Bad News

There are many reasons I support AA. I can't get into all of them here, so I'll start at the birth of the idea of AA. This was with LBJ. At Howard University, in 1965. Johnson, who had a real feel for poverty, and contrary to rumors was not a racist (though he did play one while moving up the Southern ladder, once he gained power, he meant to use it for something that the powerful Dixie coalition would not appreciate, and in fact his long time mentor, and most powerful of the "states rights" Southerners, Richard Russell, would go on to call him the "worst turncoat" he had ever met. But his history, if studied closely would have clued even Russell into what he was going to do when he had power), understood something that they all did, because it was done purposefully, but that only he (out of the powerful in the Southern block) wanted to do something to change its effects.

What he understood was blacks were mostly cut out of the New Deal, and the GI Bill. This was due to Southerners having so much power in Congress, that the only way to get these bills passed, was to give them what they wanted. What did they want? They wanted the programs to be adminstered on a county level, not a federal level. In this way, whites became the main beneficiaries of these massive government spending programs.

What was the legacy of this? The GI Bill itself was government welfare of the largest magnitude. And its beneficiaries went to college, and received mortgage subsidies that led to a housing boom. The average white family's net worth is so much higher today than the average black persons, and the average white person's net worth is due mainly, to home ownership. The initial beneficiaries of the GI bill passed down their worth to their children. What they passed down was due in large part, to college educations subsidized by the government, and homes that had greatly increased in value, that were originally also subsidized by the government.

Added to this, the New Deal, which ended up cutting a disporportionate amount of blacks out of benefits (originally), labor laws under the New Deal, designed to exempt fields mainly labored by blacks, and what we had was a massive transfer of wealth which created the modern middle class. And that is why the modern middle class has mainly, been made up of whites.

Johnson sought to inact programs, kicked off by his 1965 "To Fulfill These Rights" speech at Howard University. Many events prevented his dream from being realized.

But it should be realized. And when white people, having been the main beneficiaries of government welfare in our history, and we are talking real welfare here, the kind that changed lives forever, sit around whining about how "I can't get a job because of AA" it makes me want to puke.

Pull yourselves up your bootstraps boys. Take some personal responsibility. To deny that you have institionalized benefits in this society, and that your parents and grandparents did as well, benefits that blacks most definitely did not have, is both delusional and pathetic. Not to mention ignorant of history.
 
He's more for removal of race bias in hiring. He just likes to use shock and awe debating techniques.

A very recent study, did this. They wrote resumes, which were identical in every way, except for the names on them. The ones with "white sounding names" received callbacks at double or triple ( I can't remember exactly, but you have probably heard of this study? it made a lot of news) the rate that the resumes with "black sounding" names did.

So yeah, I agree, I'd like to remove race bias from hiring too. That's why I support AA. Because no matter how much some want to deny it, racial bias in hiring still exists, as it does in real estate where redlining, even though illegal, is still practiced daily. I don't live in a dream world.
 
A very recent study, did this. They wrote resumes, which were identical in every way, except for the names on them. The ones with "white sounding names" received callbacks at double or triple ( I can't remember exactly, but you have probably heard of this study? it made a lot of news) the rate that the resumes with "black sounding" names did.

So yeah, I agree, I'd like to remove race bias from hiring too. That's why I support AA. Because no matter how much some want to deny it, racial bias in hiring still exists, as it does in real estate where redlining, even though illegal, is still practiced daily. I don't live in a dream world.

I think I saw an expose on that report.
 
A very recent study, did this. They wrote resumes, which were identical in every way, except for the names on them. The ones with "white sounding names" received callbacks at double or triple ( I can't remember exactly, but you have probably heard of this study? it made a lot of news) the rate that the resumes with "black sounding" names did.

So yeah, I agree, I'd like to remove race bias from hiring too. That's why I support AA. Because no matter how much some want to deny it, racial bias in hiring still exists, as it does in real estate where redlining, even though illegal, is still practiced daily. I don't live in a dream world.
I'm pretty sure I saw this on like 60 minutes or something. Seriously.
 
Bottom line. If you support affirmative action, you believe in racial discrimination against white individuals. It's barbaric, race-obsessed and backwards.
 
You could require companies to remove such notifiers before giving them to the people who are going to make the decisions. If the name is not on the resume then callbacks would be to those most qualified. Instead we have laws that require people to focus and make decisions based on skin pigmentation and social constructs such as "race". This continues to bring the focus to that particular problem and exacerbates the problem rather than actually removing that focus and working toward a solution.

It is part of the problem rather than a solution.
 
You could require companies to remove such notifiers before giving them to the people who are going to make the decisions. If the name is not on the resume then callbacks would be to those most qualified. Instead we have laws that require people to focus and make decisions based on skin pigmentation and social constructs such as "race". This continues to bring the focus to that particular problem and exacerbates the problem rather than actually removing that focus and working toward a solution.

It is part of the problem rather than a solution.
It is the people who make the decisions that are the problem. Their personal cultural biases, mostly unconscious.

The new Great Lie among white-supremacist bigots is that only institutionalized and overt racist discrimination is wrong. If it's just a matter of choosing who you're most comfortable with then that's hunkey-dorey. This, of course, is just further rationalization for their own prejudices, but it serves as a rallying point.

A properly administered Affirmative Action program is not unfairly discriminatory against white males. I've heard all of AHZ's arguments before and I can assure him that, like Thunderbird, they don't improve with age. The whole "reverse discrimination" thing is just a bunch of whiney losers who want to blame everyone else for their being whiney losers.

:gives:
 
"The whole "reverse discrimination" thing is just a bunch of whiney losers who want to blame everyone else for their being whiney losers."

Yes pretty much so.
Just a fear mongering tactic.
 
It is the people who make the decisions that are the problem. Their personal cultural biases, mostly unconscious.

The new Great Lie among white-supremacist bigots is that only institutionalized and overt racist discrimination is wrong. If it's just a matter of choosing who you're most comfortable with then that's hunkey-dorey. This, of course, is just further rationalization for their own prejudices, but it serves as a rallying point.

A properly administered Affirmative Action program is not unfairly discriminatory against white males. I've heard all of AHZ's arguments before and I can assure him that, like Thunderbird, they don't improve with age. The whole "reverse discrimination" thing is just a bunch of whiney losers who want to blame everyone else for their being whiney losers.

:gives:
I'm not worried about reverse discrimination, I believe that the focus on "race" as part of the "solution" simply perpetuates the problem.
 
"The whole "reverse discrimination" thing is just a bunch of whiney losers who want to blame everyone else for their being whiney losers."

Yes pretty much so.
Just a fear mongering tactic.

No. It's people with legitimate concerns about themselves and their children being racially discriminated against.
 
"The whole "reverse discrimination" thing is just a bunch of whiney losers who want to blame everyone else for their being whiney losers."

Yes pretty much so.
Just a fear mongering tactic.
It's become a really convenient way for second-raters to blame someone else for not getting that promotion . . . or Inspector's shield. I see it among cops fairly often. It makes me laugh -- except when it pisses me off.
 
I'm not worried about reverse discrimination, I believe that the focus on "race" as part of the "solution" simply perpetuates the problem.

yes it does somewhat Damo, but skin colored discrimination still exists in large numbers. Some method to defuse it is needed, people will not voluntarially be "color blind" for the most part.

Your suggestion to replace AA with what alternative is ?
 
It is the people who make the decisions that are the problem. Their personal cultural biases, mostly unconscious.

The new Great Lie among white-supremacist bigots is that only institutionalized and overt racist discrimination is wrong. If it's just a matter of choosing who you're most comfortable with then that's hunkey-dorey. This, of course, is just further rationalization for their own prejudices, but it serves as a rallying point.

A properly administered Affirmative Action program is not unfairly discriminatory against white males. I've heard all of AHZ's arguments before and I can assure him that, like Thunderbird, they don't improve with age. The whole "reverse discrimination" thing is just a bunch of whiney losers who want to blame everyone else for their being whiney losers.

:gives:

And your great lie is that institutionalized discrimination is the only kind worth preserving?

It is discriminatory. How could it not be?

Maybe we should investigate why people don't want to hire Shaniquas.

Are there any problems in the black community? Or are we to whitewash those and blame everybody else?
 
No. It's people with legitimate concerns about themselves and their children being racially discriminated against.
Then they're worrying about nothing. It's bullshit.

As I've said, I've seen these losers up close and personal. If it wasn't the damned blacks or damned women it would be some other damned thing they'd be blaming. Anything but the luck of the draw or, heaven forfend, their own lack of talent. Whine, whine, whine, snivel, whine.
 
Then they're worrying about nothing. It's bullshit.

As I've said, I've seen these losers up close and personal. If it wasn't the damned blacks or damned women it would be some other damned thing they'd be blaming. Anything but the luck of the draw or, heaven forfend, their own lack of talent. Whine, whine, whine, snivel, whine.

Yeah mostly whiney children grown up to be republicans.

I personally hear this a lot as well, most are not the cream of the crop by any means.
 
And your great lie is that institutionalized discrimination is the only kind worth preserving?

It is discriminatory. How could it not be?

Maybe we should investigate why people don't want to hire Shaniquas.

Are there any problems in the black community? Or are we to whitewash those and blame everybody else?
If three applicants are equally qualified for one position, two are going to lose out. That's simple arithmetic. Yes, I know you have trouble with that but take my word for it: two will not get the job. Without a framework such as affirmative action in place, the final decision will be purely subjective and made, usually, by the manager supervising the position in question. If, however, there is an objective framework in place . . . two people still lose out. Gosh, what a tragedy.

Seems to me that no one was harmed. The key phrase here is "equally qualified" candidates.

Since I suspect you don't know -- you have that really young whippersnapper aura about you -- let me explain that this is far from a farfetched scenario. I've done more than my share of hiring and firing over the years and rarely, if ever, have I seen one applicant clearly more qualified than all others. When that happy hapenstance rolls around you jump on it joyously. And in such a case, affirmative action would not apply. It's pretty rare though: you never count on it.
 
You could require companies to remove such notifiers before giving them to the people who are going to make the decisions. If the name is not on the resume then callbacks would be to those most qualified. Instead we have laws that require people to focus and make decisions based on skin pigmentation and social constructs such as "race". This continues to bring the focus to that particular problem and exacerbates the problem rather than actually removing that focus and working toward a solution.

It is part of the problem rather than a solution.

That would change nothing, except that black people would get called for interviews. If the person making these decisions, isn't calling people who appear by their names to be black, what would make you think he's going to hire the black person just because they got in for an interview because he didn't know they were black?

I agree with Ornot that all other things being equal, the job should go to the minority. The idea that highly qualified white people aren't getting jobs because they are going to underqualified black people is BS. If both are equally qualified, tradionally the white person would have the advantage. One of them has to get picked. Instead of the white person always having the advantage in this situation, you give that advantage to the black person. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
 
Well, that's a fact-filled convincing counter-argument to everything I wrote.
Maybe he'll give in if I point out the incontrovertible fact that everyone who opposes affirmative action is not only a white-supremacist bigot but also a whiney loser?

Nah. Probably not.

Can I start calling him AsshatNazi yet?
 
Back
Top