kimmy Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 By the way, I did dig up the article that dre and yourself cited claiming that affirmative action policies primarily benefit white people. Who Benefits From Affirmative Action Washington State law requires affirmative action be taken for Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, women, people over the age of 40, people with disabilities, and disabled and Vietnam-era veterans. Such affirmative action applies in the areas of recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer, training and career development. State rules require the development and implementation of goals and timetables and the establishment of a system for monitoring progress.The Commission used data from the Department of Personnel to compare the rates at which white applicants are hired with the rates at which African Americans are hired. This comparison revealed that whites were hired at higher rates than African Americans in nine of the 15 categories examined. Affirmative action is intended to help not just racial minorities, but also other disadvantaged groups in which whites get hired in greater numbers than black people. These findings refute allegations that affirmative action efforts are giving African Americans an unfair advantage over whites, particularly where the exempt and classified categories of employment are concerned. In fact, these findings would support the inverse argument -- that affirmative action efforts at the four-year schools should be enhanced to ensure that equal employment opportunities exist for African Americans, particularly in hiring. One concludes that the hiring of disabled people isn't sufficient cause for celebration so they are calling for black disabled people to receive preference over white disabled people. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
kimmy Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 Not necessarily a "study," or not as that word has been in contention in this particular argument. It could conceivably be ascertained in minutes. You can do that in minutes? Find a complete list of inappropriate taser use, and then determine the ethnicity of the officers involved? How are you going to get that information? Would you even know Kwesi Millington's skin color if he hadn't been on your TV? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bloodyminded Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 By the way, I did dig up the article that dre and yourself cited claiming that affirmative action policies primarily benefit white people. Who Benefits From Affirmative Action Affirmative action is intended to help not just racial minorities, but also other disadvantaged groups in which whites get hired in greater numbers than black people. One concludes that the hiring of disabled people isn't sufficient cause for celebration so they are calling for black disabled people to receive preference over white disabled people. -k Yes, that's how i read it too. That certain proponents feel the results should be skewed further towards (in this case) black people. And also that, as it stands, this is not the case. Which also rebuts the original arguments. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Shwa Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 It's not my idea...just ask Canada's beloved UN: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/08/canada-minorities.html "Visible minority" is inherently discriminatory because it establishes a racial attribute baseline and comparison solely with respect to "whites". What is an "invisible minority? What is a "visible majority"? What is the relationship of language to this strange categorization? Why are "Aboriginals" excluded from such a sweeping racial label? It calls on Canada to "reflect further" on the use of the term visible minorities. We reflected further -since that 2007 recomenddation - and came to the conclusion that it is a non-starter argument that is out to lunch - UN or not. "Visible minority" is not inherently racist because it does not refer to any single race or group or races and it's opposite, non-visible minority, also does not refer to any particular race or group of races. Furthermore, the term 'visible minority' as used for affirmative action programs is a discretionary term based upon the choice of the applicant to identify with the term or not. If you want to be clear about the language used, try doing a little research on the meaning of the terms. I am betting you know even less about the term "aboriginal" as it applies to affirmative action programs as well, but there is no need to go there. Stick to gawking. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 By the way, I did dig up the article that dre and yourself cited claiming that affirmative action policies primarily benefit white people.... Who Benefits From Affirmative Action Oooh...this is getting good...the article is from the US and we're on about "African Americans". Canada does OK with "Africans", but has a problem with uppity "Blacks"! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) "Visible minority" is not inherently racist because it does not refer to any single race or group or races and it's opposite, non-visible minority, also does not refer to any particular race or group of races. So does this mean a person fails the test if not "visibly" a minority? Do wheelchairs count? What about transgender folks? Furthermore, the term 'visible minority' as used for affirmative action programs is a discretionary term based upon the choice of the applicant to identify with the term or not. If you want to be clear about the language used, try doing a little research on the meaning of the terms. Use of the racist term for any program by your government or citizens does not change the inherent and incomplete racist nature of the "not white" label. I am betting you know even less about the term "aboriginal" as it applies to affirmative action programs as well, but there is no need to go there. Nope...because "Aboriginals", another "God Save the Queen" racist term is not included! Edited January 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shwa Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) The above is simply bluster without meaning. I will ask the question once again. Perhaps. But posing a make-believe scenario - a fairy tale - with no basis in reality and then asking for a review of the "logic" is, well, kinda funny actually. Do you really feel its advisable to make such definitive statements without a single shred of supporting evidence?You haven't supplied any facts, merely your opinion. Nor could you possibly have any facts to support such a conclusion. There are thousands of hiring managers and you can't possibly, nor can anyone, have any idea what goes through their minds as they make decisions under the pressure of affirmative action quotas and pressure from above to increase their minority mumbers. Thus to make the following statement... Borders on the silly. No, actually, it IS silly. No what is silly - in a sick and twisted way - is to post the above, after having posted this: I hire Jim instead of Joe because Jim is White and I give preference to White people, and that's racist. Okay. But if I'm a government manager and I hire Joe instead of Jim because Joe is Black and I give preference to Blacks that's NOT racist? Please explain the logic. Basically you have invalidated your own, original statement, by saying that it cannot be proven true. Therefore, as I have already said, it is a non-starter argument. However, from the point of view of affirmative action programs - regardless of what is going "through the minds" of hiring managers, visible minority is a target group - not any race or skin colour. Therefore, at the end of the day, the only "type" of person hired is a visible minority. See? You don't know what you are talking about after all. This is an argument based on denial. The discussion is not about individual visible minority races but the demands of AA to hire them. Thus in one case a Black person is hired over a more competent White person, in another case it's an Asian, and in another case a native or a woman. I frankly don't understand why you would seize on a particular race merely because that was used as an example and claim this disqualifies the argument. I "seize upon a particular race" because your example "siezed on a particular race" and no matter what race you use, it is invalid for every and all cases and any race that is included in the defintion of visible minority. Something you seem to have real difficulty grasping. (here I use the term "example" very loosely) Let me show you exactly how your ideology shines through here because you don't have a clue how affirmative action works: "Thus in one case a Black person is hired over a more competent White person..." First of all, when a position is targeted for a visible minority hire, no other groups are considered for that position. So the "competent White person" isn't even considered as part of the process, neither are aboriginals. Not only that, but making such an idiotic statement precludes that no matter what, there will be a "White person" who is more competent than any visible minority hire for any job considered. And now you continue along the path to changing the basis of the discussion to the point of absurdity while demanding "overwhelming evidence" to counter it. You are the one that demanded an accounting of the logic provided in a fairy tale made-up "example." If anything is absurd, it was your original assertion, which is a non-starting, out to lunch premise to begin with. Is it unfair of me to point out you have yet to provide a single, solitary shred of evidence in support of your all-encompassing support for affirmative action? Visible minorities in the labour force: 20 years of change Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada 200809 There ya go. Show me all that horrible racism going on. Please. Comb through, take a very detailed read and make the evil racism of affirmative action plain for the whole world to see. By insults and innuendo, by snearing or using deliberately insulting tones. Discussions of this nature are better carried out in a mature and adult fashion. I will not lower myself to an exchange of contemptuous dismissal of other people's imaginary motivations or ideologies, of their morality or intelligence. And I won't discuss politics with those who do. You won't because you can't. Let's be honest, there isn't much more to it than that. Edited January 2, 2011 by Shwa Quote
Shwa Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 So does this mean a person fails the test if not "visibly" a minority? Do wheelchairs count? What about transgender folks? How be you tell me since you are aware of some "test." Use of the racist term for any program by your government or citizens does not change the inherent and incomplete racist nature of the "not white" label. It isn't a racist term and thus not inherently racist and you have mis-read the definition, if you have read the definition at all. Nope...because "Aboriginals", another "God Save the Queen" racist term is not included! Like I said, no need to go there because you really don't comprehend the term 'aboriginal' which is understandable, since you are American. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 How be you tell me since you are aware of some "test." You already flunked the test. It isn't a racist term and thus not inherently racist and you have mis-read the definition, if you have read the definition at all. I have read the definition, as has your beloved UN. Canada is somewhat unique in using such a curious and flawed term because it was so busy with language based infighting, racist labels were a secondary concern. Like I said, no need to go there because you really don't comprehend the term 'aboriginal' which is understandable, since you are American. If you say so...we know which group gets to make all the rules! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Saipan Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 taser-happy police are not unusual--they're legion--so there is no correlation between non-white male and taser use by any measurement. Prove it. And how many officers Bubbles do we have among regular police? Quality went down in tandem with "equal opportunity employment" Quote
Shwa Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 You already flunked the test. Ah. I see. I have read the definition, as has your beloved UN. Canada is somewhat unique in using such a curious and flawed term because it was so busy with language based infighting, racist labels were a secondary concern. And of course, 3 years later, what our "beloved UN" had to say has really had a major impact in this policy area. Almost as effective as our beloved gawking American. If you say so...we know which group gets to make all the rules! We sure do! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 ...We sure do! The news article on the UN accusation continues: Speaking at the committee grilling of Canada last month, committee member Patrick Thornberry went further. “The use of the term seemed to somehow indicate that ‘whiteness’ was the standard, all others differing from that being visible,” says the British international law professor, according to UN note-takers. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Scotty Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 First of all, to reiterate, I didn't ask for a "study." I didn't ask for it in the first post, and I underlined this fact in the next. I asked first for "substantive" evidence; and then downgraded it to "some" evidence. Okay. What kind of evidence do you believe I could get. Come on. Be realistic. Second, I have no doubt that such a study could be ascertained within existing studies that must be done on a fairly regular basis; there are surely reviews which discuss police and firefighting successes and failures: how many errors, how many problems, the nature of the problems, and how they relate to previous blocks of time (whatever the standardized review era would be). I'm sure there are. I'm equally sure that anything publicly available would name no names, and even more sure that the races of those involved would be kept secret. I suppose if I had the resources of some major intelligence agency I could break into police computers looking for personal reviews, disciplinary reports, etc., cross index this against the races of those involved, and produce something at that point. Unfortunately, I don't have those resources. So again, realistically, just what sort of evidence do you believe it's possible for me to produce? And yes, I noticed that you didn't answer my question - again. I think we both know very well that any municipal politician, much less an administrator, who so much as dared to raise the issue would be history, that no study of abilities or performance based upon race would be permitted. In other words, if performance is down--the reasons could be discussed. The only criteria for evaluating the performance of police would be crime, and its resolution. But both of those are influenced by multiple factors, not the least of which is demographics, poverty rates, and the number of young men in a population, puls of course, changes in law and sentencing rates. However, I could say that I, and apparently many others, are unimpressed with the police efforts at solving or preventing crime. There seems to be too much of it, and too much of it goes unsolved. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 I delight in this oft used construct to increase the veracity of one's position in Canada. Why? The U.S. invented affirmative action. They also are the best example of racism and its practical effects in the West today. They would seem an obvious reference in talking about both these subjects. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 But we're not talking about fears being expressed: we're talking about declarations that they have come about. Could you point out this declaration? I don't believe I would have made one since it would require pointing at a particular incident, report, statistical compilation or something similar. What I said really should not need any empirical evidence. I said that due to cultural reasons, MANY young white men want to be police, and they go to extraordinary efforts to prepare themselves for that calling. However, in addition to being a comparatively much smaller population size, FEW Black men, Asian men, or women, have much interest in being police officers. It would seem to be demonstrably true that when you have a much larger population of eager candidates to choose from as weighed against a very small population which you had to entice into reluctantly applying, downgrade testing requirements, and then hire above the White male candidates who get higher marks, well then, this is going to inevitably result in the hiring of less capable police officers. And the more of this which is done the less capable your employees, as a whole, will be. Whether that is the police, the fire service, or a bunch of hockey players. Are you going to argue specifically with any of that? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 2, 2011 Report Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) post deleted Edited January 3, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
charter.rights Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Ya know I'm bored so I think I'll respond to this. My link Halligan Bar is for doors, pick headed axe is for floorboards and roofs. Though I will admit a slight mistake as the flat headed axe is used in conjunction with the halligan tool. Not a "slight mistake", a foolish assertion. The Americans might use a "halligan tool" but we use an axe most often for forcible entry and reserve the "Kelly tool" for vehicle entry...sometimes...however most of us prefer an ordinary crow bar for that too. I already mentioned what was in a high-rise kit that firefighters take into an building. You aren't even close, faker. And with 8 years experience as a part-time Captain, I think I have a slight advantage. Edited January 3, 2011 by charter.rights Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
dre Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 By the way, I did dig up the article that dre and yourself cited claiming that affirmative action policies primarily benefit white people. Who Benefits From Affirmative Action Affirmative action is intended to help not just racial minorities, but also other disadvantaged groups in which whites get hired in greater numbers than black people. One concludes that the hiring of disabled people isn't sufficient cause for celebration so they are calling for black disabled people to receive preference over white disabled people. -k Thanx Kimmy. Rude of me that you should have to find that yourself. I meant to respond to your request for a link, but things have been a little hectic around here last couple of days. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Not a "slight mistake", a foolish assertion. The Americans might use a "halligan tool" but we use an axe most often for forcible entry and reserve the "Kelly tool" for vehicle entry...sometimes...however most of us prefer an ordinary crow bar for that too. Oh piss off the halligan tool is used worldwide. I've seen them in the local fire department and I know they are used by British and Australian firefighters. I already mentioned what was in a high-rise kit that firefighters take into an building. You aren't even close, faker. And with 8 years experience as a part-time Captain, I think I have a slight advantage. Nothing you have done on this forum has given me any reason to trust you on this, and if that "faker" comment is any indication you won't trust me. So I guess we are left with the video I linked of the firefighter with 20 years of experience. ETA is it just me or does the text look bolded? Edited January 3, 2011 by TrueMetis Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Why? The U.S. invented affirmative action. They also are the best example of racism and its practical effects in the West today. They would seem an obvious reference in talking about both these subjects. The US did not "invent" affirmative action per se....it was the natural progression and culmination of government policy decisions going back to WW2 executive orders for labor, the civil rights movement, and President Nixon's Philadelphia Order. The term did not come into popular usage until after key court decisions. As for being the "best example" of racism in the West, maybe you haven't traveled much. "Even in the US" is a common segue used in this forum when no relevant Canadian data or example is to be found. Edited January 3, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 The US did not "invent" affirmative action per se....it was the natural progression and culmination of government policy decisions going back to WW2 executive orders for labor, the civil rights movement, and President Nixon's Philadelphia Order. As for being the "best example" of racism in the West, maybe you haven't traveled much. "Even in the US" is a common segue used in this forum when no relevant Canadian data or example is to be found. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 ... However, in addition to being a comparatively much smaller population size, FEW Black men, Asian men, or women, have much interest in being police officers. Is this your opinion? Can you back this up with a credible Canadian citation? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Oh piss off the halligan tool is used worldwide. I've seen them in the local fire department and I know they are used by British and Australian firefighters. Nothing you have done on this forum has given me any reason to trust you on this, and if that "faker" comment is any indication you won't trust me. So I guess we are left with the video I linked of the firefighter with 20 years of experience. ETA is it just me or does the text look bolded? Yes the following piece of markup further up the page does not get terminated (has no close tag). <strong class='bbc'> Its in Scotties post, so hes the only one that can fix it. Its a bug in the the code that validates posts. Edited January 3, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Its in Scotties post, so hes the only one that can fix it. Correct...no blacks, asians, or women are interested in fixing it either. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kimmy Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Visible minorities in the labour force: 20 years of change There ya go. Show me all that horrible racism going on. Please. Comb through, take a very detailed read and make the evil racism of affirmative action plain for the whole world to see. I've read this over, and I'm not impressed. Is this representative of the sort of scholarship that argues in favor of affirmative action? While in 1981 foreign-born visible minority men aged 25 to 54 had better employment and unemployment rates than Canadian-born non-visible minorities, the 1980s and early to mid- 1990s saw their employment situation deteriorate more quickly than that of other men of prime-working age.5 By 1996, a wide gap had developed between foreign-born visible minority men of prime-working age and Canadian- born non-visible minority men.6 In 2001, this gap had narrowed compared with 1996, but was still larger than it had been in 1981. Foreign-born visible minorities used to have better employment rates than whitey, but in the 1990s that changed. Why might that be? Did Canadians transform into a bunch of racists during the 1990s? Considering that Canadian-born visible minorities had *better* employment rates than whitey, that doesn't seem likely. Might there be something about the immigrants themselves that changed? For example, is it possible that earlier immigration had tighter standards for the sorts of skills and qualifications that were sought in immigrants? Is it possible that in the 1990s rules were changed to allow larger numbers of non-economic immigrants (ie, people allowed in for family reunification, dependents, etc) than had been allowed in previously? The widening gap in labour marketperformance occurred even though visible minorities were more likely to be university-educated than nonvisible minorities and the educational advantage of foreign-born visible minorities over Canadian-born nonvisible minorities had increased. This pattern contradicts the widely-held view that workers benefit from more skills, education and experience and are in greater demand. The author is either uninformed, or dishonest in attempting to equate a university education with employability. "This pattern contradicts the widely-held view that workers benefit from more skills, education and experience and are in greater demand," she writes, yet fails to explain how a university degree provides experience, or to account for the wide variety of skills that are obtained by other means than attending university. Many of the most in-demand skills are in skilled trades or in specialized areas that are taught at technical schools rather than university. The premise that because a higher percentage of visible minorities have university degrees, visible minorities should have a higher employment rate is based on broken logic. It fails to take into account the large number of jobs that don't require university degrees. It fails to take into account the large number of jobs that require skills that aren't learned at university. And the fact that a higher percentage of visible minorities have university degrees gives us no insight at all into the qualifications and abilities of those who don't. Clearly the author is either not very smart, or is just plain dishonest in attempting to present this argument. This is an attempt to deceive or mislead. But she goes on for another page in attempting to argue in that vein anyway, attempting to suggest that the 30% of visible minorities who hold university degrees confer some kind of information as to the qualifications of the 70% who don't. And in the meantime we come to an interesting chart, showing that in 1981, visible minorities (both Canadian born and foreign born) had significantly higher employment rates than Canadian white men. And the adjacent chart shows that in 2001, it was pretty much the same: Canadian born visible minorities had better employment rates than Canadian born white men. Foreign born visible minorities who arrived in the 1960s had better employment rates than Canadian born white men. Foreign born visible minorities who arrived in the 1970s had better employment rates than Canadian born white men. Foreign born visible minorities who arrived in the 1980s had better employment rates than Canadian born white men. (if she's trying to prove that visible minorities are discriminated against, this is an odd way of going about it, it seems to me.) But wait, her point is the bar on the very right of the chart, showing that foreign born visible minorities who arrived in the 1960s have worse employment rates than Canadian born white men. But again... why? Could it be that maybe these most recent immigrants were simply not as well qualified as earlier immigrants? Ms Tran did tuck a relevant thought on this issue earlier on: Barriers such as lack of fluency in an official language, lack of recognition of educational credentials, lack of relevant Canadian employment experience and discounting of previous work experience outside Canada are obstacles to favourable labour market outcomes.4 Yes, I would suspect that things like not speaking the language, having no experience, and having no credentials probably do adversely affect your chances of getting a job. Are these the people affirmative action is supposed to help? Well, no. Affirmative action's champions insist that race is only supposed to be a factor if the qualifications are equal, affirmative action isn't supposed to give jobs to unqualified people, that it's not supposed to lower the standards. So clearly, people who can't speak the language, have no experience, and have no credentials are not the target group for affirmative action. Ms Tran does offer us some interesting information, though. -the two groups least likely to have university degrees are Canadian-born white men, and Canadian-born white women. -visible minorities have historically enjoyed higher rates of employment than Canadian-born white people. -the only visible minorities who are not doing *better* than whitey in the job market are recent immigrants. So ... where *is* this racism? We need affirmative action why? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.