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.

Yup, didnt take long for people to start throwing around the white privilidge and so on BS.

Anything to justify racism in the form of preferential treatment based on race.


If it was REALLY about helping poor people, guess what, you can still legislate that poor people get more scholarships and access to post 2ndary educations,
WITHOUT discrimination or favortism based on race.

Giving a certain race favorable treatment, based soley on race, and the racist idea that being favorable to jon some how undoes the racist stuff done to paul decades ago, just because they are the same race.

its also racist, because now the race(s) who benifit from AA have to contend with the stigma that they are ONLY there because they are (insert race here) and not because of their personal talents.


The only ones pretending racism doesnt exist, are the proponents of AA , where AA legislates extra privilidges people based soley on race, who cant see the inherent racism in the policy.

AA provides privilidge based on race, and race alone.

Providing privilidge based on race, is racist.

People who support AA, are supporting racism, plain and simple.

To assert that they even NEED AA is racist, as it implies they are an inferior race that cannot do it on their own.

Discrimination is key to a lot of activities, including "the fair selection" of university candidates. After all, you are discriminating against those who did not do as well.

I would be pretty puzzled if medical staff did not discriminate against sending the guy with a broken arm directly into surgery just because he got there before the guy with multiple life threatening injuries who has been rushed in by air ambulance.

Discrimination, like most things in life, is not black and white.

Nor is trying to sort out pronblems that exist now in some way only being done because of wanting to make up for something that happened hundreds of years ago or to "punish" someone just for being in a better position...

 whembly wrote:
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 Equal Protection Clause would actually support AA because it protects people from race-based policies that have discriminated against them and put them in the situations where AA is needed in the first place.

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.

Only if you ignore the fact that it is not discrimination.

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.

You are not being punished because of what your predecessors did. You are just pretending that you no longer benefit from those actions.

It also makes sure that minority groups are not punished by the effects that are still very much alive today that were created by the policies that were enacted by your predecessors and which still benefit you today.

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.

NO, we are no longer punishing a different child for the sins of our great-great-grandparents (and if you think you have to go back 4 generations to hit racist policies then you are really out of touch).

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

But today, right now, all men do not have equal opportunities. Running your mouth about equal outcomes is irrelevant as long as we are not all starting with the same resources. Bootstrapping is the wishful name for white priviledge.

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

Period.

End of.

Story.

So quit discriminating against people, which AA isn't doing unless it's a stupid quota system.

 whembly wrote:

If it doesn’t mean that citizens are equal under the law,

Define equal under the law. This is where a lot of people hit cold harsh reality, where what words say and what they mean is not a clear cut issue. "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" that kind of immediately raises the question "what if they weren't equal to begin with?"

We could go to intent, but then you'd have to deal with the Freedman's Beauru, and obvious early attempt at Affirmative Action by the same prople who went on to pass the 14th Amendment.

 easysauce wrote:
Yup, didnt take long for people to start throwing around the white privilidge and so on BS.

Anything to justify racism in the form of preferential treatment based on race.

Anything to help you go "blah blah blah I didn't benefit from anything because of my race blah blah blah".

If it was REALLY about helping poor people, guess what, you can still legislate that poor people get more scholarships and access to post 2ndary educations,
WITHOUT discrimination or favortism based on race.

A poor person in a well funded school is still going to have better success than a poor person in a non-funded school.

And as soon as the majority of the scholarships go to black people because they need it everybody will be accused of discriminating against white people again.

Giving a certain race favorable treatment, based soley on race, and the racist idea that being favorable to jon some how undoes the racist stuff done to paul decades ago, just because they are the same race.

You don't base it solely on race.

its also racist, because now the race(s) who benifit from AA have to contend with the stigma that they are ONLY there because they are (insert race here) and not because of their personal talents.

That stigma says a lot more about the racist and prejudicial thoughts of white people if they see a black person in college and automatically assume that they are not smart enough to be there. It has nothing to do with AA, it has nothing to do with the minority, it has everything to do with prejudicial attitudes that are still present today even though we are supposedly past that kind of thinking.

The only ones pretending racism doesnt exist, are the proponents of AA , where AA legislates extra privilidges people based soley on race, who cant see the inherent racism in the policy.

They don't get extra privileges.

AA provides privilidge based on race, and race alone.

False.

Providing privilidge based on race, is racist.

Except it isn't based solely on race.

People who support AA, are supporting racism, plain and simple.

Opponents of AA are wanting to keep their benefits that they got from racism, plain and simple. (see how easy it is to make stupid statements that are not based on facts?)

To assert that they even NEED AA is racist, as it implies they are an inferior race that cannot do it on their own.

AA has nothing to do with any assumption about the intelligence or abilities of minorities. It has everything to do with acknowledging the effect of policies on certain socioeconomic subgroups .

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

I agree, I personally think school funding should be controlled by the federal government and not state, along with standards and testing.
Its stupid you can drive an hour and get the same scores and pass where you just failed.

wow... gee, I must have been sick that day at life when they were handing out all this free stuff for white people...


White privilidge is nothing more then asserting that all white people are racist, inherently and unchangably so.


Anyways, everything I said is factually true, despite your claims that AA isnt based on race, it is in fact, based on race. It does in fact give positions away based on race. Not sure why you would argue those points, as its written into the AA law that they work that way.

My GF is asian, and my best friend is black, both agree with me that AA is detrimental at this point in history, and likely was before as well.

So your idea that I only hold this position because im a "privilidged white" is just silly, and Ill just assume your not intentionally trying to be insulting, but it is insulting.

Its just as bad to assume white people got where they are because of white privilidge as it is to assume black people only got into colledge because of AA.

No matter how you slice or spin it, AA is racist, and hypocritical.

I think the opposite. Standardized testing makes for nice easily measured results, but it encourages people to not even bother thinking and to simply memorize the 'correct' answer. Air apostrophes necessary because most text books used in our schools (especially in literature and history) contain about 50% misinformation.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think the opposite. Standardized testing makes for nice easily measured results, but it encourages people to not even bother thinking and to simply memorize the 'correct' answer. Air apostrophes necessary because most text books used in our schools (especially in literature and history) contain about 50% misinformation.

And what if there are no standards? People will work as little as possible.

Speaking from second hand personal experience (my father was an undergrad counselor @ UC Davis for 30+years), I'm glad this was upheld. A student's admission to university shouldn't be made on race, it should be made on merit. I can't count the number of times I listened to my dad rant about how stupid the university was, because state law forced it to offer admission to students who did poorly academically, over those who worked their asses off.

 easysauce wrote:

White privilidge is nothing more then asserting that all white people are racist, inherently and unchangably so.

100% factually incorrect, that is about as far away from what White Privilege is as you could possibly be.

So your idea that I only hold this position because im a "privilidged white" is just silly, and Ill just assume your not intentionally trying to be insulting, but it is insulting.

You don't "only hold this position" because you are white. It's just wishful thinking to pretend that your socioeconomic background and your race had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Its just as bad to assume white people got where they are because of white privilidge as it is to assume black people only got into colledge because of AA.

Acknowledging that your race is one benefit that you have over a minority, while also acknowledging that it is not the only factor, is exactly the same as acknowledging that certain groups have lower test scores because of policies because of policies that have been implemented over many decades and which also continue today.

To repeat: White people are not successful only because they are white. Black people are not less successful only because they are black. Both groups are affected by laws, policies, and funding levels that had specific impacts on multiple socioeconomic and cultural groups. Some groups are more aware of the impact these policies continue to have on them than others.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

Hence the second part of my post that you ignored.

 d-usa wrote:

 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.

See above.

 VermGho5t wrote:
A student's admission to university shouldn't be made on race, it should be made on merit.

And Unicorns and Iron Man suits should be real, but they ain't.

 Ahtman wrote:

 VermGho5t wrote:
A student's admission to university shouldn't be made on race, it should be made on merit.

And Unicorns and Iron Man suits should be real, but they ain't.

It can however, be based on neutral criteria. For example the top 10% of students in every high school in Texas are guaranteed a spot at a UT school. Aggieville requires a knowledge of math and/or pickup trucks. g

U of Houston requires advanced hand to hand combat and CQB techniques to survive the parking lot, and the ability to sign your name. Guess where I went...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 VermGho5t wrote:
A student's admission to university shouldn't be made on race, it should be made on merit.

And Unicorns and Iron Man suits should be real, but they ain't.

It can however, be based on neutral criteria. For example the top 10% of students in every high school in Texas are guaranteed a spot at a UT school.

And in a way that is affirmative action, implemented in a way that is fair and takes into account that a student in a crap underfunded school surrounded by poverty doesn't get left out. Top 10% in a crap school gets the same shot as top 10% of the best school.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 VermGho5t wrote:
A student's admission to university shouldn't be made on race, it should be made on merit.

And Unicorns and Iron Man suits should be real, but they ain't.

It can however, be based on neutral criteria. For example the top 10% of students in every high school in Texas are guaranteed a spot at a UT school.

And in a way that is affirmative action, implemented in a way that is fair and takes into account that a student in a crap underfunded school surrounded by poverty doesn't get left out. Top 10% in a crap school gets the same shot as top 10% of the best school.

Exactly.

Anything to help you go "blah blah blah I didn't benefit from anything because of my race blah blah blah".

So white people don't live in poor places that have crap underfunded schools surrounded by poverty?

Not every white person is born into an affluent family that gets golden paved roads.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Anything to help you go "blah blah blah I didn't benefit from anything because of my race blah blah blah".

So white people don't live in poor places that have crap underfunded schools surrounded by poverty?

So people don't read all of a discussion and re-ask answered questions?

Christ Ahtman, stop acting like people might learn things.

I swear you've never been online before.

 Ahtman wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Anything to help you go "blah blah blah I didn't benefit from anything because of my race blah blah blah".

So white people don't live in poor places that have crap underfunded schools surrounded by poverty?

So people don't read all of a discussion and re-ask answered questions?

I dunno, I've seen people discuss around each other before in here and past each other, I thought I'd give it a try.

Though I'm more curious how recently white = 100% privileged, considering that not long ago the Irish were discriminated against as well. Could someone give me a low down on what is considered a privileged vs non-privileged class nowadays.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
white = 100% privileged

White Privilege isn't about having nice things, or being wealthy, nor has it ever meant those things. It has to do with unearned, systematic, institutional things that are often overlooked or unnoticed when you are white, which also makes it difficult to explain to some people.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
considering that not long ago the Irish were discriminated against as well.

So was being Italian, but we don't live in the past, and those two groups are now considered white. There are books out there about it if you want to learn more, like How the Irish Became White, for starters.

Soon.......White Hispanic be up there to

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Anything to help you go "blah blah blah I didn't benefit from anything because of my race blah blah blah".

So white people don't live in poor places that have crap underfunded schools surrounded by poverty?

So people don't read all of a discussion and re-ask answered questions?

I dunno, I've seen people discuss around each other before in here and past each other, I thought I'd give it a try.

Though I'm more curious how recently white = 100% privileged, considering that not long ago the Irish were discriminated against as well. Could someone give me a low down on what is considered a privileged vs non-privileged class nowadays.

If you'd spend more time reading and less time ranting you might have seen that I have said that socioeconomic status and cultural groups would be a better indicator of who should benefit from AA because a white kid living in poverty in a crime ridden area and going to a crap underfunded school would have the same difficulty as a black kid in the same neighborhood.

The sad thing is that at this point, even in 2014, racial groups are still not affected equally by these problems so race continues to be used as a quick "catch-all" for those groups.

That's why policies like the UT schools create sensible AA actions. Top 10% of every school gets automatic admission to any UT school. There will be students from well off schools and affluent neighborhoods that will be left out of that, and there will be kids from poor schools and crap neighborhoods that will be automatically accepted because they are in the 10%. Race is not an overt factor in that, but cultural and socioeconomic factors are taken into consideration.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
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 Equal Protection Clause would actually support AA because it protects people from race-based policies that have discriminated against them and put them in the situations where AA is needed in the first place.

What are these "race-based policies that have discriminated against them" that justified things like AA now?

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.

Only if you ignore the fact that it is not discrimination.

If one group is given preferential treatment over another group based on skin color, isn't that discrimination?

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.

You are not being punished because of what your predecessors did.

Then why am I (or my sons) held to different standards then?

You are just pretending that you no longer benefit from those actions.

What are these benefits? Please list those out.

It also makes sure that minority groups are not punished by the effects that are still very much alive today that were created by the policies that were enacted by your predecessors and which still benefit you today.

What are these again?

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.

NO, we are no longer punishing a different child for the sins of our great-great-grandparents (and if you think you have to go back 4 generations to hit racist policies then you are really out of touch).

What are the racist policies that you think I'm directly or indirectly perpetuating here?

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

But today, right now, all men do not have equal opportunities. Running your mouth about equal outcomes is irrelevant as long as we are not all starting with the same resources. Bootstrapping is the wishful name for white priviledge.

You think everyone should start with the same resources? Have the same life experiences?

And I'm out of touch with reality?

Dude!

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

Period.

End of.

Story.

So quit discriminating against people, which AA isn't doing unless it's a stupid quota system.

I'm advocating a belief in treating people as individuals and not simply as a member of race.

If you want to get technical, the color of a person’s skin is technically a difference, but it is not a significant difference.

Or... as my grandpa... who was a crusty, old fogey likes to say: "If ya skin a white man, and skin a black man... what do you see? Ain't much difference...eh"

 Ahtman wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


So was being Italian, but we don't live in the past, and those two groups are now considered white. There are books out there about it if you want to learn more, like How the Irish Became White, for starters.

Huh, might pick that up next time I check at the library, I've always been curious how that swap in cultural image came about. Though I actually didn't know about the Italian's being discriminated against so that might be worth a check as well.

That's why policies like the UT schools create sensible AA actions. Top 10% of every school gets automatic admission to any UT school. There will be students from well off schools and affluent neighborhoods that will be left out of that, and there will be kids from poor schools and crap neighborhoods that will be automatically accepted because they are in the 10%. Race is not an overt factor in that, but cultural and socioeconomic factors are taken into consideration.

Hmmm, true enough, those are better options for trying to attempt to allow for lower economic stature groups to pull themselves up, though at the same time it still means we have to fix the issue with the poor area's to begin with as while that 10% is getting a far better education, that 90% still sadly suffers in an area where they will have issues trying to gain growth in education.

It's being out of touch with reality to think that everybody should have equal access to equal education?

You can't pretend to be the country of boot strapping when some people don't even get boots to begin with.

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

White privilidge is nothing more then asserting that all white people are racist, inherently and unchangably so.

100% factually incorrect, that is about as far away from what White Privilege is as you could possibly be.

No, thats exactly what you are saying, you just dont want to admit that the other side to "all white people have privilidge because they are white" is that it only works if all white people are racists who give privilidge to other white people, because they are white.

Just because you deny its correct, doesnt make it incorrect.

You keep asserting that all white people give all other white people special privilages, which by default, means all white people must be racist to give away privilages based on that.

You cannot have it both ways, either every white person gets and grants white privilage, and thus all white people are racist (which was true at one point, about every race on the planet, not just white people)

Or you can accept the fact that its now 2014, and that white people as a matter of course are not handing out special privilages to others based on skin colour just as asian people are not doing it for asian people as a matter of course.

You are also lumping all "white" people together with it, which is just asinine, and incorrect.

Because if we entertain the idea that "white" people universally discriminate against non whites, then why stop there? they could easily disciminate against other white people because they are irish, or somthing along those lines.


You hold the position that all white people have white priviladge, yes or no.

if yes, how do you explain the fact that all white people get/grant this privilage, whithout being racist?
(doing it subconciously, is still an accusation of inherant, unchangable, racism BTW)

list some SPECIFIC things I am granted by my "white privilage"

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If it doesn’t mean that citizens are equal under the law,

Define equal under the law. This is where a lot of people hit cold harsh reality, where what words say and what they mean is not a clear cut issue. "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" that kind of immediately raises the question "what if they weren't equal to begin with?"

We could go to intent, but then you'd have to deal with the Freedman's Beauru, and obvious early attempt at Affirmative Action by the same prople who went on to pass the 14th Amendment.

Actually... that's a good point.

Depends on how you interpret the Constitution.

Ie: Textualist - RAW (Scalia fits this mold I think)
Ie: Originallist - RAI ( Thomas and Alito?)
Ie: Modernist - "living document crowd" (everyone else?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think the opposite. Standardized testing makes for nice easily measured results, but it encourages people to not even bother thinking and to simply memorize the 'correct' answer. Air apostrophes necessary because most text books used in our schools (especially in literature and history) contain about 50% misinformation.

I think there's a place for standardized testing... but, not to the degree that we're seeing now. Especially troublesome linking government fundings based on those results.

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

White privilidge is nothing more then asserting that all white people are racist, inherently and unchangably so.

100% factually incorrect, that is about as far away from what White Privilege is as you could possibly be.

No, thats exactly what you are saying, you just dont want to admit that the other side to "all white people have privilidge because they are white" is that it only works if all white people are racists who give privilidge to other white people, because they are white.

Just because you deny its correct, doesnt make it incorrect.

You keep asserting that all white people give all other white people special privilages, which by default, means all white people must be racist to give away privilages based on that.

You cannot have it both ways, either every white person gets and grants white privilage, and thus all white people are racist (which was true at one point, about every race on the planet, not just white people)

Or you can accept the fact that its now 2014, and that white people as a matter of course are not handing out special privilages to others based on skin colour just as asian people are not doing it for asian people as a matter of course.

You are also lumping all "white" people together with it, which is just asinine, and incorrect.

Because if we entertain the idea that "white" people universally discriminate against non whites, then why stop there? they could easily disciminate against other white people because they are irish, or somthing along those lines.


You hold the position that all white people have white priviladge, yes or no.

if yes, how do you explain the fact that all white people get/grant this privilage, whithout being racist?
(doing it subconciously, is still an accusation of inherant, unchangable, racism BTW)

Your fancy wall of text fails at the basic level that you appear to think that white privilege relies on white people doing stuff for other white people.

And that is where your entire idea of what white privilege really is falls apart.