Coke goes Full Woke

I prefer to converse with people who have a modicum of respect for others.

You lied to me on this thread about your role in the hiring process.

You leaned on that fake "experience" to lend your argument that AA leads to discrimination credibility. In fact, that lie was intrinsic to your argument.

So you used a fake anecdote (AKA you lied) to make the argument that by considering all candidates, that is somehow discrimination against white people, and then when asked to cite a single example of that discrimination...YOU CHOKE and then abandon the thread.

So you didn't get to achieve what you were trying to achieve, so you just folded up and quit.

That is why you lost out on the job...you just can't commit to a bit.
 
you're misrepresenting the program as implemented.

No, you are.

All AA did was mandate that employers had to consider all candidates, regardless of race.

You've warped that into saying that employers had to hire certain candidates to fill quotas, but that's not what AA is or what it does.

So you not only lied about AA discriminating against white people, you lied about what AA even fucking does.


it favors certain race/gender categories.

No it doesn't. All it does is mandate that employers have to consider all candidates, regardless of race.


protected classes they're called. do you know what a protected class is?

Then you should be able to cite the line from the legislation for everyone here.

So why haven't you done that? Because you can't.

The best you can do is lie.
 
See? You're no better than Jits; just another person screaming I'm a liar despite the facts viewable by all.

What facts?

You haven't posted any facts.

When asked to provide facts, you choked.

You haven't even posted the part of the legislation itself that you think and claim mandates this discrimination.

Every single time you are asked to back up what you're saying, you choke and deflect and distract.

If AA is as widespread in its discrimination as you claim it is, then you should be able to cite just ONE REAL, TRUTHFUL EXAMPLE.

But you can't.

Your argument is full of so much shit that you can't even find a single source that backs up your biased assertion.

All I've asked is for you to provide one person who was a victim of this. ONE PERSON is all I asked for, and you can't even do that.

So I'm beginning to think that this real laziness and lack of work ethic is something you've had your entire life, not just recently here. It seems to me that your standard operating procedure is to do the bare minimum to get by, and to coast on that privilege and entitlement.

So when someone comes along who completely rejects it, that's when the bad faith starts persisting.

You made this wild claim, and now refuse to even back it up.
 
just another person screaming I'm a liar despite the facts viewable by all.

1. You did lie, though. You lied about your part in the hiring process. You leaned on that fake experience to lend your argument more credibility than it actually has.

2. What facts? All you've posted was just Op-Ed and opinion bullshit while actual examples are suspiciously absent from your posts.

3. When asked to provide proof, like a single person this happened to, you completely refuse and then try to deflect on the thread.

So you've earned the "liar" moniker because of your lying actions.
 
No, you are.

All AA did was mandate that employers had to consider all candidates, regardless of race.

You've warped that into saying that employers had to hire certain candidates to fill quotas, but that's not what AA is or what it does.

So you not only lied about AA discriminating against white people, you lied about what AA even fucking does.




No it doesn't. All it does is mandate that employers have to consider all candidates, regardless of race.




Then you should be able to cite the line from the legislation for everyone here.

So why haven't you done that? Because you can't.

The best you can do is lie.

in reality though, it forces quotas on race and gender, and discriminates based on that. it's race gender discrimination. you're the liar here, dickless.
 
you're misrepresenting the program as implemented. it favors certain race/gender categories. protected classes they're called. do you know what a protected class is?

I win by your de facto forfeit through lying.

Agreed about misrepresenting how the program is working. On the surface it all looks great. Only needy, worthless assholes are against fairness in the workplace.

OTOH, as both of us have pointed out both anecdotally and with facts; that's not the way the program is working.

No one on this forum will or can say when Affirmative Action will end because there's no end game. No strategy to close this chapter on American history.
 
in reality though, it forces quotas on race and gender, and discriminates based on that. it's race gender discrimination. you're the liar here, dickless.

If it forces quotas, then cite the line from the legislation that mandates it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
in reality though, it forces quotas on race and gender, and discriminates based on that. it's race gender discrimination. you're the liar here, dickless.

It's discrimination.

Furthermore, there's also backlash; people who actually are the best are tarnished because it's assumed they only got there as a token.

Kamala Harris is constantly hammered by assholes saying she only got where she was because of her racial identity or spreading her legs. The facts don't bear that out, but, thanks to Affirmative Action, the doubt remains.
 
Agreed about misrepresenting how the program is working. On the surface it all looks great. Only needy, worthless assholes are against fairness in the workplace.

So you're a needy, worthless asshole, then.

Because the only one who misrepresented anything was you when you misrepresented your role in the hiring process.
 
U.S.
What Is Affirmative Action and Is It Discrimination Against White People? Here's What You Need to Know
BY NEWSWEEK ARCHIVES ON 8/2/17 AT 11:55 PM EDT
Affirmative Action
Asian-American demonstrators protest outside the Supreme Court as the affirmative action in university admissions case was being heard by the court in Washington.
REUTERS PICTURES
SHARE
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Reddit
Share on Flipboard
Share via Email
Comments
U.S.
Newsweek published this story under the headline "Reverse Discrimination" on March 7, 1977. In light of recent news involving President Donald Trump targeting affirmative action, Newsweek is republishing the story.


CYBER SECURITY HAS FAILED, IT’S TIME FOR A REAL DEFENSE| INTRUSION SHIELD
SPONSORED BY INTRUSION, INC.
Alerts aren’t a defense. Protect your network with real-time AI blocking with INTRUSION Shield, an all-new, comprehensive network security system that uses a global database of information with a user-friendly plug-n-play system. INTRUSION Shield offers unmatched protection. Finally, there’s a...

See More
RELATED STORIES
6 Questions and Answers on Affirmative Action
DOJ Rumors Surprise Leader in Affirmative Action Fight
SCOTUS Divided Over Affirmative Action in College Admissions
The charge of "reverse discrimination"-meaning racial discrimination against whites or sexual discrimination against men-is fast becoming one of the most explosive issues in the field of civil rights. It has grown out of the various "affirmative action" programs, often required by Federal agencies, designed to place women and minorities in positions not generally open to them in the past. Some of these plans may involve quotas or preferential systems based on race or sex. The question is whether it is legitimate to use a preferential system to fight a discriminatory one. The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to rule on this emotion charged matter in a case from California. Allan Bakke, who is white, twice applied for admission to the medical school of the University of California at Davis, and twice was rejected. On the strength of his academic record, Bakke may well have deserved one of the 100 spots in the entering class. But up to sixteen of those places had been set aside for "disadvantaged" students under an affirmative-action program designed to increase the number of Chicano, black, Asian and American Indian doctors in the state. Bakke alleged that he had been the victim of reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court of California agreed with him and the university appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://www.newsweek.com/affirmative-action-reverse-discrimination-645648
 
OTOH, as both of us have pointed out both anecdotally and with facts

1. Your anecdote was bullshit because you lied and misrepresented your role in the hiring process.

2. You haven't posted a single fact this whole thread, and when asked to provide a fact, you choked.

So you claim the program is unfair, then when asked to prove how it's unfair, you don't. You instead whine that it's unfair of me to ask you to be truthful.


No one on this forum will or can say when Affirmative Action will end because there's no end game. No strategy to close this chapter on American history.

Well, it never really started, so it can't really ever end.

And people like you made sure it couldn't work because you just can't stop yourself from lying and acting unethically.
 
The Supreme Court of California agreed with him and the university appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

First of all, this isn't about hiring or employment. This is college admissions.

So what happened at SCOTUS, when it was appealed? I notice how you didn't post that part of the history here.

So I'll do that work for you, since you clearly are hiding the conclusion for obvious reasons: SCOTUS ruled that race can and will be used as a criteria in college admissions.

But we aren't talking about college admissions, we are talking about hiring practices.

So again, I ask you, name one single qualified white person who lost out on a job because of quotas.
 
AA has evolved into a great irony in American life: To strengthen some groups’ ability for social mobility, other groups have to yield, stop, or be run over. In college admissions, affirmative action practices have created reverse discrimination for white Americans and blatant racism against Asian Americans.

Supporters of the policy often deny the presence of racial quotas when colleges use AA in admissions, but given the limited seats available, members of some groups are pushed aside to allow others in. Elite colleges want us to believe it is not a zero-sum game, but it is.

When race is used in admission decisions, it creates at best an illusion of diversity. Diversity should be a quality, not just a quantity. At its worst, such artificially created diversity sets one race against another and therefore loses its ability to enhance racial harmony. Instead, it breeds resentment and hostility.


AA is hitting Asian Americans especially hard. Many Asian American families focus on using schooling to achieve social mobility, but when Asian American students have high test scores, some admissions officers paint them as nerds who do not have leadership skills and do not care about community service. Getting a good grade, which in many cases reflects self-discipline, hard work, and a culture of growth, sometimes instead defines Asian students as less capable of anything else, which is not true.

AA is also misguided, as it could favor a rich black doctor’s kids at the expense of a poor Asian kid. It could push back a kid from a struggling white family to give way to a Latino banker’s kid. No, universities would argue, we do not only look at race. Admission preferences are “holistic.”

Unfortunately, holistic admission can be easily used as an excuse to justify stricter criteria for Asian Americans, and the term carries the hidden bias that Asians are less holistic as human beings. Nothing reinforces stereotypes more than AA policies in this day and age.

Every Single Racial Group Has Faced Discrimination
Supporters of AA policy may have the good intention of providing remedies for past wrongs and injustices such as slavery. However, I do not see why we should ignore other wrongs different people groups have suffered.


Japanese Americans may have grandfathers and grandmothers thrown into concentration camps in World War II. Vietnamese Americans may come from families whose homes were burned to the ground from air-dropped bombs.

Then there are descendants of Chinese railroad workers, and those who were denied employment due to the Chinese Exclusion Act. The political weaponization of history cherry picks which historical injustices to care about, instead of supporting equality and justice for all. It’s time to stop such condescending “favors.” Focus instead on creating a fair environment for each racial or ethnic group to thrive.

AA is the least American of all contemporary policies. It is more reminiscent of the planning economy of communist countries, where the ruling classes get to allocate resources based on their decisions about what their countries and people need.

AA is the racism of the 21st century. Caught in the crossfire in America’s war of races, Asians sometimes become easy losers. AA abounds in hidden racial biases against groups it ostensibly tries to help.

It’s Bigoted to Assume People Can’t Achieve Due to Race

AA supporters act as if they do not believe that each race has an equal chance of nurturing smart kids to compete at the same level. It is a supremacy mindset for AA supporters of a majority group to assume certain minority groups cannot compete using the same criteria.

Supporters often worry that, if America abolishes AA, elite colleges and organizations may be overrun with Asian students and become immediately inaccessible to certain other groups. In the short term, this may happen, as AA has become a crutch for some groups at some institutions. When crutches are removed, people often wobble. However, social dynamics will cause things to self-balance in the long run, creating true and organic diversity.

It is a better idea to provide additional resources at the K-12 level, so that all children from disadvantaged backgrounds are not held back, as minors are less capable of helping themselves. However, at the college level and beyond, intrinsic factors are greater factors for success of failure.

Rather than administering AA during college admission, job placement, or even grant applications, focus more on fighting inequality in elementary school. When basic educational needs are met earlier, social mobility depends more on one’s grit, effort, motivation, and many other factors that are not distributed along racial or ethnic lines.

AA creates a fixed mindset that because one is born into a specific group, one is entitled to certain privileges such as lowered criteria. Such thinking weakens the competitiveness of the groups it seeks to help, builds barriers for other groups, and creates tensions between groups. It is time for Americans to bury this dated and counterproductive policy.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/02/affirmative-action-racist-un-american/
 
U.S.What Is Affirmative Action and Is It Discrimination Against White People? Here's What You Need to Know

So this IS NOT an example of a qualified white person losing out on a job because of quotas.

And you left out the part where SCOTUS said that race can be used as one criterion when it comes to college admissions.

This case had nothing to do with hiring, which is what we have been talking about this whole time.

So once again, you had to STRETCH in order to retcon your argument.
 
Both you and Dutch have altered your arguments so much that they don't even resemble the same argument you made at the beginning.

IN a thread talking about hiring practices for dozsens of posts, you unilaterally, and in bad faith, decided to change the subject to college admissions.

But even then, you weren't being truthful because you literally cut the conclusion of the history out of your post, and the conclusion is quite exculpatory because SCOTUS ruled that race can be used as a criterion in college admissions.

That SCOTUS case didn't touch on hiring practices, which has been what you've been screeching about for dozens of posts before flipping to college admissions, which is a wholly different subject, and one we weren't talking about.
 
cite the line from legislation that says it's not discrimination.

LMAO!

So I just tricked you.

AA isn't legislation at all.

There has never been an AA bill that Congress voted on and the President signed.

What a fucking idiot...you're raging against something you know absolutely nothing about.

LMAO @ how fucking easy it was for me to con you on a message board thread.
 
cite the line from legislation that says it's not discrimination.

This is one of those kinds of posts that just sticks with you, like getting sprayed by a skunk...

I completely and totally tricked you into thinking that AA is legislation.

You were so easily tricked and fooled by me because you're a fucking idiot.

You don't know the first thing about AA, so you can't claim it does something while knowing nothing about it.

Now this thread gets to stand for all time as a monument to your inability to effectively bullshit.
 
Back
Top