Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

We are Americans. The sooner we realize that... the current racial tensions would dissipate.

If race issues were just about 'feels' yeah maybe, but they're not. Race is class stratified in the US. Blacks and Hispanics are poorer than their white counterparts overall, and you can just make that go away by fixing education or with a better welfare system (both of which are often blocked by a lot of the same people who argue race isn't an issue anymore).

So long as that race divide exists, racism won't cease to be an issue. No one can honestly look at how much poorer blacks are, how much more frequently they go to jail, and how much more frequently they are killed, and say race doesn't matter in American society because we're all Americans. That's nonsensical. It's an argument and world view born from old racism and pushed by people who haven't given it any thought.

And that's not even touching Native Americans, who we still have walled off in their own micro-nations where we patently ignore rampant third world-esque living conditions.

You don't fix racism by being more discriminatory.

This is Michigan's referendum:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

How is that a bad thing?

We can talk about issues that are impacting certain race or class all day long. That's not the point here.

Michigan can now move forward on equally treating their citizens... equally.

Isn't that the point?

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I know im getting tired of being told I only got so far because im a white male

Wait you're not a pastel purple bronie?

No, I tried the species reassignment surgery, but apparently Tijuana surgeons are not trustworthy. I miss my kidneys.

Don't we all.

I don't miss hotsauce's kidneys. Does that make me evil?

You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.

Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.

 whembly wrote:
You don't fix racism by being more discriminatory.

You don't fix it by pretending it doesn't exist either (if anything, that encourages racism). If Affirmative Action really worked, we'd probably have seen better results, but I don't really see any improvement in the conditions for minorities. That's because Affirmative action doesn't really address the problem.

It tried to elevate minorities by lowering 'white people standards' (I'm just gonna call it this for *shrugs* reasons) to a level that they could meet. That's counter productive, as affirmative action does nothing to actually redress the reasons why minorities can't meet 'white people standards' in the first place. It's a lot like the ACA, an attempt to fix the problem of people who can't afford medical care by giving them all insurance while doing nothing to address why healthcare is so damn expensive in the US.

I'm not arguing for AA. But people have gotten it into their heads that AA isn't needed anymore because racism is dead and that is a load of BS. AA is bad is because it doesn't work, not because we are now free to ignore the plights of the underprivilaged because none of us hate black people anymore.

It's really based less on race and more on money. I saw this one graph (I'll have to look it up) that showed a direct correlation between parent's income and SAT score.

 d-usa wrote:
You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.

Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.

How in the bloody hell is this white privilege?

o.O

The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is... wait for it... to stop discriminating on the basis of race.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You don't fix racism by being more discriminatory.

You don't fix it by pretending it doesn't exist either (if anything, that encourages racism). If Affirmative Action really worked, we'd probably have seen better results, but I don't really see any improvement in the conditions for minorities. That's because Affirmative action doesn't really address the problem.

It tried to elevate minorities by lowering 'white people standards' (I'm just gonna call it this for *shrugs* reasons) to a level that they could meet. That's counter productive, as affirmative action does nothing to actually redress the reasons why minorities can't meet 'white people standards' in the first place. It's a lot like the ACA, an attempt to fix the problem of people who can't afford medical care by giving them all insurance while doing nothing to address why healthcare is so damn expensive in the US.

I'm not arguing for AA. But people have gotten it into their heads that AA isn't needed anymore because racism is dead and that is a load of BS. AA is bad is because it doesn't work, not because we are now free to ignore the plights of the underprivilaged because none of us hate black people anymore.

O.o

I'm not sure we're both arguing on the same position.

I'm all for social programs, tax money being used to help the poor and such. Just not on the basis of race.

If a particular group has, picking numbers out of the air, 50% of the nations prison places and 2% of university places but makes up 15% of the population, it makes sense to target that group above and beyond a group which is doing much better in terms of having more people in higher education than prison...

The best way to break the cycle is to take people out of the environment by offering them chances that they might not otherwise have because of the quality of the school they went to, or the parents they had, or because there is no money to put them through university, etc.

While it may seem unfair on the surface, it actually makes the world a fairer place. There are no shortage of places to learn, but some people need a bit of help to reach where they may well have been able to get to had they been given more breaks in their life.

 SilverMK2 wrote:


The best way to break the cycle is to take people out of the environment by offering them chances that they might not otherwise have because of the quality of the school they went to, or the parents they had, or because there is no money to put them through university, etc.

And what happens when they fail because they had a lower quality education?

Stop cutting school budgets would be a good start . I really think we should just go towards universal schooling. Or at the very least, improve student loans.

 whembly wrote:
Just not on the basis of race.

Expanding social programs to help the poor will likely help improve the plights of African Americans, but they have a unique place in US culture and history (much like how Native Americans occupy a unique place as well). We can't really solve their problems by pretending otherwise because of reverse racism nonsense. The best way to solve specific problems is to deal with specific problems. Broader social assitence and welfare programs will help all the poor but it's unlikely to resolve the issues plaging specific groups of the poor.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just not on the basis of race.

Expanding social programs to help the poor will likely help improve the plights of African Americans, but they have a unique place in US culture and history (much like how Native Americans occupy a unique place as well). We can't really solve their problems by pretending otherwise because of reverse racism nonsense. The best way to solve specific problems is to deal with specific problems. Broader social assitence and welfare programs will help all the poor but it's unlikely to resolve the issues plaging specific groups of the poor.

Before we devolve further in this back-n-forth joust.

What are you actually advocating?

Expanding social programs to help the poor will likely help improve the plights of African Americans, but they have a unique place in US culture and history (much like how Native Americans occupy a unique place as well). We can't really solve their problems by pretending otherwise because of reverse racism nonsense. The best way to solve specific problems is to deal with specific problems. Broader social assitence and welfare programs will help all the poor but it's unlikely to resolve the issues plaging specific groups of the poor.

So favor one above all is what I notice here. I know you did not mean that literally.

If you expand the Social Programs all one is doing is digging the hole deeper. For if I am getting a crap ton of benefits with no effort then why would I make the effort to improve my standards and lose those benefits?

 Jihadin wrote:

Expanding social programs to help the poor will likely help improve the plights of African Americans, but they have a unique place in US culture and history (much like how Native Americans occupy a unique place as well). We can't really solve their problems by pretending otherwise because of reverse racism nonsense. The best way to solve specific problems is to deal with specific problems. Broader social assitence and welfare programs will help all the poor but it's unlikely to resolve the issues plaging specific groups of the poor.

So favor one above all is what I notice here. I know you did not mean that literally.

If you expand the Social Programs all one is doing is digging the hole deeper. For if I am getting a crap ton of benefits with no effort then why would I make the effort to improve my standards and lose those benefits?

So, do you think that if you are poor it automatically means that you are lazy and live a parasitic life? Because that's what you are insinuating.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:


The best way to break the cycle is to take people out of the environment by offering them chances that they might not otherwise have because of the quality of the school they went to, or the parents they had, or because there is no money to put them through university, etc.

And what happens when they fail because they had a lower quality education?

Who says they will fail? I don't know what entrance requirements are like in the US, but here in the UK the 'best' institutions give the highest entry requirements... not necessarily because they give the highest quality education, simply because you are 'paying for the badge' (to put it in terms of cars ).

I'm currently doing my third post-graduate qualification as part of a professional qualification and registration, at my third university. All three have been somewhere in the top tables for UK and even world universities, with the current being a world leading centre for my area of study and a world leading university in its own right... yet the content and assessment of material has not differed significantly between each course or each centre in terms of the quality expected, nor has this been the case, as far as I am aware, for people with different educational backgrounds who attained their education at differnt schools and universities.

"Positive discrimination" can take a number of forms, from preferentially selecting a candidate from group x when there are candidates who are otherwise equal, giving a "boost" to candidates from group x by offering them lower entry requirements, etc...

It is not just a case of taking anyone just because they are from group x, but ensuring that they have an increased, reasonable chance.

And as mentioned, there are plenty of places to learn... by ensuring that all, but especially top univetsities open up slots that would otherwise have gone to the largest population group who don't have any particular problems and, as the saying goes "could walk into any school on the planet and do well", you provide maximum advantage for the disadvantaged, while only putting a small disadvantage on the advantaged.

There are others who can explan much better (and who are not uaing a phone to post!) So i shall leave it to them, or for you to do a search for the literature.

 d-usa wrote:
You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.

Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.

But discriminating against others as a result of your decision IS racism.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Expanding social programs to help the poor will likely help improve the plights of African Americans, but they have a unique place in US culture and history (much like how Native Americans occupy a unique place as well). We can't really solve their problems by pretending otherwise because of reverse racism nonsense. The best way to solve specific problems is to deal with specific problems. Broader social assitence and welfare programs will help all the poor but it's unlikely to resolve the issues plaging specific groups of the poor.

So favor one above all is what I notice here. I know you did not mean that literally.

If you expand the Social Programs all one is doing is digging the hole deeper. For if I am getting a crap ton of benefits with no effort then why would I make the effort to improve my standards and lose those benefits?

So, do you think that if you are poor it automatically means that you are lazy and live a parasitic life? Because that's what you are insinuating.

Where's Seaward to preach about the value of bootstraps?

So, do you think that if you are poor it automatically means that you are lazy and live a parasitic life? Because that's what you are insinuating.

So you do not think no one is gaming the current system eh.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If a particular group has, picking numbers out of the air, 50% of the nations prison places and 2% of university places but makes up 15% of the population, it makes sense to target that group above and beyond a group which is doing much better in terms of having more people in higher education than prison...

Yes indeed.

The best way to break the cycle is to take people out of the environment by offering them chances that they might not otherwise have because of the quality of the school they went to, or the parents they had, or because there is no money to put them through university, etc.

Give them the opportunity for an excellent education. IT DOES NOT MEAN they should get preferences over others.

Again why does the poor Appalachian and Hmong refugee get discriminated against?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.

Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.

But discriminating against others as a result of your decision IS racism.

You are not discriminating against them though, they have the same relative change to get accepted instead of their peers as anybody else.

All you are doing is not discriminating in their favor any longer.

 Jihadin wrote:
So you do not think no one is gaming the current system eh.

I thought that was all the rich and powerful did?

Oh, wait, I see who you meant...

 Jihadin wrote:

So, do you think that if you are poor it automatically means that you are lazy and live a parasitic life? Because that's what you are insinuating.

So you do not think no one is gaming the current system eh.

I never said that. It's just that things like welfare fraud are very small, and the vast majority of people on welfare would like to get off of it.

So, do you think that if you are poor it automatically means that you are lazy and live a parasitic life? Because that's what you are insinuating.

Guess then I do not think like this either eh

 whembly wrote:

What are you actually advocating?

That social welfare is a good think for helping the underprivilaged, but if we ignore race we end up ignoring specific problems affecting people of a specific race. The higher rates of death and incarcaration of young blacks for example, will likely be reduced by better social programs, but we'll likely still see them suffering those problems at a much higher rate than others because the programs don't specifically address them.

We'd have to put time and money into identifying the factors that lead to those problems (which is tricky) and then develop plans to resolve them. That means that we would have to spend government money, specifically on african american communities.

That doesn't mean we don't spend money on anyone else. Rural appalachian populations (especially in coal towns) have their own specific set of problems are are mostly white. Indian Reservations imo have been ignored far too long as well. I don't know enough about any of those issues to solve them myself, if I did I'd be a rich government administrator by now (maybe)

All I'm really say is that ignoring that there are race based social inequilities doesn't make them go away.

You are not discriminating against them though, they have the same relative change to get accepted instead of their peers as anybody else.

If you're putting a quota on certain groups thats discrimination, else your whole disparate impact argument falls apart.

 d-usa wrote:
You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.

Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.

Asking that everyone should be judged by the same merits is not white privilege.

Scholarships, support, aid, whatever's needed in order to compensate for minorities falling behind, fine, that's helping them "catch up", as it were, to the rest. Once we start going into the practice of lowering admittance requirements for some people but not others we're missing the point. The point isn't to get more minorities into College, the point is to increase the educational level of minorities to match those of the majority, at which point the College representation will solve itself.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.

Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.

Asking that everyone should be judged by the same merits is not white privilege.

Believing in the myth that things are a meritocracy when everything shows otherwise is. Ideally it would be, but it isn't, and pretending it is doesn't generate change.

 Frazzled wrote:

You are not discriminating against them though, they have the same relative change to get accepted instead of their peers as anybody else.

If you're putting a quota on certain groups thats discrimination, else your whole disparate impact argument falls apart.

You don't have to apply a quota method to give an advantage to someone. In fact, I would think the quota method ia about the worst system it is possible to use.

My wife's school uses metrics like 'value added' to lookm at what grade students are expected ti get based on their socioeconomic background, family background, etc... (it is surprising how accurately you can predict the kinds of grades someone will get by looking at their ability at the start of school and their background) if they do better then the predicted grade then the school has 'added value' (little fuzzy on rhe specifics but that is the essentials of the odea). By using the same kind of information to shed light on the grades of candidates, universities can then select on a more level playing field.

 Ahtman wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asking that everyone should be judged by the same merits is not white privilege.

Believing in the myth that things are a meritocracy when everything shows otherwise is. Ideally it would be, but it isn't, and pretending it is doesn't generate change.

Almost none of life is a meritocracy.

There's a phrase that gets tossed out a lot in this topic "just take the most qualified applicant." Which presupposed that there is such a mythical creature. In nearly all cases, especially in college admissions, there are plenty of borderline cases with some strengths, and some weaknesses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Affirmative Action isn't there to fight racism, its there to fight racial inequality. There's almost no good way to fight racial inequality without targetting the racial group in question.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.

Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.

Asking that everyone should be judged by the same merits is not white privilege.

It is because it includes pretending that everybody had the exact same opportunities and resources as you.

 Frazzled wrote:

You are not discriminating against them though, they have the same relative change to get accepted instead of their peers as anybody else.

If you're putting a quota on certain groups thats discrimination, else your whole disparate impact argument falls apart.

Show me where I advocated quotas then.

A quota system is stupid and the worst possible way to implement any form of affirmative action. You shouldn't have a magic formula that says "10% of kids in our community are black, so 10% of students we accept need to be black". That doesn't take the actual struggles of the different groups into consideration and doesn't prevent them or right them.

What Affirmative Action is supposed to do is to look at each individual group (and it should be culturally based, more so than racially based, because a white kid in an inner city school growing up in poverty surrounded by crime is facing the same issues that a black kid faces) and realize that each group has individual barriers and influences that they have to deal with.

A kid growing up in an inner city public school with minimal funding, surrounded by poverty and crime is going to have a much more difficult educational path than a kid growing up in a well funded school with lots of extracurricular activities and AP classes, well funded parents that can further their education, and who don't have to worry about getting killed on the way to school each day or having to skip homework because they have to work to help bring income for the family.

So the black student might have an SAT score that is 100 points lower than the white kid and a GPA that is 0.25 lower than the white kid. But the black kid might be in the top 5% of his peer group and the white kid might be in the top 30% of his peer group. Relatively speaking the black kid has shown more success than the white kid, and that is the kind of stuff that affirmative action should take into consideration. He should be accepted not because he is black and they don't have enough black kids yet, he should be accepted because he was more successful considering the circumstances than the white kid.

That's not racism, that's not rewarding him for being black or punishing the white kid for being white, that's rewarding the person that did the most with what life gave them.

The point here is that The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment either means what it clearly says or it doesn’t.

If it doesn’t mean that citizens are equal under the law, then I guess we can end the discussion about thing like SSM. We can’t claim that 'Teh Equal Protection' means ‘equal protection’ in some cases and not others.

The idea that we can or should remedy past discriminatory wrongs by furthering discrimination... especially against those that played no role in the past is just fething crazypants.

Further, the notion that a particular race, class or gender should be collectively punished for what their predecessors did runs contrary to the 14th amendment.... and really our way of life.

In essence, we are punishing the child for the sins of the great-great-grandparent and we are doing so without affording him an iota of due process. He is guilty by the virtue of his birth.

All men are created equal under the law. This does not mean that we are all equal in life outcomes...

If discrimination under the law is wrong, then it must be wrong in all cases.

Period.

End of.

Story.