems as if you have no faith in the education system, maybe because you're American, and I wouldn't blame you. I have not been "successful" in the past, in fact I was an underachiever, and I've worked hard to get the good grades I am getting now and worked extremely hard to go to college, and will work extremely hard to go to University, and will work extremely hard to get into law school. I would be severely pissed off to get rubbed out by people who don't deserve the spot I am working so hard for. People should have to earn what they get, it shouldn't just be given to them, REGARDLESS of race. I believe AA is so morally wrong that the very idea of it is just plain retarded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
????? I'm pretty sure Americans will agree that their highschool education isn't that great.
All you do is come here and cause trouble with your arrogant and condescending tone. You will also have to accept the fact that it is your opinion and-- this is really important -- you don't run the world.
|
On February 01 2009 15:31 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 15:24 rushz0rz wrote:
It seems as if you have no faith in the education system, maybe because you're American, and I wouldn't blame you. I have not been "successful" in the past, in fact I was an underachiever, and I've worked hard to get the good grades I am getting now and worked extremely hard to go to college, and will work extremely hard to go to University, and will work extremely hard to get into law school. I would be severely pissed off to get rubbed out by people who don't deserve the spot I am working so hard for. People should have to earn what they get, it shouldn't just be given to them, REGARDLESS of race. I believe AA is so morally wrong that the very idea of it is just plain retarded.
EDIT: dunno how to fix it, deal with it. Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 14:30 Phyre wrote:
I believe it was ahrara that was stating asian immigrants came to the USA with more than other immigrants and thus had a leg up on them. Just want to chime in that my grand parents came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, worked the stereotypical poor immigrant asian jobs such as dish washing and laundromat stuff, and as a result my parents grew up in awful neighborhoods. My mother in particular grew up in a predominantly black area actually so she went to the same schools and lived in similar conditions. Both worked their asses off to make it into college and succeed. It's insulting that someone would try to take away from all the hardship they went through to get to where they are today by saying that they were privileged or somehow had an advantage.
I'm against racial AA. If my grand parents and parents can make it, so should anyone else. Without the government's help. If they can't make it, that tells me something about them. Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
|
On February 01 2009 15:53 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 15:31 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 15:24 rushz0rz wrote:
It seems as if you have no faith in the education system, maybe because you're American, and I wouldn't blame you. I have not been "successful" in the past, in fact I was an underachiever, and I've worked hard to get the good grades I am getting now and worked extremely hard to go to college, and will work extremely hard to go to University, and will work extremely hard to get into law school. I would be severely pissed off to get rubbed out by people who don't deserve the spot I am working so hard for. People should have to earn what they get, it shouldn't just be given to them, REGARDLESS of race. I believe AA is so morally wrong that the very idea of it is just plain retarded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example ????? I'm pretty sure Americans will agree that their highschool education isn't that great. All you do is come here and cause trouble with your arrogant and condescending tone. You will also have to accept the fact that it is your opinion and-- this is really important -- you don't run the world.
Being told that I'm arrogant and condescending from someone who argues that it's the fault of minorities that they can't get out of poverty is extremely ironic. I'm sorry I don't have the heart to acknowledge everybody's life story. Am I supposed to agree with you because you work hard?
The proof by example fallacy is when you say something is true by citing one example. Many, many, many people have posted in this thread arguing that minorities (and by extension, the impoverished) should not receive aid because they or someone they know worked hard to get where they are. Yet this proves nothing, and it's annoying when I've made the same argument that there are institutional biases against minorities -- count em -- three times in this thread.
|
On February 01 2009 16:02 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 15:31 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 15:24 rushz0rz wrote:
It seems as if you have no faith in the education system, maybe because you're American, and I wouldn't blame you. I have not been "successful" in the past, in fact I was an underachiever, and I've worked hard to get the good grades I am getting now and worked extremely hard to go to college, and will work extremely hard to go to University, and will work extremely hard to get into law school. I would be severely pissed off to get rubbed out by people who don't deserve the spot I am working so hard for. People should have to earn what they get, it shouldn't just be given to them, REGARDLESS of race. I believe AA is so morally wrong that the very idea of it is just plain retarded.
EDIT: dunno how to fix it, deal with it. On February 01 2009 14:30 Phyre wrote:
I believe it was ahrara that was stating asian immigrants came to the USA with more than other immigrants and thus had a leg up on them. Just want to chime in that my grand parents came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, worked the stereotypical poor immigrant asian jobs such as dish washing and laundromat stuff, and as a result my parents grew up in awful neighborhoods. My mother in particular grew up in a predominantly black area actually so she went to the same schools and lived in similar conditions. Both worked their asses off to make it into college and succeed. It's insulting that someone would try to take away from all the hardship they went through to get to where they are today by saying that they were privileged or somehow had an advantage.
I'm against racial AA. If my grand parents and parents can make it, so should anyone else. Without the government's help. If they can't make it, that tells me something about them. Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
At no point did I ever make an argument by ad hominem. I resent the implication that I ever substitute logic for low blows.
If I have been an ass in this thread, it is because I fundamentally object to the idea that human beings cannot be expected to make sacrifices for those who are less fortunate. I view the American Dream as a myth and an oppressive institution in itself. By falsely claiming that it is always possible to work our way to success, we absolve ourselves of responsibility to those who suffer from systemic disadvantages that lock them into a cycle of intergenerational poverty. You may find the fact that I dismiss stories like Phyre's and rushzorz callous, but I find their willingness to dismiss the challenges that face minorities and the impoverished in America equally callous. Nor am I an asshole because I don't know people who have had to overcome a hell of a lot to get where they are, or that I don't respect and acknowledge their achievements. Rather, I find extremely "condescending and arrogant" statements such as:
If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype.
Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough.
The only racism openly practiced and publicly tolerated by contemporary culture is reverse racism
Finally, I have made an effort to be respectful to everybody that's posted with reasonable arguments after the 2nd or 3rd page. I even apologized to losingid8. But it is incredibly frustrating to have to defend against literally the same exact argument multiple times.
|
On February 01 2009 16:36 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 16:02 Caller wrote:On February 01 2009 15:31 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 15:24 rushz0rz wrote:
It seems as if you have no faith in the education system, maybe because you're American, and I wouldn't blame you. I have not been "successful" in the past, in fact I was an underachiever, and I've worked hard to get the good grades I am getting now and worked extremely hard to go to college, and will work extremely hard to go to University, and will work extremely hard to get into law school. I would be severely pissed off to get rubbed out by people who don't deserve the spot I am working so hard for. People should have to earn what they get, it shouldn't just be given to them, REGARDLESS of race. I believe AA is so morally wrong that the very idea of it is just plain retarded.
EDIT: dunno how to fix it, deal with it. On February 01 2009 14:30 Phyre wrote:
I believe it was ahrara that was stating asian immigrants came to the USA with more than other immigrants and thus had a leg up on them. Just want to chime in that my grand parents came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, worked the stereotypical poor immigrant asian jobs such as dish washing and laundromat stuff, and as a result my parents grew up in awful neighborhoods. My mother in particular grew up in a predominantly black area actually so she went to the same schools and lived in similar conditions. Both worked their asses off to make it into college and succeed. It's insulting that someone would try to take away from all the hardship they went through to get to where they are today by saying that they were privileged or somehow had an advantage.
I'm against racial AA. If my grand parents and parents can make it, so should anyone else. Without the government's help. If they can't make it, that tells me something about them. Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error At no point did I ever make an argument by ad hominem. I resent the implication that I ever substitute logic for low blows. If I have been an ass in this thread, it is because I fundamentally object to the idea that human beings cannot be expected to make sacrifices for those who are less fortunate. I view the American Dream as a myth and an oppressive institution in itself. By falsely claiming that it is always possible to work our way to success, we absolve ourselves of responsibility to those who suffer from systemic disadvantages that lock them into a cycle of intergenerational poverty. You may find the fact that I dismiss stories like Phyre's and rushzorz callous, but I find their willingness to dismiss the challenges that face minorities and the impoverished in America equally callous. Nor am I an asshole because I don't know people who have had to overcome a hell of a lot to get where they are, or that I don't respect and acknowledge their achievements. Rather, I find extremely "condescending and arrogant" statements such as: Show nested quote +If people want popular stereotypes to die out, or change, its called acting differently than the stereotype. Show nested quote +Either they had bad luck, were too incompetent and thus undeserving, or just didn't want it badly enough. Show nested quote +The only racism openly practiced and publicly tolerated by contemporary culture is reverse racism Finally, I have made an effort to be respectful to everybody that's posted with reasonable arguments after the 2nd or 3rd page. I even apologized to losingid8. But it is incredibly frustrating to have to defend against literally the same exact argument multiple times.
i was being ironic, not serious lolol
|
great now i look like a dumbass
|
On February 01 2009 16:22 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 15:53 rushz0rz wrote:On February 01 2009 15:31 ahrara_ wrote:On February 01 2009 15:24 rushz0rz wrote:
It seems as if you have no faith in the education system, maybe because you're American, and I wouldn't blame you. I have not been "successful" in the past, in fact I was an underachiever, and I've worked hard to get the good grades I am getting now and worked extremely hard to go to college, and will work extremely hard to go to University, and will work extremely hard to get into law school. I would be severely pissed off to get rubbed out by people who don't deserve the spot I am working so hard for. People should have to earn what they get, it shouldn't just be given to them, REGARDLESS of race. I believe AA is so morally wrong that the very idea of it is just plain retarded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example ????? I'm pretty sure Americans will agree that their highschool education isn't that great. All you do is come here and cause trouble with your arrogant and condescending tone. You will also have to accept the fact that it is your opinion and-- this is really important -- you don't run the world. The proof by example fallacy is when you say something is true by citing one example. Many, many, many people have posted in this thread arguing that minorities (and by extension, the impoverished) should not receive aid because they or someone they know worked hard to get where they are. Yet this proves nothing, and it's annoying when I've made the same argument that there are institutional biases against minorities -- count em -- three times in this thread.
I really wasn't arguing that minorities don't deserve aid because I worked hard for where I am. I am arguing that minorities deserve no special treatment; nobody, regardless of skin colour, deserves special treatment. Like I've said before, people should have to earn what they want, it should not just be handed down to them. My last post may have been personally biased, but that is just how I feel personally about my situation.
|
United States12235 Posts
On January 31 2009 11:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I heard some shit on Michael Steele this afternoon on NPR. They made a lot of reference to the barak the magic negro parody song on youtube.
I heard some affirmitive action stuff the other day, basically what they said was that although in the lower ranks there are much more diverse employees, still at the top it is 90% dominated as white male. So affirmitive action imo is just some bullshit corps use in order to look good. like the whole 'green' environment friendly shit they try to play off when in reality the dollar still rules (so maybe they are GREEN after all, lol).
Can someone even tell me the suggested benefit of affirmative action in the first place? It's just capitalist bullshit.
On the topic of that parody song, I really can't understand two things: 1) why it's in the news now (the song is nearly 2 years old, why wasn't it reported then?), and 2) why it's being portrayed the way it is. The only clip you ever hear from that song is comprised of the first two lines of the chorus "Barack the Magic Negro // Lives in D.C." but that is ridiculously out of context.
The background of the song is that it parodies Reverend Al Sharpton, who is black (and who argued that Obama isn't "black enough" because he doesn't have "slave blood"), and it was based off an LA Times editorial written by a black columnist. The point of the song is that it identifies Obama as an outlet to assuage white guilt (this is all outlined in the LA Times article found here http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center ). Yet, because it was broadcast on Rush Limbaugh's program, it becomes a racist song. I didn't have an opinion one way or the other when I heard the whole song because the context explains it well, but the mischaracterization of the song by the media really bothers me because there's a lot more to it than the 5-second clip they choose to play.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Okay, we have AA here in NZ and I'm totally ignorant as to how it works in the US. But here its targeted towards the Maori population, they are comparable to blacks in the USA. Certain degrees ie medicine have AA which allow a certain percentage of Maori students into the med course. Now the med courses have a cap of how many students they can accept per year, so these Maoris "take" the places of students with higher GPAs.
Everyone thinks this is a bad thing, however, it's not.
Focusing specifically on the area of medicine as an example, having more Maori (black) doctors is a good thing in society; given AA is based off of the %age of people in the population that are of that race. Why is this? It is because, like it or not, people would much rather be treated for illnesses by someone of their own race. I'm sure most of you asians would much rather be treated by a doctor of your own race; it just makes you feel more comfortable right? Same applies to the people receiving AA (maori/black). People in Maori communities (mostly lower socios with poor education) feel safer in the hands of their own race than with whites; and indeed are more likely to apply for treatment if they feel that they will be able to receive care from their own race.
Thus, AA is in place to give more equitable access to medicine for the population. Indeed, on the whole, it increases the effectiveness of the medical system in treating patients which is inherently good in society. Obviously, without AA you have a disproportionate number of non-Maori/Black doctors and hence more of these races not seeking medical help. Thus, AA is a good thing for society.
EDIT: after reading this thread i can see that no one thats anti-AA truly appreciates why its in place at all
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's a very good point about it increasing effective presence of certain professions. the isolation of blacks was complete in their professional institutions, and back then aa would be considered a movement to integrate. although this is not the strongest argument to me, it perhaps is how aa was viewed back when the issue of segregation was at the forefront of racial relations
|
ahrara, the cause of the problem is not directly quantifiable, true. That doesn't change the nature of the problem. My guess is you grew up in an ethnically homogenous area. Otherwise you'd have a better sense of the stark contrast in subculture that exists among groups that are delimited by race/languages, and the effects of its influence.
|
On February 01 2009 15:23 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 10:18 HeadBangaa wrote:I think you underestimate the power of a positive mindset. The current culture of victimhood, perpetuated by irresponsibility, validated by white guilt, and embraced by leftist culture, considerably lowers the chance that a particular individual will transcend his circumstance. The only racism openly practiced and publicly tolerated by contemporary culture is reverse racism. The true insurmountable challenge for swaths of underprivileged minority youth is a lack of responsiblity training, enforced by poor role models, resulting in apathy and self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, concrete economic problems cannot be solved by self-empowerment alone, but without it, there will be no improvement without government intervention (AA, wealth redistribution, and general unfairness against members not of the target group). But I will add that the bolded text is patently false and extremely naive.
About a hundred examples pop into my head but I'll pick a fairly recent high-profile example.
Is Kanye West still selling records? Could a white musician have made a similar remark about, say, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, and not be unilaterally demonized? The resentment revealed by Kanye's play of the race card is a common sentiment in black subculture, and it is largely tolerated.
|
On February 01 2009 19:01 Plexa wrote:Okay, we have AA here in NZ and I'm totally ignorant as to how it works in the US. But here its targeted towards the Maori population, they are comparable to blacks in the USA. Certain degrees ie medicine have AA which allow a certain percentage of Maori students into the med course. Now the med courses have a cap of how many students they can accept per year, so these Maoris "take" the places of students with higher GPAs. Everyone thinks this is a bad thing, however, it's not. Focusing specifically on the area of medicine as an example, having more Maori (black) doctors is a good thing in society; given AA is based off of the %age of people in the population that are of that race. Why is this? It is because, like it or not, people would much rather be treated for illnesses by someone of their own race. I'm sure most of you asians would much rather be treated by a doctor of your own race; it just makes you feel more comfortable right? Same applies to the people receiving AA (maori/black). People in Maori communities (mostly lower socios with poor education) feel safer in the hands of their own race than with whites; and indeed are more likely to apply for treatment if they feel that they will be able to receive care from their own race. Thus, AA is in place to give more equitable access to medicine for the population. Indeed, on the whole, it increases the effectiveness of the medical system in treating patients which is inherently good in society. Obviously, without AA you have a disproportionate number of non-Maori/Black doctors and hence more of these races not seeking medical help. Thus, AA is a good thing for society. EDIT: after reading this thread i can see that no one thats anti-AA truly appreciates why its in place at all
Lol it's not exactly awesome when the criteria you need to meet for eligiblity for the Maori spots is being a minimum of 1/32nd Maori. All that happens is students who are 1/32nd or 1/16th Maori who don't actually know anything about their Maori ancestry up until they're forced to look it up get to go for these Maori spots with lower marks. I have seen maybe like...one or two students who are clearly Maori out of like a thousand, and they would benefit from the NZ-type AA but the rest of the people going through the spots you wouldn't be able to identify as being part Maori and thus would not make Maori patients more comfortable when treated.
|
On February 01 2009 19:01 Plexa wrote:Okay, we have AA here in NZ and I'm totally ignorant as to how it works in the US. But here its targeted towards the Maori population, they are comparable to blacks in the USA. Certain degrees ie medicine have AA which allow a certain percentage of Maori students into the med course. Now the med courses have a cap of how many students they can accept per year, so these Maoris "take" the places of students with higher GPAs. Everyone thinks this is a bad thing, however, it's not. Focusing specifically on the area of medicine as an example, having more Maori (black) doctors is a good thing in society; given AA is based off of the %age of people in the population that are of that race. Why is this? It is because, like it or not, people would much rather be treated for illnesses by someone of their own race. I'm sure most of you asians would much rather be treated by a doctor of your own race; it just makes you feel more comfortable right? Same applies to the people receiving AA (maori/black). People in Maori communities (mostly lower socios with poor education) feel safer in the hands of their own race than with whites; and indeed are more likely to apply for treatment if they feel that they will be able to receive care from their own race. Thus, AA is in place to give more equitable access to medicine for the population. Indeed, on the whole, it increases the effectiveness of the medical system in treating patients which is inherently good in society. Obviously, without AA you have a disproportionate number of non-Maori/Black doctors and hence more of these races not seeking medical help. Thus, AA is a good thing for society. EDIT: after reading this thread i can see that no one thats anti-AA truly appreciates why its in place at all
Personally, I would rather be treated by a smarter doctor that knows what he is doing better rather than someone who looks like me. Ability and knowledge doesn't discriminate by race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
