impartialobserver Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 On 3/1/2024 at 2:01 PM, taxme said: As an "adult", what is wrong with me calling for a White History Month? What is the problem that you have with me asking this question? You just do not seem to get what i am saying here. I will repeat myself once again? If black people can have a Black History Month than why can't white people have their own White History Month? But many people like you here always seem to want to try and find racism or bigotry in what i said. I am pretty sure that i am being forced not to talk about white folk having a month of their own. If i do mention it than i get to be called a racist. This to me is an act of racism towards white people. Short, sweet and simple. 😬 Prove to me that as an adult that you are forced to celebrate this... and then I will answer your questions. Lets start with this. Quote
I am Groot Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 8 hours ago, Moonbox said: I'm not sure who you're talking about (the comic?). These terms of left/right/progressive/conservative etc, or "proponents of identity politics" don't mean a heck of a lot either. I can probably agree the "proponents of identity politics" have no humor in them, but that goes for those from the Right as well, doesn't it? Surely. they have to have a sense of humor if they think Trump is going to make America better, never mind great. Quote
I am Groot Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 Stuff like this won't cause irritation and resentment towards black people. Nope. Not at all. Quote
Zeitgeist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: Stuff like this won't cause irritation and resentment towards black people. Nope. Not at all. Where is the Supreme Court of Canada and the constitutional lawyers on this? To give money to people strictly on the basis of skin colour is pure discrimination. So no black people are wealthy, successful, or even middle class? No whites or Asians are poor or struggling either? What the hell is going on in Canada? Stop DEI programming and race-based hiring/admissions/subsidies immediately. Edited March 6 by Zeitgeist Quote
Black Dog Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 12 hours ago, I am Groot said: Stuff like this won't cause irritation and resentment towards black people. Nope. Not at all. The fact you use this as an excuse to resent Black people as opposed to the institution administering the scholarships tells me you're looking for excuses to resent Black people. 10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: Where is the Supreme Court of Canada and the constitutional lawyers on this? To give money to people strictly on the basis of skin colour is pure discrimination. So no black people are wealthy, successful, or even middle class? No whites or Asians are poor or struggling either? What the hell is going on in Canada? Stop DEI programming and race-based hiring/admissions/subsidies immediately. There's lots of scholarships, awards and other funding out there for people with different backgrounds, ethnicities and fields of study, what's the big deal. Edited March 6 by Black Dog Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Guest Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: Stop DEI programming and race-based hiring/admissions/subsidies immediately. I won't lie. When I would apply to government positions, I emphatically clicked on me being black. I think its sad that my skin color somehow makes me qualified, but to my defense my aim is to ace tests and interviews to make sure am the best possible person they could hire. But I remember applying to the RCMP a few years prior, and making it far simply from being black. It felt wrong, but was swayed by the high pay potential for career advancement opportunities in areas am an expert in. My issue was, if I dealt with a life and death situation, was I the most qualified? If I couldn't confidently state yes, I wasn't taking the job. My sticking point, was my discomfort with guns. I wound up going an alternate route, but have since gone to shooting ranges and eradicated the fear. Looking back, am glad I didn't take the job, because the officers I know, constantly complain about their toxic environments. Something I couldn't be silent on, even if it cost me my job. Quote
Zeitgeist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, Black Dog said: The fact you use this as an excuse to resent Black people as opposed to the institution administering the scholarships tells me you're looking for excuses to resent Black people. There's lots of scholarships, awards and other funding out there for people with different backgrounds, ethnicities and fields of study, what's the big deal. There should be zero scholarships, freebies, admissions or job hiring on the basis of race, gender, etc. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who does it. Financial challenges should be the criteria for student grants. Academic achievement and involvement in positive community activities and school activities should be the criteria for admissions to schools. Merit and financial hardship fall across all racial groups, genders, religions, and ethnicities. I can’t believe we have to fight for this in 2024. Edited March 6 by Zeitgeist Quote
Black Dog Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: There should be zero scholarships, freebies, admissions or job hiring on the basis of race, gender, etc. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who does it. Financial challenges should be the criteria for student grants. Academic achievement and involvement in positive community activities and school activities should be the criteria for admissions to schools. Merit and financial hardship fall across all racial groups, genders, religions, and ethnicities. I can’t believe we have to fight for this in 2024. Do you think financial or other hardships are equally distributed across all racial groups, genders, religions, and ethnicities? Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Zeitgeist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, Perspektiv said: I won't lie. When I would apply to government positions, I emphatically clicked on me being black. I think its sad that my skin color somehow makes me qualified, but to my defense my aim is to ace tests and interviews to make sure am the best possible person they could hire. But I remember applying to the RCMP a few years prior, and making it far simply from being black. It felt wrong, but was swayed by the high pay potential for career advancement opportunities in areas am an expert in. My issue was, if I dealt with a life and death situation, was I the most qualified? If I couldn't confidently state yes, I wasn't taking the job. My sticking point, was my discomfort with guns. I wound up going an alternate route, but have since gone to shooting ranges and eradicated the fear. Looking back, am glad I didn't take the job, because the officers I know, constantly complain about their toxic environments. Something I couldn't be silent on, even if it cost me my job. Look, it’s human nature to seek advantages where you find them, but when parents are recommending to their kids to state on applications that they’re bisexual when they’re really heterosexual in the hope of getting a job because of an “intersectionality”, we’ve lost the plot. Discrimination is discriminatory. If we ignore that principle then we risk returning to old hates and oppressions, because injustice can only be swallowed for so long before there’s a reaction, and that reaction can be overblown. Wokism is an overreaction. Edited March 6 by Zeitgeist Quote
Zeitgeist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Do you think financial or other hardships are equally distributed across all racial groups, genders, religions, and ethnicities? No, but talent also isn’t equally distributed among all people, which is why it’s absurd and wrong to impose equal outcomes on populations. Asians generally do better academically than whites. That doesn’t mean white people should get a 10% advantage, for example. There’s no way to discern deservedness on any other basis than performance, unless we’re talking about financial charity, but then we have to be clear about it and call it what it is. What do you think is a healthier mindset, “Work hard and get in on your own merit?” or “Tell them you’ve had a hard life and get in based on sympathy.” The latter isn’t really bad if someone has genuinely had a tough life with poor financial consequences, but it requires some verification, like a declaration of assets, etc., like is required for a student loan. People of all backgrounds can be in that situation. It’s certainly not the case that being black makes you poor or a victim. Indeed, some of the most successful people I know are people of colour, but the power of their stories comes from their strength. The legacy disadvantages of slavery and racism are quite minimal in Canada. I heard arguments for redlining in real estate in Canada, but they weren’t convincing, certainly not in the last 30 years. Edited March 6 by Zeitgeist Quote
Guest Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: Do you think financial or other hardships are equally distributed across all racial groups, genders, religions, and ethnicities? Are they unequal because of society? Thats a flawed argument. My wife is Asian. Highly educated, business owner, and is just getting warmed up. By the time she was 12, she was already a strong guitarist, could cook, clean, run petty cash, etc. In Asian demographics, she's the norm. So many Asian entrepreneurs, college graduates, and who do really well academically. I had Cambodian neighbors growing up. They fled their country. Lebanese. Etc. All of these people wound up doing really well for themselves in life. People using your narrative, often overlook the Asian demographic, as it totally s***s on the narrative. Asian people tend to do better than Caucasian people. How is this possible, if things are skewed? Unfair, for who? Life is unfair. In general, the Asian and even Jewish community don't have time to feel sorry for themselves, as they need to put food on their table. As a result, they tend to do insanely well. Stats dispute the point you're making. Quote
Black Dog Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said: No, but talent also isn’t equally distributed among all people, which is why it’s absurd and wrong to impose equal outcomes on populations. Offering scholarships to disadvantaged groups isn't an "equal outcome" it's literally an opportunity. They still have to meet the same academic requirements as anyone else. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Black Dog Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, Perspektiv said: All of these people wound up doing really well for themselves in life. People using your narrative, often overlook the Asian demographic, as it totally s***s on the narrative. Asian people tend to do better than Caucasian people. How is this possible, if things are skewed? "Asian" people tend to do better when you ignore the disparities that exist within that grouping. It's kind racist to lump more than 25 million people (U.S. Asian population) into one group and define them by stereotypical traits. Edited March 6 by Black Dog Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Zeitgeist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 18 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Offering scholarships to disadvantaged groups isn't an "equal outcome" it's literally an opportunity. They still have to meet the same academic requirements as anyone else. Why do you assume that everyone in a racialized group is financially disadvantaged? Why not just offer the grants to financially disadvantaged people, and if more of them happen to be racialized, then a greater proportion of the grants will go to racialized students? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 13 minutes ago, Black Dog said: "Asian" people tend to do better when you ignore the disparities that exist within that grouping. It's kind racist to lump more than 25 million people (U.S. Asian population) into one group and define them by stereotypical traits. Some recent PEW research to help the discussion: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/04/29/key-facts-about-asian-origin-groups-in-the-u-s/ There are indeed scholarships targeted at "Asian Americans" ... I think one can simultaneously acknowledge "White Guilt" and "Historical Wrongs" to pick a few overused terms at random, as supporting or being complicit (I'm using dual terms here to stay apolitical) in surveying this landscape. https://aarcc.uic.edu/resources-2/scholarships-and-internships/ And whatever comes out of these programs, the politics will overshadow objective and analytical review of the results. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Black Dog Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: Why do you assume that everyone in a racialized group is financially disadvantaged? Why not just offer the grants to financially disadvantaged people, and if more of them happen to be racialized, then a greater proportion of the grants will go to racialized students? Here's a question: do you think it's worth encouraging certain groups from pursuing careers in fields where they are historically underrepresented? Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Zeitgeist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 3 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Here's a question: do you think it's worth encouraging certain groups from pursuing careers in fields where they are historically underrepresented? I would provide the same career information to all students regardless of backgrounds or gender. Assuming that a gender or race or group should be pushed into a field more or less than another gender or race brings bigger problems. It’s like saying we should have fewer women in the healthcare field (where they represent more than 50% of students) and more of them in engineering (where the percentage is less than that). Not all differences can or should be socially engineered away. Quote
Black Dog Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: I would provide the same career information to all students regardless of backgrounds or gender. That doesn't really answer my question. Quote Assuming that a gender or race or group should be pushed into a field more or less than another gender or race brings bigger problems. Like? Quote It’s like saying we should have fewer women in the healthcare field (where they represent more than 50% of students) and more of them in engineering (where the percentage is less than that). What's wrong with that? Quote Not all differences can or should be socially engineered away. But maybe some should be? Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Zeitgeist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Black Dog said: That doesn't really answer my question. Like? What's wrong with that? But maybe some should be? What’s your basis for making exactly the same percentage of males and females enter all fields? Do you not recognize that there may be different career preferences among genders? Something similar can be said about trying to make all representation in fields reflect the racial, ethnic or other group breakdowns in society. It doesn’t take cultural differences/preferences into account. It doesn’t look at how long each group on average has been in the country, language proficiency, and a host of other factors that have nothing to do with racism. Not everyone in a group has the same background and it’s irresponsible and discriminatory to presume that they do. As a general rule I think you provide the information, let people know that many different careers are possible, but some require certain aptitudes and proof of competency. Sprinkle in grants for people who may not have the financial means, but I wouldn’t play the impossible and presumptuous game of deciding what percentage of each gender or group must be in each field and throwing tax dollars or creating discriminatory policies to advantage or push certain groups. It just alienates people and opens organizations up to accusations of systemic discrimination, which is what it is. We should only look at people’s individual merit and let people choose their careers/programs freely without unfair rules of entry. Edited March 6 by Zeitgeist Quote
blackbird Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, Black Dog said: Here's a question: do you think it's worth encouraging certain groups from pursuing careers in fields where they are historically underrepresented? Taxpayer money should not be used to support DEI at all. People should be hired on their skills, training, and experience. In other words by merit. Edited March 6 by blackbird 1 Quote
Black Dog Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: What’s your basis for making exactly the same percentage of males and females enter all fields? Who said anything about that? I sure didn't. Quote Do you not recognize that there may be different career preferences among genders? Sure. But I don't think these are necessarily innate preferences. Quote As a general rule I think you provide the information, let people know that many different careers are possible, but some require certain aptitudes and proof of competency. Sprinkle in grants for people who may not have the financial means, but I wouldn’t play the impossible and presumptuous game of deciding what percentage of each gender or group must be in each field and throwing tax dollars or creating discriminatory policies to advantage or push certain groups. It just alienates people and opens organizations up to accusations of systemic discrimination, which is what it is. But the problem goes deeper than simply access to information about a field. There are plenty of fields where participation by outgroups has been systemically discouraged and a lack of representation begets a lack of participation. Quote We should only look at people’s individual merit and let people choose their careers/programs freely without unfair rules of entry. This assumes that there are no barriers to entry beyond financial ones, which I don't think is the case. 16 minutes ago, blackbird said: Taxpayer money should not be used to support DEI at all. People should be hired on their skills, training, and experience. In other words by by merit. The world where this happens has never existed, you know that right? 1 Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Zeitgeist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: Who said anything about that? I sure didn't. Sure. But I don't think these are necessarily innate preferences. But the problem goes deeper than simply access to information about a field. There are plenty of fields where participation by outgroups has been systemically discouraged and a lack of representation begets a lack of participation. This assumes that there are no barriers to entry beyond financial ones, which I don't think is the case. The world where this happens has never existed, you know that right? I guess the alternative to scrapping DEI and the discriminatory hiring and admissions that go along with it are for every special interest group to go all out to disfavour and discriminate against all other groups except one’s own. I can see that happening very soon if DEI discrimination persists. Quote
Black Dog Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 Just now, Zeitgeist said: I guess the alternative to scrapping DEI and the discriminatory hiring and admissions that go along with it are for every special interest group to go all out to disfavour and discriminate against all other groups except one’s own. I can see that happening very soon if DEI discrimination persists. So they way things were before DEI? Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Moonlight Graham Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 19 hours ago, I am Groot said: Stuff like this won't cause irritation and resentment towards black people. Nope. Not at all. Why not low income students instead of "black". Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Zeitgeist Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Black Dog said: So they way things were before DEI? That’s your mistake. The laws and policies aren’t discriminatory, no matter how much you want people to think they are, unless you’re talking about DEI race-based hiring and admissions. Edited March 6 by Zeitgeist 1 Quote
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.