Unless I'm missig something, you still haven't explained why racial discimination is better than affirmative action. Affirmative action spreads the jobs around your image more. Racial discrimination confines them to the upper left corner.
Printable View
Unless I'm missig something, you still haven't explained why racial discimination is better than affirmative action. Affirmative action spreads the jobs around your image more. Racial discrimination confines them to the upper left corner.
I admit, I'm confused as to what you're getting at. I think a simplification is in order due to my awful reading comprehension skills. :cheeky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
he doesnt think either is good or better...Im not sure why you are trying to say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
anyways, I recognize it is still needed in some workplace areas but it should be more specific. Basing it on race alone is not right because many have already bettered themselves considerably. It should be both race and economic success.
I get very annoyed with it on college applications though. I was not personally effected by it, but I think having to put your race on college apps and standardized tests is outdated.
And, before this argument even comes up. Inner city schools might not always have the best education, but every school has different standards for their GPAs and as long as you have a good gpa you can get in to decent colleges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
That's another thig, too, affirmative action wasn't supposed to have anything toQuote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
do with education or financial situation. It was meant just to counteract racial descrimination.
Well, got to go, that's all for tonight. I'll be back around tomorrow for more.
hmm I think thats a bit out of context of what hes tryin to get at, but I digress, I know the original intent, but given the current social progression the main argument now seems to be the years of setback slavery had. So, given that argument it should be more focused than just race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
I don't think the racism is really an issue for the 'old power' type people. The reason being most of them are asses any way, and since they are trying to screw over everyone poorer than them self(ie everyone), it doesn't matter much.
Everyone is a target. Its not really an issue of there is no racism at all, but that the hate is spread over everyone. When the US goes bankrupt from over spending in the government and the entire population loses all of its money, and savings and we all starve in the street. Who is going to say "Well the leaders are racist!" Well they might be but they didn't screw over a specific race, they screwed us all over.
The alternative? Simple, open-floodgate 'equality' would have done nothing but divide future generations even further, IMO. How is that a way to show reparation, for all of the injustice that had been done to blacks? That's basically saying: "Yeah. Ok...Sorry about that guys...you're free to go now", after finally finding remorse for torturing a group of people who are just different from you, instead of actually compensating them for it. It's a pretty hollow gesture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
As far as now, though, there is still much use for Affirmative Action, but of course I do still say it's a flawed system. It's not perfect and, to many it's not fair. It is still the best proposal on the table, to date, and of course it's going to hand some people the short end of the stick. It's a question of how long it's going to be in place. I don't think it's something that should be let to go on forever, but I do understand waiting until minorities have gained a level of statistical significance, when it comes to overall equality.
Rofl. No worries. More than likely, it's just my shoddy writing skills, and/or the fact that I've been smoking. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
When the quote said:
I'm saying: No. We should not go to such lengths to try to "break even", in terms of equal opportunity. But I do both understand and respect the reason for applying that sort of thing in the work place - at least - for a limited time. Yes, it may negatively affect other, white workers, subsequently, but you cannot macro-manage a nation this vast and diverse without there being at least some level of give-and-take. When the basis of a devastating injustice on a culture is race, I would think it appropriate to use race as a type of reparation.Quote:
Should we force prospective employees to interview for jobs on an equal-opportunity basis, or force customers to shop at stores or dine at restaurants on an equal-opportunity basis? Are we to file lawsuits and make criminals of customers or prospective employees who decide to provide their labor or business on a discriminatory basis? There is no law — nor any proposed law — that says workers need to allocate their work proportionately among bosses of various races and sexes (e.g., work at least X% of their career for a minority). Nor is it suggested that the same equal opportunity or affirmative action principles should be expanded to private homeowners. It is not required that if a homeowner throws a party, he invite minorities in proportion to their percentage of the local population.
It kind of sounds to me like that quote (or that section at least) is trying to say "Well if you do (x), then you're going to have to do (y) and (z) for it to not be hypocritical. I say that, maybe it is the slightest bit hypocritical, but something this is going to greatly affect a culture (that America is professing to be accepting of) which had been kept subservient - and basically spat in the face of - for so many years.
If not, then I've completely misinterpreted the quote, so...nevermind. Lol.
Like I said, it's not a perfect system. Perhaps things would better by making training more easily accessible to the minorities, than the actual jobs...but where will those skills take them, if a majority of businesses have a racist base? Nowhere. But that all comes back to what percentage of businesses out there have a majority of racists (not so much as supremists, but people that just "don't particularly like" minorities) in high office. I don't know the figures, but I believe it's higher than many people are willing to acknowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
As a general rule, that goes against the alleged philosophy of American life. You cannot (and should not) discriminate against others, for such superficial reasons as their color. This is why hate crimes are their own category of offense, because it takes a certain level of ignorance and unwillingness to accept others on a personal level (instead of shunning them on a superficial), that is simply not characteristic of what America "Is."Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
I agree, to an extent. A lot of the "old power" people just don't give a damn about anyone who doesn't compete with their own status. But issues of race, for so many (I would assume), are much more visceral. Because, really, if a person who grew up in the era of "minorities are lesser creatures" era (which accounts for many in charge, today) is forced with a choice of who to oppress, to enhance their profit margin, they most likely won't focus first on the poor, white people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
The main point of the article, I believe, is that people are so caught up in such vague claims of racism that they miss the ramifications of things such as affirmative action. Specifically:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
To create such a legal entitlement is a property-rights violation, which eliminates the right of the owner to be the sole determiner of his property’s use. Likewise, no one has the right to obtain the labor of anyone else, except under the conditions they so agree to of their own free will.
You have to keep in mind that they don't actually hire people though. We are talking about middle management type people who do the hiring. Doesn't really matter what the head of a company thinks, because he doesn't effect the day to day stuff, like who gets hired.
He is just the one that says, "Hey lets open a sweat shop in another country and force children to work for pennies a day." And he isn't going to be racists he just picks the poorer country.
@Supernova: I wasn't saying in principle either is better or worse, but merely in practice it ends up being worse for two reasons
*Firstly it simply discriminates against a larger number of people (the majority rather than the minority)
*Secondly it's legally enforced racism, traditional racism may well apply in certain situations but it's up to each employer and many may choose not to be racist, positive discrimination forces racism whether they like it or not
But at a 1 on 1 level it's equally as bad, no better no worse.
@Oenironaut: Oh dear. I was waiting for this to come up, this has been said before and will probably be said millions of times in the future, How long do we have to keep bowing down due to slavery :? Hypothetically in the year 46,850 AD will they still be reciveing compensation for slavery? What's done is done how long is it going to go on, I'm sure one of my ancestors was a roman slave at some point but I don't require italy show repatriation.
Even if you think they still need repatriation for the reast of eternity, what about european positive discrimination?
wht about other non race based types of positive discrimination, forcing hundreds of women into parliament even though they may not be the best qualified candiates, just to "even things out". I wouldn't care if 90% of MP's were women as long as it was for natural reasons rather than positive discrimination.
as alric also mentions, middle management people do the hiring and firing, they only care about reaching targets and getting a bonus, they woouldn't want to avoid employing a highly qualified and competant person just because he is black.
You see this as a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I can't even argue to or for. Race aside, the entire job market and the process of hiring is screwed up. Job seekers are struggling even though they are well qualified for the jobs :?
perhaps due to an immigration fueled labour surplus?
What you're missing is the scale of "positive discrimination" still offered reflexively to whites on all levels of society, including the extent to which wealth and knowledge stay within established networks which, while not excluding minorities specifically, are white by default. In the U.S. certainly, there was no way to 'make it right,' no just reparation to be made for slavery: not at the time of emancipation, not when Affirmative Action policies became commonplace, and less so now when the labor stolen from blacks is diffused even further through our economic foundations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
You don't chop off someone's leg and then challenge them to a footrace. You especially don't cut off someone's leg, let them go, knock them down every time you see them for the NEXT hundred years, then hand them a crutch and expect things to be all good two generations down the road. Slavery may be a ways back, but we're talking about people's still-living parents and grandparents who were subjected to systematic oppression, afforded little protection and often targeted for abuse from the justice system, and prevented at every turn from amassing wealth or knowledge.
Slightly OT, but I think the title of this thread should be changed to "Affirmative Action". I was curious what people would say about "positive discrimination" like positive stereotypes, as in "All Asians are smart" or "all black people can dance and use their hips the best".
your first paragraph I agree with so thats why Im only quoting this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
I know this is all very true but what about those of us who are not descended from whites who owned slaves? My family is only american by 2 or 3 generations, they were poor irish immigrants, why should I have to pay for the bullying someone else did? To use your analogy, why does someone who was in the next town over during the chopping now moves here during the pushing but is not in a position to help until after the crutch has been given get lumped in with the offender?
ok, now to be fair, affirmative action hasnt effected me personally, Im only in college. but the question still stands. To me, dividing it in to white and black is much to simplistic for something that is meant to specifically help people who were descended from slaves.
As has been said many times, affirmative action isn't a perfect solution, because there is no perfect, just solution. If, however, you feel you are "paying" for a minority applicant's improved prospects at a business that is actively trying to close the demographic gap between its workforce and the population at large, then you have to accept the corollary that he is also paying for your privilege of walking into nearly any situation, certainly any professional situation, and being viewed as normal: not a black guy, not a Mexican guy (even though you're from Peru) or a Chinese guy (even though you're Korean), or even a white guy, but a normal, default, look-at-his-resumé-before-you-decide-you-know-anything-about-him guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
Should law ignore the conditions of the actual world and try to govern some idealized fairyland?
two other problems with affirmative action are that other groups of people that wouldn't get their resume looked at arn't protected, such as people with criminal records.
and it doesn't cut both ways, why are business not required to employ a minimum of 70% white staff?
Again, you're happily ignoring the advantages you enjoy just by being the status quo, before we even begin to factor in the statistical likelihood that you have more connections to people who own homes and businesses, people who have attended and/or graduated a university, and people in lucrative professions. Saying it should "cut both ways" is like saying if you're going to send food aid to Haiti, you ought to hold a feast for Parliament, too. The whole point of these initiatives is to get tributaries of wealth and education--and thereby, stability--flowing into communities that would otherwise remain perpetually ghettoized, having started off with few or no resources in a hostile society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
To be fair though, I think a white employer/middle manager is going to be only interested in who will generate the most money for the company so he can appear to be a good middle manager, get a promotion etc. Whereas a black hiring manager is more like to 'help his brother out', I'm sure many black hiring managers themselves only care about getting a promotion but you can bet that more black hiring managers will pay a larger attention to race than a white hiring manager.
In the presidential election 56% of whites voted for the candiate of their own race whilst 95% of blacks voted for the candidate of their own race.
Thank you for making race-based generalizations to clarify (and incidentally, discredit) your position. It's clear enough you're reasoning from an us-vs-them mindset and sense of racial superiority, and your past appeals to fairness were disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
If you were a hiring manager hiring for the position of hiring manager, with the prejudgment that a black candidate would not perform the duties properly, how much would any black candidate have to out-qualify their white peers before you would set aside that bias?
You seem to make the race-based generalisation that all white people in positions of power are racist against blacks, whilst ignoring the fact that maybe, just maybe, black people in positions of power have a pro-black anti-white bias.
I'm reasoning from a position of racial superiority am I? :? You're the one advocating that race should be a factor when choosing employees, and i'm the one saying it should be irrelevant.
Why no, the only statement I've made about white people is that we 1) enjoy the privilege of not being assessed on the basis of race in most encounters and 2) statistically, we have more access to wealth, education and power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
That word "should" is your key problem--you're discussing a hypothetical fantasy world where, among other fables, white dominance of the workplace, educational institutions, property ownership, and not-being-in-jail is based entirely on merit (i.e. racial superiority) and not centuries of human trafficking and systematic oppression to exploit labor from non-whites while keeping them in an inferior position. While race "should" be irrelevant in hiring and higher education, the reality is that social and economic forces favoring whites in the US and UK still outweigh the impact of affirmative action by a couple orders of magnitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
I know the US is a bit different than the UK, but even there im sure it's not too different from the UK situation, where aswell as being discriminatied by affirmative action, whites also face racism from asian/black hiring managers.Quote:
While race "should" be irrelevant in hiring and higher education, the reality is that social and economic forces favoring whites in the US and UK still outweigh the impact of affirmative action by a couple orders of magnitude.
You seem to just blatently ignore the fact that racism cuts both ways, in the UK at least the indigenous population suffers at the hand of racism far more than Ethnic minorities (or BAME's which is the new politically correct term now). affirmative action just magnifies this already present racism.