Some People Somewhere Do Something To Someone For Some Reason

[EagleKeeper]

That's wrong. It involves *equal opportunity* when discrimination has created large scale inequality of opportunity. But nice apologizing for defending inequality, as so common.

Creating an inequality is not building an equal opportunity.

All you are doing is encouraging the inequality to exist down the road to generate favorable treatment.

 

[Craig234]

Creating an inequality is not building an equal opportunity.

All you are doing is encouraging the inequality to exist down the road to generate favorable treatment.

You're just ignorant on this. I'd try to explain it but am not at all sure it's worth bothering.

 

[Craig234]

Inequality and racism is treating people differently based on the color of their skin, which you are demanding.

Wrong. In fact it's too idiotic to bother much with.

Your argument is like saying suing for damages is the same thing as the wrong sued for.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You're just ignorant on this. I'd try to explain it but am not at all sure it's worth bothering.

We understand that you feel a need to keep racism active to justify affirmative action.

 

[waggy]

NO race no matter teh color should get a benefit when trying to get a job or getting into college.

 

[Harvey]

We understand that you feel a need to keep racism active to justify affirmative action.

The Tea Tards, the majority of political candidates with a (R) following their names, not to mention the blatant bigots on this forum, are proof that racism is alive and ill without any help from Craig. :'(

 

[EagleKeeper]

One has the ability to choose one's friends.

Regretfully it is difficult to choose enemies who are not fools.:\

 

[Craig234]

"Sorry EagleKeeper is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her."

Still? The tag says 'elite member', nothing about still being a moderator.

 

[Craig234]

NO race no matter teh color should get a benefit when trying to get a job or getting into college.

No, they should just continue to be at a huge disadvantage for decades or centuries to come caused by centuries of discrimination against their families. Good, moral plan.

 

[EagleKeeper]

"Sorry EagleKeeper is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her."

Still? The tag says 'elite member', nothing about still being a moderator.

Stealth

 

[monovillage]

No, I did not say that the U.S. government needs to legitimize racism and bigotry and make it policy. I said that affirmative action measures attempt to rectify current, existing actual social, political and economic disadvantages caused by pre-existing conditions brought about by unconstitutional laws.

Would you be opposed to forcing a thief to return stolen money or goods where possible?

If so, why would you oppose restoring some semblance of fairness and opportunity to those who were deprived of their rights to vote, to work in the field of their choice, to marry, to attend public schools or otherwise engage in our society?

As I said, it isn't pretty, and it isn't perfect, but we're dealing with attempting to rectify the results of two centuries of damage done by tyrannical majorities to the rights of many American citizens. The best we can hope for is that such solutions are written and implemented by intelligent, caring people whose intentions are to restore and improve everyone's rights and interests.

But hey -- Don't rely on my opinion. The Supreme Court seems to have found at least some of the same laws to be Constitutionally valid.

How in the case of proposition 209 is any of that being addressed? Especially the part that's being focused on by the proponents of overturning 209, the admissions rules for colleges and universities? The people involved were not deprived of anything personally and to punish the people they're competing against is to just extend unfairness against an innocent party.

I'm pretty much on your side when it comes to the SC, they can have their opinions and that makes them law, but they certainly can't make me personally agree with their rulings.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No, they should just continue to be at a huge disadvantage for decades or centuries to come caused by centuries of discrimination against their families. Good, moral plan.

So discrimination should not be blind but objective against those that have done no wrong.

 

[waggy]

No, they should just continue to be at a huge disadvantage for decades or centuries to come caused by centuries of discrimination against their families. Good, moral plan.

and i caused that how? why should ANYONE get treated better or worse then i have? i want a even playing field one where what you can do and you have done is why you are hired or accepted to a school. not one where i get hired because im white or penalized because of it.

any man of respect would want the same.

 

[BoberFett]

Leave it to Craig and Harvey to vociferously defend racism.

 

[uclaLabrat]

If someone being discriminated against because of race is bad, the converse is also true; no one should benefit solely from their race. Racism is racism, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[monovillage]

Harvard Targeted in U.S. Asian-American Discrimination Probe

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe.html

Racism in favor of one person necessitates racism disfavoring someone else.

 

[Screech]

IIRC the supreme court (either a state or federal, my memory escapes me) ruled on affirmative action and ruled that a law explicitly giving a person of a certain race an extra "20 points" or a quota to fill or anything explicitly race based in this regard was illegal but that a specifically tailored system which rewards a candidate for showing how socioeconomic factors have contributed toward his/her past and shows how, for example, they have tried to fight to maintain their forward progress, is perfectly legal. But basically, the end result is that allowing for socioeconomic factors to be considered is OK but purely "you're black, OK, 20 points for you!" type systems are not.

I see no reason to deviate from the above position(s).

 

[Craig234]

and i caused that how?

Ah, the excuses for inequality keep coming.

You didn't make a person handicapped so why the hell should YOU not get the closest parking spot instead of them?

You didn't oppress the people of Libya or Rwanda, bad leaders did, so why the hell should YOU lift one finger to prevent the slaughter of innocent people? Moral idiocy.

OUR SOCIETY caused discrimination that STILL HARMS PEOPLE AND DENIES THEM EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TODAY.

The 'color blind' society doesn't happen with the snap of someone's fingers. It actually takes more than than, but you are clueless.

Don't bother reading the following. It's an analogy. The post is over for you.

For others, the analogy:

Consider we just ended the law banning teaching blacks to read and write.

One leader notices what a huge disadvantage this puts blacks at and encourages a program targeting blacks to bring their literacy levels closer to whites.

Another leader wants the votes of the white people and tells them how they're getting screwed by that program.

'There are still white children who are illiterate - as long as there is one, there should be no preferential treatment based on race! Vote against blacks screwing whites!'

That's the same basic idea - one injustice can need a remedy that benefits the people harmed by the injustice.

Because of a long history of discrimination, generations of blacks were forced into low-paying work, are now hugely poorer as a group, were denied school, and much more.

This is merely a TEMPORARY measure to say 'they are hugely denied opportunity because of past wrong and this is to correct some of that harm'.

It's moving towards equality of opporunity - not going anywhere past the group who was harmed getting closer to equal opportunity, towards 'preferential treatment'.

In fact it's just obscene for the people who have advantages because of the discrimination today benefiting their families, to whine about the people who are harmed.

Do I need to post charts again with the results the inequality causes today?

No one is saying 'have affirmative action to the point of equal outcomes'. It's a much more limited program than that.

But the peopel who like the race-based advantages are going to keep the excuses coming demanding it be protected, hiding behind the lie it's 'the same as racism'.

 

[Craig234]

If someone being discriminated against because of race is bad, the converse is also true; no one should benefit solely from their race. Racism is racism, two wrongs don't make a right.

Another person who does not know what 'racism' is.

So, after the Japanese had their homes and property taken in WWII because of racial fear, and people said 'that was wrong, in hindsight', any of those people who were wronged - or their descendants, if they could show they were still harmed a lot by the policy - should get any compensation, because that would be 'just as bad, reverse racism'

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Stealth

If I had my say I'd do away with the willful ignorance option.

 

[EagleKeeper]

How far back do you implement a bias?

Why penalize one for their color; they had no choice in the matter.

If a Hispanic can be a honor student, then that demonstrates that there is no need for extra assistance.

If they have the ability to hit the upper ranks on a SAT/ACT why do they need an extra boost.

Same goes with any other color of skin.

Unless you can demonstrate that the color of skin itself is a handicap to learning.

When one is harmed, fine; when one is no longer being harmed due to past policies; that is wrong.

 

[uclaLabrat]

I have no problem with restitution, certainly in the case of the japanese concentration camps. Are you implying that minorities today have it the same as people who were stripped of their property and assets and interned for 5 years for no reason?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[waggy]

But the peopel who like the race-based advantages are going to keep the excuses coming demanding it be protected, hiding behind the lie it's 'the same as racism'.

lol fucking hypocrite. you say one yet mean another.

 

[Craig234]

I have no problem with restitution, certainly in the case of the japanese concentration camps. Are you implying that minorities today have it the same as people who were stripped of their property and assets and interned for 5 years for no reason?

Where do you draw the line?

Now that's a good question.

Where the line is drawn: when in specific large-scale situations, statistically significant disadvantages are identified which can be linked to the effects of past discrimination.

So, you find that in the top five auto parts factories in the US, four have a reasonable race balance, but in the fifth, located in an area with a history of racism, whites are ten times more likely to be promoted over 40,000 employees - while blacks are kept lower. You can point to the history of discrimination leading to this inequality.

The idea at that point is that *if there are blacks who are qualified for a promotion, but are not the 'most' qualified because of that history*, they might get a 'bonus'.

What this does is recognize that if it's not done, that inequality can go on indefinitely - but if it is done, then qualified blacks get a bit of extra opportunity moving toward equality.

There are careful statistical models for drawing the line you ask about.

These things aren't done because of 'anecdotal' situations - where a company with 5 employees hires a white over a black, it's not done where there's not a big difference.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So it is OK to punish/reward a person because of their color not because of their abilities

That is what you are stating.