Affirmative Action Explained

[bloodyminded]

They are NOT smart.

Most will open a beer and watch games on weekend, instead work.

This is flat-out ignorant.

I see you're a top-down class warrior: worshipful of the powerful minority, derisive of the weak majority.

An elitist, and proud of it!

Awesome.

[bloodyminded]

Right. You know perfectly well that "disproportionately excluded" really means "pecentages of political correct minorities are not high enough to meet some social engineer's delusions".

It's a profound delusion that some folks truly believe that everyone, deep in their hearts, agrees with cherished, politicized opinions held to be self-evident by those who adhere to a point on the political spectrum.

That is, leave aside whether or not your premise is correct--no, TimG, everybody does not agree with you; and everyone is not being disingenuous every time they disagree with you. Astonishing, no?

The definition does not apply to poor white men who happen to be excluded because of their situtation no matter what the definition claims. When it comes down to "affirmative action" is simply a excuse to justify racism and sexism.

Yes, it does. It certainly does. You're refuting the evidence (as presented) because it doesn't align with your political opinion.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

What I am saying is the social engineers force employers to lower their standards when politically correct minority cannot meet them.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-16/politics/sotomayor.firefighters_1_supreme-court-frank-ricci-affirmative-action-case?_s=PM:POLITICS

Forcing the NBA to hire short players is no different because the NBA cannot argue that short players cannot do the job. They simply can't do the job as well as taller players.

Yes, and interestingly, this is the one example that's always trotted out to "prove" the assertion.

If you were actually correct, instead of relying on reactionary ideologues for your opinions, yu would be able to trot out a a parade of such injustices.

Just as when people are moaning deliriously about the terrible repression of Christianity, they always fall back on the "Piss Christ" installation from 1987 as "evidence"......

[Guest American Woman]

I do think there's a need for Affirmative Action, that there's a purpose to be served, and in its entirety it includes race, gender, and income (which would also include white males raised in poverty); therefore, it's all inclusive.

The idea behind it, as I see it, is to improve society, and therefore benefit all of us. It's an attempt to make everyone more 'equal,' and that has to be a good thing. We look at the 'ghettos' and wonder why they exist, why people don't rise above it. If people with enough money are getting the best education, the best opportunities, it stands to reason that those living in less desirable circumstances are going to have a much more difficult time rising above it.

As for "better parenting," how much parenting can a single parent working two jobs to make ends meet actually, in reality, do? And in order to change that cycle, something has to change. One of the best ways to try to help bring about change is to give those with the ability opportunities that they lack(ed). Something has to help bring about those opportunities as not enough people are willing to do it on their own. So in that regard, seems to me that AA beats doling out welfare to the same families indefinitely.

If things kept going the way they were, how were they to change? One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Society needed to do things differently in order to expect any change.

AA isn't "punishment" for anyone; it's trying to right a wrong for the ultimate benefit of all. And like anything else, it's not perfect; and while that's regrettable, in the real world it's also unavoidable. In my support, I weigh the ultimate benefits against the present negatives and feel that it's necessary.

[bloodyminded]

I do think there's a need for Affirmative Action, that there's a purpose to be served, and in its entirety it includes race, gender, and income (which would also include white males raised in poverty); therefore, it's all inclusive.

The idea behind it, as I see it, is to improve society, and therefore benefit all of us. It's an attempt to make everyone more 'equal,' and that has to be a good thing. We look at the 'ghettos' and wonder why they exist, why people don't rise above it. If people with enough money are getting the best education, the best opportunities, it stands to reason that those living in less desirable circumstances are going to have a much more difficult time rising above it.

As for "better parenting," how much parenting can a single parent working two jobs to make ends meet actually, in reality, do? And in order to change that cycle, something has to change. One of the best ways to try to help bring about change is to give those with the ability opportunities that they lack(ed). Something has to help bring about those opportunities as not enough people are willing to do it on their own. So in that regard, seems to me that AA beats doling out welfare to the same families indefinitely.

If things kept going the way they were, how were they to change? One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Society needed to do things differently in order to expect any change.

AA isn't "punishment" for anyone; it's trying to right a wrong for the ultimate benefit of all. And like anything else, it's not perfect; and while that's regrettable, in the real world it's also unavoidable. In my support, I weigh the ultimate benefits against the present negatives and feel that it's necessary.

Well, there, then. Nicely said.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest TrueMetis]

I do think there's a need for Affirmative Action, that there's a purpose to be served, and in its entirety it includes race, gender, and income (which would also include white males raised in poverty); therefore, it's all inclusive.

The idea behind it, as I see it, is to improve society, and therefore benefit all of us. It's an attempt to make everyone more 'equal,' and that has to be a good thing. We look at the 'ghettos' and wonder why they exist, why people don't rise above it. If people with enough money are getting the best education, the best opportunities, it stands to reason that those living in less desirable circumstances are going to have a much more difficult time rising above it.

As for "better parenting," how much parenting can a single parent working two jobs to make ends meet actually, in reality, do? And in order to change that cycle, something has to change. One of the best ways to try to help bring about change is to give those with the ability opportunities that they lack(ed). Something has to help bring about those opportunities as not enough people are willing to do it on their own. So in that regard, seems to me that AA beats doling out welfare to the same families indefinitely.

If things kept going the way they were, how were they to change? One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Society needed to do things differently in order to expect any change.

AA isn't "punishment" for anyone; it's trying to right a wrong for the ultimate benefit of all. And like anything else, it's not perfect; and while that's regrettable, in the real world it's also unavoidable. In my support, I weigh the ultimate benefits against the present negatives and feel that it's necessary.

As much as a really disagree with some of what you say I agree wholeheartedly with this.

[Shwa]

I do think there's a need for Affirmative Action, that there's a purpose to be served, and in its entirety it includes race, gender, and income (which would also include white males raised in poverty); therefore, it's all inclusive.

The idea behind it, as I see it, is to improve society, and therefore benefit all of us. It's an attempt to make everyone more 'equal,' and that has to be a good thing. We look at the 'ghettos' and wonder why they exist, why people don't rise above it. If people with enough money are getting the best education, the best opportunities, it stands to reason that those living in less desirable circumstances are going to have a much more difficult time rising above it.

As for "better parenting," how much parenting can a single parent working two jobs to make ends meet actually, in reality, do? And in order to change that cycle, something has to change. One of the best ways to try to help bring about change is to give those with the ability opportunities that they lack(ed). Something has to help bring about those opportunities as not enough people are willing to do it on their own. So in that regard, seems to me that AA beats doling out welfare to the same families indefinitely.

If things kept going the way they were, how were they to change? One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Society needed to do things differently in order to expect any change.

AA isn't "punishment" for anyone; it's trying to right a wrong for the ultimate benefit of all. And like anything else, it's not perfect; and while that's regrettable, in the real world it's also unavoidable. In my support, I weigh the ultimate benefits against the present negatives and feel that it's necessary.

Yep, this pretty much sums it up honestly!

[Scotty]

Most certainly they would. But that says nothing about Affirmative Action programs or how they are implemented and is certainly says nothing about Affirmative Action programs being "institutionalized racism" now does it?

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.

[Saipan]

This is flat-out ignorant.

Prove it.

I see you're a top-down class warrior

Me or you have nothing to do with it. It's just plain fact.

[Scotty]

My family comes from similar circumstances....but I was taught by my wise and compassionate parents not to take personal success as evidence of others' character failures.

Maybe you haven't met enough characters. I once had a job which had me dealing with welfar recipients on a regular basis. As I got to know them, I found it difficult to believe most of them would ever succeed at anything. They lacked motivation/drive, and had a strange acceptance of things which led to them simply not fighting. Check the newspaper want ads? What's the point? There'll be nothing there for me. And even if there was they wouldn't hire me. And even if they did I'd hate it. Those who did have drive/motivation usually weren't on welfare for long.

[Guest TrueMetis]

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.

Your missing a few factors here, Joe and Jim's performance are essentially identical, and there are by far more white people in that field.

[bloodyminded]

Prove it.

No, you made the intial claim--that "they" (people who are financially unsuccessful) "are not smart."

So you should prove your assertion.

Why do you hold others to higher standards than you hold yourself?

Me or you have nothing to do with it. It's just plain fact.

No, it's your plain opinion, cribbed from elitist ideologues.

[Saipan]

It's a profound delusion that some folks truly believe that everyone, deep in their hearts, agrees with cherished, politicized opinions held to be self-evident by those who adhere to a point on the political spectrum.

Do you actually read what you write? Or just copy & paste meaningless meandering from Das Kapital.

[bloodyminded]

Maybe you haven't met enough characters. I once had a job which had me dealing with welfar recipients on a regular basis. As I got to know them, I found it difficult to believe most of them would ever succeed at anything. They lacked motivation/drive, and had a strange acceptance of things which led to them simply not fighting. Check the newspaper want ads? What's the point? There'll be nothing there for me. And even if there was they wouldn't hire me. And even if they did I'd hate it. Those who did have drive/motivation usually weren't on welfare for long.

My entire life has been spent among people of low means, so I've met many "characters," up to and including lazy morons awash in plenty of cash (and who deride and despise the poor, so we see a pattern emerging here).

But the main point--avoided again and again in this "debate"--is that most people with little or no money are not welfare recipients....despite the top-down class warfare myths being continually perpetrated. This discussion, remember, has in no way been about welfare recipients...it's been about people who have very little financial resources, period.

[bloodyminded]

Do you actually read what you write? Or just copy & paste meaningless meandering from Das Kapital.

I've never read DK...and I challenge you to find how what I wrote corresponds specifically to that book.

To remind you, here's my offending passage, quoted:

It's a profound delusion that some folks truly believe that everyone, deep in their hearts, agrees with cherished, politicized opinions held to be self-evident by those who adhere to a point on the political spectrum

That's not a partisan opinion, held by lefties. It applies to any ideologue of any point on any spectrum.

By definition.

It's a little convoluted; not concise enough.

But it is utterly free of Marxist philosophy, or of neo-Marxian rhetoric.

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Scotty]

I'm glad you can tell me what we think. Generally, I think that it should work out that number of women and men are similar in many areas.

Why do you think that? Do you believe there are no physical or cultural differences between men and women, that they have no different wants, desires, aspirations, and dreams?

Why is it NOT problematic that there are now almost NO male teachers in the lower grades, and that those in the upper grades are fast disappearing, yet it IS problematic that male construction workers outnumber female steelworkers?

Why are there programs in place to try to recruit more females into the trades but few show any real concern about the fact males are disappearing from the education system?

[Saipan]

Your missing a few factors here, Joe and Jim's performance are essentially identical, and there are by far more white people in that field.

So it's clearly about racial quotas.

Or simply racist.

[Scotty]

No affirmative action describes any policy meant to reverse descrimination.

And if that discrimination is actually only imaginary?

For example, I don't believe there is any discrimination in government or large institutional hiring. Yet they invariably have affirmative action programs in place. So it isn't like a balancing act meant to counter discrimination. It's institutionalized racism. It's racism that some people find acceptable simply because they agree with the reasons for the racial hiring.

[Scotty]

Actually no. Affirmative action ASSUMES that any differences in outcome are the result of discrimination.

Unless those differences favour a non-white or non-male group. None of those so earnestly devoted to affirmative action have ever been troubled that the vast majority of nurses are women, for example.

[Scotty]

I think the NBA's standards are biased towards tall people. As an entertainment provider they should be able to accommodate people disadvantaged because of their height. They should be able to come up with a 'height neutral' measure of performance that would allow more short people to gain employment as NBA players.

You forgot how they discriminate against women. In fact, the NBA is much like local police and fire departments which used to hire big, tall, brawny men and now have a marked preference for small, skinny Asian women.

[Guest TrueMetis]

So it's clearly about racial quotas.

Or simply racist.

No as the same would be true if it was male or female or many other factors.

[Scotty]

Except in the NBA height can actually effect performance, while the things AA deals with don't. This comparison always comes up and it always sound moronic.

Really?

Let's say you're playing a video game. Your challenge is to break up a bar fight. Which do of the toons below do you wish to take in?

Bill. 6"5, 250lbs

Anne. 5.1, 134lbs

Fred. 6'4" 220lbs

Cho. 5'3" 148lbs

Second task. A building is on fire. Heavy hoses need to be dragged. Doors need to be bashed down. People need to be carried out. Again, which of those above do you take in?

[Saipan]

I do think there's a need for Affirmative Action, that there's a purpose to be served, and in its entirety it includes race, gender, and income (which would also include white males raised in poverty); therefore, it's all inclusive.

When did it EVER included white males?

The idea behind it, as I see it, is to improve society, and therefore benefit all of us.

How do you benefit society by lowering standards? WHO benefits?

It's an attempt to make everyone more 'equal,' and that has to be a good thing.

If you make engineer and a street bum equal you end up with Socialism. How's that a good thing?

We look at the 'ghettos' and wonder why they exist, why people don't rise above it.

People who really want to make it do. Oprah did. But no need to look at rare examples. Most all Asians and Europeans come often with less than those in "Ghetos" and lesser language skill - yet they make it. Often far above average.

Lazy people won't.

[Scotty]

Yes, it does. It certainly does. You're refuting the evidence (as presented) because it doesn't align with your political opinion.

Excuse me but this 'evidence' you speak of having been presented; Does it not consist entirely of personal opinions you happen to agree with?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Really?

Let's say you're playing a video game. Your challenge is to break up a bar fight. Which do of the toons below do you wish to take in?

Bill. 6"5, 250lbs

Anne. 5.1, 134lbs

Fred. 6'4" 220lbs

Cho. 5'3" 148lbs

Second task. A building is on fire. Heavy hoses need to be dragged. Doors need to be bashed down. People need to be carried out. Again, which of those above do you take in?

The one who knows what they are doing. What you gave me isn't enough information, I don't know how fit they are or their skill sets. Anne could easily do better than all of them if she knows what she is doing.

FYI the hoses aren't that heavy, you don't bash down doors in case of back drafts, and you certainly don't carry injured people out of a burning building. I may not know which one of them I would pick but I certainly wouldn't pick you.