President Obama's Secret Race Database

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.

**Frazzled**

Affirmative action is quotas. They are not different animals.

Fixed your typo.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

Your statement does not acknowldge my feelings on intolerance. You need to post a trigger warning before issuing such flagrant micro-aggressions from your position of inherent privilege. monocled cobra lives matter!*

*Austin joke, you just wouldn't understand!

**whembly**

Guys... guys... GUYS! (and Gals!).

White Privilege (which is BS) and AA ('nother BS) isn't what this database will be used for...

The Supreme Court just strengthened the legal concept of Disparate Impact.

These datasets are concerning as it'll encourage more Social Justice activities... with the recent court ruling, now these SJW can use the powah of the government to achieve their goals.

**Crystal-Maze**

whembly wrote:
Guys... guys... GUYS! (and Gals!).

White Privilege (which is BS) and AA ('nother BS) isn't what this database will be used for...

The Supreme Court just strengthened the legal concept of Disparate Impact.

These datasets are concerning as it'll encourage more Social Justice activities... with the recent court ruling, now these SJW can use the powah of the government to achieve their goals.

Its real useful saying that white privilege is BS without saying why. Its furthering the conversation wonderfully.

Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?

**Ouze**

Crystal-Maze wrote:
Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?

I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man.

**Crystal-Maze**

Ouze wrote:
Crystal-Maze wrote:
Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?

I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man.

It really does demonstrate the sheer tenacity of white Americans that they have risen to power in nearly all aspects of American society despite all of the racism against them.

**BeAfraid**

Ouze wrote:
"You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.

Ghazkuul wrote:
well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.

This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.

That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.

Why don't we go ahead and post JUST ONE of the many studies that have been done doing just this:

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/spring03/racialbias.html

You know, evidence, which we have in plenty for the arguments concerning structural racism, and which the claims that it is "faked" ring as true as the claims of any other Science-Denier in existence.

MB

**Frazzled**

What about Dan Johnson?

**BeAfraid**

lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

Karl Popper (the father of Modern Science), had something interesting to say about Tolerance of Intolerance:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Karl Popper wrote:The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4

Karl Popper's statements on Tolerance were taken up by Hannah Arendt, among others, when discussing the trial of Adolph Eichmann in The Banality of Evil (Prior to the publication in the full account of Eichmann in Jerusalem).

Claiming Affirmative Action is racism is a claim that is usually made by racists, in an attempt to deflect attention from their bigotry, in the same way that the Intolerant cry foul at people not tolerating their intolerance.

MB

**Crystal-Maze**

Frazzled wrote:
What about Dan Johnson?

Footballer, baseballer or reporter?

(or hypothetical person who is more likely to get a job than Darnell Johnson)

**Frazzled**

Karl Popper and his Hitlerlike anti First Amendment rantings can suck chupacabra balls.

Claiming Affirmative Action is racism is a claim that is usually made by racists, in an attempt to deflect attention from their bigotry, in the same way that the Intolerant cry foul at people not tolerating their intolerance.

Claiming someone disagrees with you is racist is the calling card of someone who can't stand a fair fight argument wise.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crystal-Maze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
What about Dan Johnson?

Footballer, baseballer or reporter?

(or hypothetical person who is more likely to get a job than Darnell Johnson)

You got me. Look over there, a distraction!

**BeAfraid**

Ouze wrote:
Crystal-Maze wrote:
Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?

I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man.

No, you cited without evidence a claim that they were made up.

That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

We have provided evidence, and can produce more:

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bobo/files/2003_race_racism_and_discrimination_with_cybelle_fox_social_psycholgy_quarterly.pdf

https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic-Advising-Today/View-Articles/Race--Racism--and-International-Students-in-the-United-States.aspx

The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915460/

And that is just a short selection.

There is a reason why Science works, and that it is working to show that Institutional and Structural Racism are things.

And trying to claim that all who point this out are Social Justice Warriors with some laughable post-modernist or pathological Identity Politics isn't going to help your cause, being nothing more than an Ad Hominem that does not address the actual arguments made.

Most in the Social Justice Movement take their positions too far, based upon flawed philosophical positions or ideology. But this does not mean that their basic claims are not without merit (only that they would take too far to an extreme that was just as Authoritarian and Anti-Enlightenment as their opposition who oppose even considering the evidence).

MB

**Crystal-Maze**

BeAfraid wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Crystal-Maze wrote:
Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?

I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man.

No, you cited without evidence a claim that they were made up.

That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

We have provided evidence, and can produce more:

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bobo/files/2003_race_racism_and_discrimination_with_cybelle_fox_social_psycholgy_quarterly.pdf

https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic-Advising-Today/View-Articles/Race--Racism--and-International-Students-in-the-United-States.aspx

The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915460/

And that is just a short selection.

There is a reason why Science works, and that it is working to show that Institutional and Structural Racism are things.

And trying to claim that all who point this out are Social Justice Warriors with some laughable post-modernist or pathological Identity Politics isn't going to help your cause, being nothing more than an Ad Hominem that does not address the actual arguments made.

Most in the Social Justice Movement take their positions too far, based upon flawed philosophical positions or ideology. But this does not mean that their basic claims are not without merit (only that they would take too far to an extreme that was just as Authoritarian and Anti-Enlightenment as their opposition who oppose even considering the evidence).

MB

Ouze was on our side - "I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man. " - that was satire. Although I think we've reached the point here where the two are getting indistinguishable.

**Ouze**

BeAfraid wrote:
No, you cited without evidence a claim that they were made up.

Did I? Maybe you uh, wanna go back and read that page again.

Ghazkuul wrote:
well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white. I have seen this several times in my professional life both in the military and in the civilian sector.

I was responding to him. And yeah, my next post was sarcasm, because I realized that I'm essentially playing calvinball. Arguing in this thread and most others in this subforum have become an exercise in futile frustration; you show up statistics, they say it's fudged and show nothing as to why, you show documentation, they claim you had to be there and offer nothing, you offer reason, they offer lies debunked over and over again dozens of times.

Ultimately, it's my fault, because I know the milk's sour but I keep sipping it.

**Grey Templar**

Here are some links to why AA is racism.

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448

http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2012/09/25/affirmative-action-institutional-discrimination

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/affirmative-action-in-university-admissions-research-roundup

**AlmightyWalrus**

The question then becomes, how are we supposed to "fix" racism?

**Grey Templar**

Honestly, I think the only way to do it is to go full color blind. And enforce this method with strict laws.

And really, the onus to "fix" racism isn't on our legal system. I think that from a legal perspective, once we get rid of AA, we are just fine on the racism front. Our laws are colorblind as they should be.

The only issues racism is causing today are causes of individuals having deliberate or subconscious racist factors in their decision making. And really you can't ever legislate against this sort of thing, so don't even bother trying. Give it another 100 years and this will have mostly died out. I think the fact its gotten to this point in such a short amount of time is itself indicative of great progress. You can't expect it to disappear overnight, you at least have to get past living memory.

Then people need to stop blaming racism and think about other factors. Stop blaming the fact you are poor or otherwise disadvantaged on your skin color and do something about it.

**AlmightyWalrus**

So close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and pretend that there are absolutely no structural issues because it's bootstrappin' time? Good luck with that.

**Grey Templar**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and pretend that there are absolutely no structural issues because it's bootstrappin' time? Good luck with that.

Regardless, the answer is definitely NOT to engage in more racism. Doing that is like seeing someone has 3rd degree burns from their stove and treating the problem by lighting the stove on fire.

**Crystal-Maze**

Grey Templar wrote:

Then people need to stop blaming racism and think about other factors. Stop blaming the fact you are poor or otherwise disadvantaged on your skin color and do something about it.

Amazing.

**Grey Templar**

Its been 150 years since slavery was abolished.

At some point you can no longer blame others, especially people who had nothing to do with the original crime, on your situation.

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
Its been 150 years since slavery was abolished.

At some point you can no longer blame others, especially people who had nothing to do with the original crime, on your situation.

Well racism still exists, always will. Laws and legal activities can work to eliminate that. Quotas and set asides however, create a spoils system that fosters further racism. Plus it violates the Constitution.

**Jihadin**

Start the Draft. Make everyone go though EO sessions that's mandatory every Quarter. (every 4 months, you have to be there understand

)
Since everyone starting off looking for employment after their hitch in uniform everyone would have a even footing on background (You have to have done it to understand; you crush the competition)
Affirmative Action works me being I mark Asian (A lot of you all can't get around that)
VEOA works for me being I am a Vet (You have to have done it to understand)
I claim over 30% Disability Preference for additional 10 points (You have to be there to understand how I received that)
I've a Security Clearance still active (You have to be there to understand why I needed it)
Retired after 23 years military service (I would not recommend the last 13 years nor do I desire any of you who did not serve that experience or being there)
etc etc etc

Remove the Asian portion I still win out over someone who would have slid in on Affirmative Reaction. I don't even look Asian though

I was the lone "Hispanic" in the Department with two South Koreans. I asked who the Hispanic was and afterwards it marked no Hispanic but now three Asians. Cost them one 24oz coffee

Everyone has that streak of racism and/or discrimination in them if they know it or not. Everyone has that one aspect

**Sienisoturi**

BeAfraid wrote:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Karl Popper wrote:The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4

This is a very ironic argument considering how it effectively states that it is okay to destroy ideologies with "fists or pistols" because you think that they might destroy other ideologies with "fists or pistols".

Ouze wrote:
BeAfraid wrote:
No, you cited without evidence a claim that they were made up.

Did I? Maybe you uh, wanna go back and read that page again.

Ghazkuul wrote:
well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white. I have seen this several times in my professional life both in the military and in the civilian sector.

I was responding to him. And yeah, my next post was sarcasm, because I realized that I'm essentially playing calvinball. Arguing in this thread and most others in this subforum have become an exercise in futile frustration; you show up statistics, they say it's fudged and show nothing as to why, you show documentation, they claim you had to be there and offer nothing, you offer reason, they offer lies debunked over and over again dozens of times.

Ultimately, it's my fault, because I know the milk's sour but I keep sipping it.

Okay then, post any argument about this issue and if I disagree I will counter it logically.

**Crystal-Maze**

Frazzled wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Its been 150 years since slavery was abolished.

At some point you can no longer blame others, especially people who had nothing to do with the original crime, on your situation.

Well racism still exists, always will. Laws and legal activities can work to eliminate that. Quotas and set asides however, create a spoils system that fosters further racism. Plus it violates the Constitution.

Racism isn't going away, and it massively disadvantages minorities at all turns. You don't get to just ignore it. (Grey Templar, this is). Even '150 years on' - like that's some huge number.

Laws and legal activities have a duty to help eliminate it. Quotas, I think, are an alright stopgap, but they do seem to stir up resentment among white people. I don't know if the good they do outweights the damage than the long-term resentment might cause to eliminating racism. I'll leave the constitution bit alone though, I don't know two jots about it.

**Frazzled**

They are not an alright stopgap because they are never temporary.

**Sinful Hero**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The question then becomes, how are we supposed to "fix" racism?

That's answer's pretty simple, and will eventually fix itself- interbreeding. Once we're all one conglomerate race we can focus on the important reasons to hate other people, like religion and politics.

**Frazzled**

Kronk will show us the way!

**Jihadin**

Frazzled wrote:
Kronk will show us the way!

Kronk = Muad'dib?!?!?!

Edit

What''s funny how some portion of the movie relates today

**skyth**

Quotas are bad because they ignore qualifications. Affirmative action works because you have to be qualified to get it while recognizing that you had to work harder to become qualified.

**Frazzled**

AA is quotas. They may not be "official" but they typically evolve to such very quickly.

AA is never temporary.

AA violates the Constitution on its face.