Racism.... against whites? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

NoSoup · 05-17-2004, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I'll agree that some companies want a diverse pool of workers, but I suspect this occurs far more often due to internal desires rather than external government regulations.

I would assume that the "internal desires" in a company, any company, would be to profit as much as possible. You do this by making as much money as you can, spending as little as you can, and utilizing any other "tools" that you are able to.

I may be incorrect here, but I am fairly certain that companies get tax breaks if they hire a minority/woman. If they do, that would make it advantageous to hire a minority/woman to fufill their "internal desires"

Quote:

Originally posted by pigglet
One last thought, because everyone's been dealing in hypotheticals. Let's assume that two candidates apply for opportunity X, and they are exactly and completely and totally equivalent, except one is a white male, and one is something else. After an interview, they are both personable and witty and well informed. They answer the questions so identically that the interviewers are wondering if they are not joined in a para-psychological bond that has been unheard of since the Gods of the Greeks rules on Mount Olympus. Who gets the job. One position, two people. No difference.

Well, to be honest, in most cases nowadays, the minority would probably get the job. Even if they were perfectly equal, the tax benefits that the employer would recieve would push the minority into the position, I believe.

However, why isn't it up to a coin toss? Let's say for the sake of argument, those two candidates are exactly the same, in every way. Financial situation, education, qualifications, GPA, IQ, ect.

Is it not discrimination if you choose one candiate over the other based on their race? If they are identical, that white person deserves the position less simply because he is white? I think that is terrible. For governmental policies to encourage this is even more pathetic. There is absolutely no reason that that white fella should be turned down based simply on his skin color - all hell would break lose if it happened to a minority, but the evil white men deserve everything they get.

What if the employer, seeing that they were identical, flipped a coin and the white person won? How many feel that the minority would have been discriminated against due to his race?

I think that we need to understand that we are trying to live by a double standard. If we don't discriminate based on race, we are looked at as racist. In this example, if we don't hire the minority, it will most likely be assumed that the minority wasn't hired due to his/her skin color.

I think that the question, in a perfect society, would just state that the candidates were perfectly equal, and wouldn't make mention of a race, as that has no affect on their abilities to perform their job duties. Race only has as much weight as people put on it - and although it seems to be getting lighter these days, I find it difficult to swallow that it is still encouraged by the government to discriminate, one way or another.

pig · 05-17-2004, 08:00 AM

Quickly, allow me to respond to your comments, Shades. First - calm down. I'm not interested, even in the slightest, in getting involved in a proverbial flame war. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, perhaps you're a little worked up. In any event, here goes :

Quote:

Originally posted by Shades
Goodness, where did I get off thinking that white people weren't inherently bad, especially in large numbers? YEE-HAA!

This is where the calm down comes into play - I guess I can understand where you're coming from, but I didn't say that ALL white people are bigots and Klansmen. By your own admission you're a graduate level engineering student, so I expect that you know that I didn't say that, any more than I said that there only 5 white people studying engineering at your school On a theoretical level, I completely agree with you. It is, however, my opinion that in reality if you were to start the said White Engineers Society, that you wouldn't find most of the white students showing up. I don't think that they would care. I think, even though it certainly wouldn't be a representative group of all white people, that the only people who would show would be the ones I mentioned. I could be wrong. Give it a shot - start the club. See how it goes.

Quote:

I'm still trying to decide how painting every white group that way wasn't a flat-out flame.

It wasn't intended to be. First of all, once again I DID NOT say that every white engineer is a Klansmen. I said that, as above, my guess is that only a few very socially conservative and/or (if there could possibly be a racist white engineer) a racist white engineer who would show up. Secondly, it was intended to sarcastic exaggeration, perhaps (humbly) bordering on self-deprecating humor. Apparently, that's not the way it was taken.

Quote:

Which, of course, presupposes that white kids will automatically choose only white people as role models, instead of minority athletes or media stars.

Nope, that's not what I intended at all. I'm simply pointing out, and I think this may be what a poster above was trying to get at as well, that it could be that if a person was looking for inspiration, that in addition to looking at people for much more grandiose and intellectually satisfying reasons such as their philosophy, their goals, their ethics, their accomplishments - they might, even if it were subconscious, look for people based on superficial qualities. They might like to see someone who looked like them, or came from the same part of the world as them in a position that they might like to attain one day. We can argue the merits of such superficial judgements 'til the cows come home, but it's something that I think everyone does. Perhaps you don't. I think that most people do - and I don't think it's a bad thing.

Quote:

I'm only doing so in the interest of fairness. If I'm to believe that there is nothing good about being white...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "in the interest of fairness" - but I wholeheartedly agree with you that white people should feel no more shame about their heritage than any other person. As far as the question of race relations and the history thereof, I ascribe to something akin to the view point of Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel - basically that skin color had nothing to do with unforlding of events, save possibly being a secondary characteristic of environment - and that much more had to do with timing,the orientation of land masses where diffferent races seemed to arise, and the abundance of critical natural resources.

Quote:

[B]
I would be allowed to organize a White Pride parade (we invented Tang, bitches!)

]/B]

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

Quote:

[B]
Seriously, please just give me one solitary example in your entire life when anything- an educator, a textbook, a TV show, a movie,- every once even intimated that being proud of being white was anything less than branding yourself as a racist.

[]/B]

Well, my first response to this was going to the A-Team. In seriousness, you're correct and I agree that it's a bad thing. That was my point with the stuff about the environment white kids are growing up in.

As for all the stuff on affirmative action, I'm going to cover it in a blanket statement as follows : On a theoretical level, I definately agree with you that the only way for things to be fair and equal....is for things to be fair and equal. Determining the best way to allow that to happen is a tough issue. I don't think that affirmative action based on race and gender are good ways to solve the problem, nor do I think that all the people who support these programs are out to screw over white males. I think that most of them simply want minorities, or a particular minority, to have better opportunities than they current do, and they are looking for pragmatic, enforceable ways to bring it about. I'm not going to blanketly demonize them either. Aside from that, I agree that early education and opportunity is the key, but once again - easier said than done.

DJ Happy · 05-26-2004, 04:04 AM

Wow, so much going on here.

As a white South African, my experience of "affirmative action" has been far from positive, although I can understand the need to have them. I was granted a university place only to be told two weeks before the start of the term that my place was going to be given to a black student instead, in order to satisfy quotas. I have been denied jobs because preference was being given to black applicants.

With regards to "affirmative action," I am in two minds:

Pros:
It does at least attempt to address the imbalance. It provides opportunities to those who were previously denied them and gives them the chance to compete on an equal footing. In theory, it is only supposed to last for a short period of time, allowing those previously discriminated against a chance to excel and "level the playing field."

Cons:
It doesn't teach "minorities" to fend for themselves. They start to rely on the "positive discrimination" rather than their own abilities in order to better themselves. These are generally the people who also still cry "racism" on the odd occasion that things don't turn out their way instead of looking at their own failings and shortcomings. They don't work as hard because they don't have to. They don't exert themselves because there is no need. This breeds a culture of dependence that can be very cushy and difficult to break free from.

Some previous victims of discrimination seem to be reluctant to be seen as equal, in case they lose all the privileges of "positive discrimination." They still play the race card when it suits them and as such have taken "positive discrimination" to a new level. There's a recent case of a Sri Lankan cricketer who technique has recently been scientifically determined to be contrary to the rules of the game (if you don't follow cricket, I won't bore you with the details of this study). Despite this hard and fast evidence, his administrators have threatened to sue the ruling body if they don't overturn this decision, which they have called a racist plot hatched by white nations.

Since the end of apartheid, all of the South African sporting teams have been subject to racial quotas too. A few years ago there was uproar when the government objected to the inclusion of a white player in our national cricket team and replaced him with a player of colour instead (the omitted white player has since made his debut and is recognised as one of the world game's rising stars, while the coloured player has barely been heard of since). But more than highlight the injustice behind much "positive discrimination," this incident highlighted just how ashamed many "minorities" are to be seen to be benefitting from "affirmative action."

The player involved made many public statements about how embarrassed he was to have benefitted in this way. And it wasn't the same as a job applicant being hired with the reasoning being kept behind closed doors. It was on the front pages. Everyone knew that Justin Ontong was being selected because he wasn't white, and he didn't like it one bit. It makes me wonder how many of those being hired for private jobs or being awarded scholarships because of the colour of their skin would feel if the real reasons behind their appointment were to be made known to all their colleagues. They are happy to benefit from it in private, but if the truth was made public knowledge, how would they feel?

I'm a great believer in the saying, "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man how to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life." This is what "positive discrimination" should model itself around. Give people opportunities to better themselves. Subsidise education, grant more scholarships, develop more training programs, maybe based on income levels rather than ethnicity. But once education has been completed and qualifications achieved, they're on their own. The goal should be that everyone enters the workplace on equal footing. If they've been given a subsidised education and they've just fucked around during it, then tough. If they've taken advantage of it and benefitted as they should have, then they will reap the rewards of their hard work.

"Affirmative action" can be beneficial if it not abused, but abusing it is just too easy at the moment. It's intentions are good, but it just doesn't work. I'm not sure that any official intervention will though, if the people who it is supposed to help don't stop relying on it as the sole means of their betterment. They have to realise that at some stage, they must take responsibility for their own destinies.

NoSoup · 06-15-2004, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ Happy
I'm a great believer in the saying, "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man how to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life." This is what "positive discrimination" should model itself around. Give people opportunities to better themselves. Subsidise education, grant more scholarships, develop more training programs, maybe based on income levels rather than ethnicity. But once education has been completed and qualifications achieved, they're on their own. The goal should be that everyone enters the workplace on equal footing. If they've been given a subsidised education and they've just fucked around during it, then tough. If they've taken advantage of it and benefitted as they should have, then they will reap the rewards of their hard work.

"Affirmative action" can be beneficial if it not abused, but abusing it is just too easy at the moment. It's intentions are good, but it just doesn't work. I'm not sure that any official intervention will though, if the people who it is supposed to help don't stop relying on it as the sole means of their betterment. They have to realise that at some stage, they must take responsibility for their own destinies.

I agree.

If "Affirmative action"was based on something other than skin color, such as income level, it would be (imho) a good program, though too still easily abused. If we were able to "teach a man to fish" and then wean them off the program, it would be the ideal situation. I just don't see why skin color has anything to do with trying to educate the less fortunate...

skyscan · 06-15-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoSoup
Example #1
I am in the lending business, and there are a variety of laws regarding ECOA (equal credit opportunity act). A portion of this consists of the HMDA reports, which basically is a government issued form that reports the race of people that we lend out to using a home as collateral.

The lending guidelines that we follow are federally governed, and after filling out the application, I submit it to be underwritten (approved, denied, ect.) Recently, on more than one occasion, I have submitted poor credit applications that were denied when "white, non Hispanic" was checked. I realized on one application that I had made an error regarding the HMDA information and I wanted to correct it when the denial was sent out. However, when I resubmit the application with "black" checked, and no other information changed, it came back as approved. I have tested this on many applications that I have submitted for "white, non Hispanic" by switching the racial information to a different race, and a good 20-30% of the time they'll come back approved.

That is odd and weird for sure. However, I think there might just be a possibility that it isn't racism. One of my household members recently became involved in underwriting. From what I understand most of it is based of statistical figures from past events. So, if the loan company has data that shows that so many people of (insert race) payback the loan at a set income/credit rating level. This would make them want to approve the loan. If people of a different race at the same income/credit rating don't payback the loan, it would make the company not want to approve that person.

I'm not saying what happed isn't racism but merely noting the possibility that things aren’t always how they seem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Ironically,

Racism knows no race.

Ha, indeed.

NoSoup · 06-15-2004, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by skyscan
That is odd and weird for sure. However, I think there might just be a possibility that it isn't racism. One of my household members recently became involved in underwriting. From what I understand most of it is based of statistical figures from past events. So, if the loan company has data that shows that so many people of (insert race) payback the loan at a set income/credit rating level. This would make them want to approve the loan. If people of a different race at the same income/credit rating don't payback the loan, it would make the company not want to approve that person.

I'm not saying what happed isn't racism but merely noting the possibility that things aren’t always how they seem.

Understood, but I had checked into it as well with some of the companies that we work with. When speaking with the underwriters, they basically told me that there was no statistical evidence to back it up - it is simply required by law.

However, take it with a grain of salt, if you like, as it was just told to me secondhand.

Jesseboy · 04-12-2005, 08:46 AM

I hate to bring back a thread from the dead, but I wanted to chip in my two cents and see this debate come back to life...

One of my very good friends from high school was a Native American and because he lived on the reservation he was given a portion of the profits from a nearby casino. His tribe is located in Minnesota and it is relatively small, the casino that they run is huge, as well as highly profitable. Since he turned 18, he has gotten weekly checks for many thousands of dollars a piece - he has so much money he doesn't even know what to do with it.

He spends his days sleeping and his nights partying - the money being used to purchase alchohol and other materials that he ends up snorting.

The whole situation pisses me off because he basically makes just under $300,000.00 a year for sitting on his ass because of his blood - while others are working their asses off and still struggling.

The reason I bring this up is because I don't believe that we should still allow native americans to have all these special rules that help them out ridiculously. Don't get me wrong - America has done many terrible things to a great number of people(s) - but paying for it for the rest of forever is ridiculous. Same goes for slavery. It was terrible, it happened, it's done. I think that monetary subsidation is a fraction of what should be given to those that acutally survived it, but someone should not be rewarded because their great great grandfather was a slave.

War and conquering land typically involve terrible things - but it happened os long ago it shouldn't have any real effect on what happens now to those related to those who were mistreated...

You don't see Rome paying out to countries because they had conquered them...

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-12-2005, 09:43 AM

Here is a good article I wandered across the other week.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/di....ap/index.html

Quote:

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- Days after taking office in 2003, New Orleans' first black district attorney fired 53 white employees and replaced them with blacks.

Eddie Jordan denied he fired the employees just because they are white, but a federal jury determined he discriminated against 43 of the workers who sued him and awarded them about $1.8 million in back pay and damages on Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval could order that the fired white workers be reinstated, but lawyers consider this unlikely. Such mandates are rare, as they require continuing court supervision.

The jury -- made up of eight whites and two blacks -- returned its unanimous verdict in the third day of deliberations.

Plaintiffs' attorney Clement Donelon said he was elated.

"You may be able to fire people," Donelon said, "but don't do it because of race. That goes both ways."

Clemens Herbert, a former investigator who was among those fired, said: "What I wanted was a win. Money was not the issue. He was trying to disguise racial discrimination through politics, and the jury saw through it."

Jordan acknowledged he wanted to make the office more reflective of the city's racial makeup, but said he did not know the race of the people fired.

Under the judge's instructions, jurors had to find Jordan liable if they concluded the firings were racially motivated. The law bars the mass firing of a specific group, even if the intent is to create diversity.

Jordan, stoic in the courtroom as the verdict was read, told reporters he was disappointed and will appeal.

"We thought the facts as well as the law favored us. I still maintain that I did not use race as a factor in my hiring practices," he said.

Jordan said the District Attorney's Office, which is liable for the award, cannot afford to pay the verdict. It was not immediately clear whether the state or city, or both, would ultimately be responsible for paying the money.

One of Louisiana's most prominent black politicians, Jordan was U.S. attorney before getting elected district attorney. As the chief federal prosecutor in New Orleans, he won a corruption conviction against former Gov. Edwin Edwards in 2000 for taking payoffs in return for riverboat licenses.

Eight days after taking office, Jordan fired 53 of 77 white non-lawyers -- investigators, clerks, child-support enforcement workers and the like -- and replaced them with blacks.

Months later, most of the whites sued him, and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission later made a preliminary finding that Jordan had been racially biased.

Jordan and a top deputy who testified admitted that experience was not necessarily their top consideration in filling openings. Instead, they made it plain they were looking to populate the office with loyalists.

The whites' lawyers argued that many of those who were fired had far more experience and scored higher in job interviews than blacks who were either hired anew or kept on.

The whites testified that they found themselves suddenly jobless, in late middle age, after years of working in law enforcement agencies, including the New Orleans Police Department.

Then there was also a case I read about recently were 17 cops, if memory correctly serves, sued the Milwaukee area police department for discrimination. The cops were all white men and were all passed up on promotions by minorities and woman who were underqualified. The judge presiding over the case agreed with the cops and awarded them millions. Shit like this is happening more and more, but for some reason it doesn't get any attention.

Manx · 04-12-2005, 11:25 AM

A taste of medicine. Instant Karma. Dissapointing. Not suprising. Nothing I would shed a tear over.

I'm sure you realize that it always has and always will go both ways, yes? Fortunately for the white folk, there are more of them and they traditionally hold, and started with, the upper hand. So discrimination will always ultimately favor them, by virtue of mathematics.

squirrelyburt · 04-12-2005, 12:09 PM

They got BET (Black Entertainment TV) and Miss Black USA... not a probelm for me, but could you imagine the screams if whites started W(white)ET or had Miss white USA? I'd watch that just for the uproar

F-18_Driver · 04-12-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

A taste of medicine. Instant Karma. Dissapointing. Not suprising. Nothing I would shed a tear over.

You should be asking yourself why anyone would shed a tear over discrimination against blacks, then. Especially when it took place 150 years ago.

Quote:

I'm sure you realize that it always has and always will go both ways, yes? Fortunately for the white folk, there are more of them and they traditionally hold, and started with, the upper hand. So discrimination will always ultimately favor them, by virtue of mathematics.

Wrong.

Since non-whites are now a majority in California, it follows that you should support preferences for whites in college admissions, job placement, promotions, etc.

Hey, it's just mathematics.

Manx · 04-12-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-18_Driver

You should be asking yourself why anyone would shed a tear over discrimination against blacks, then. Especially when it took place 150 years ago.

I didn't realize it had stopped

I don't shed a tear - I support the best solution: AA.

Quote:

Wrong.

No, RIGHT!

But I'm tired of this discussion. It seems to crop up every week or so around here:

Blacks/Asians/Mexicans are JUST as racist as Whites so they shouldn't be "given" anything.

I can only bang my head against illogic so much before it gives me a headache.

ScottKuma · 04-12-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Woe is me, i have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune because i am white. Quit whining.

[SNIP]

Stop feeling sorry for yourself, white people. You're still better of than the average minority. You(the general you) weren't too bothered by discrimination until it happened to you.

Good God.... So instead of discussing this on an intellectual level, we're STILL resorting to this discussion-ending BS?

How about talking about the issues instead of attacking those who would?

EDIT: Ouch - I just realized that I was quoting an almost-a-year-old thread somewhat out of context. I stand behind my statement, however...I've seen a great many discussions -- ones that we as participants in society SHOULD be talking about -- shut down due to ad hominem attacks on those with points of view that challenge our current PC culture.

I'm happy to see that the thread took a nice turn for the better in the intervening pages since my quoted message.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-12-2005, 12:43 PM

Manx the only illogic I see is your own, the arguement isn't whether or not minorities are as racist as white people. The issue is since when does legislated discrimination become legit?

Manx · 04-12-2005, 12:51 PM

And the answer is purely logical:

When there is no alternative method of dealing with the adverse affects of discrimination against minorities.

So when you argue against that week after week after week, your illogic gives me a headache.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-12-2005, 12:55 PM

So discrimination is legit as long as you are sticking it to whitey? Yeah that's sound logic...

ScottKuma · 04-12-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

The issue is since when does legislated discrimination become legit?

Wow, that makes it a more interesting argument. I'm of the opinion that discrimination against ANYONE is a Bad Thing. Of course, I also realize that my views are somewhat simplistic and not based 100% in reality.

Manx · 04-12-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

So discrimination is legit as long as you are sticking it to whitey? Yeah that's sound logic...

'Cause that's what I've been saying all along.

Nice summation of probably a half dozen discussions I've had that you're certain to have read to some degree. Didn't even come close to the post you responded to either. Thanks.

jorgelito · 04-12-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squirrelyburt

They got BET (Black Entertainment TV) and Miss Black USA... not a probelm for me, but could you imagine the screams if whites started W(white)ET or had Miss white USA? I'd watch that just for the uproar

It's called ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX so yes, BET is a response to that. To fulfill a market that wasn't being served. Perfect example of helping yourself. As you said, no problem with it...right?

I think there is a Miss White USA only it's called, Miss Dixie or something like that... I'm not sure, I'll try and look it up though.

Manx · 04-12-2005, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Manx the only illogic I see is your own, the arguement isn't whether or not minorities are as racist as white people. The issue is since when does legislated discrimination become legit?

I forgot this before: Remind me how your post #88, which is the post I responded to which brought about your apparent need to clarify the topic, is in anyway NOT a report of two incidents of apparent racism against whites and IS a point of consideration in AA legislation.

I don't see it.

roachboy · 04-12-2005, 06:07 PM

there is a curious problem with ancient threads that get bumped in that it is not obvious how to deal with the entirety of the previous discussion--does it still matter? does it still frame the debate? do you respond to posts that are over a year old?

anyway: i read through the more recent tendrils gorwing off the seemingly dead stump from before and wondered if i had accidentally stumbled in to another of those annoying college republicans stage pinhead agitprop bakesales while pretending that the pricing policies something like a coherent metaphor for how affirmative actions works. same goofball thinking from the right in the responses.

it's like there is some secret conservative parlor game that involves trawling around for threads in which they can say exactly what got shot down each of the last 20 times it was posted so they can write the same arguments down again. maybe they get fabulous prizes. maybe there is something erotic about writing this kind of argument, something erotic i wouldnt understand because it think the arguments are just stupid.

the question is not "discrimination in general" but the problems caused within the u.s. by slavery, then by the appalling sequence of events that was reconstruction, a history of racism, a civil rights movement after world war 2 that demanded a lot more than affirmative action--things like basic changes to the american capitalist order--but instead the movement was handed affirmative action. so the question of discimination was, and remains, about this particular type of discrimination practiced by these particular agents upon this particular set of other folk for no reason really beyond the color of their skin.

if the americans were a bit less world class in their virtuoso use of racism, they probably would not have seen the extension of anti-discrimination legislation to include other groups--but they were, and the americans really have no-one to blame but themselves for it.

to read that history does not matter from the same people who in other threads spend much time grovelling at the feet of the fetish-objects the call the Founding Fathers, defending obvious lunacy like the doctrine of original intent is just funny.

they do seem to like the reconstruction period, however, these folk who claim that history is not binding on them except when they say it is....they reproduce alot of the arguments floated by white poorer southerners of the period: like the sense that they were the victims of federal government attempts to provide some recompense for the folk who had previously been understood as objects, commodities...dealing retrospectively with the fact of racism and its effects...you know, i am sure these people felt that history did not weigh on or bind them either--hell, by reconstruction (1870, say) the civil war was over, it was history, it ended ....what....5 years before why should the past weigh on the present. and there were the same arguments for limiting the authority of the federal government, which threatened the continuity of systems of racist privelege---the same types of arguments for states rights, for local control....

Willravel · 04-12-2005, 07:02 PM

I'm white and I don't care.

I was going to teach in Canada right out of college. I had friends up in (name of Canadian College withheld) and they needed a music prof. The problem? They already had a good amount of white men working there. I knew I didn't stand a chance against females or non-whites. I had no problem with that. I stayed local and became a consultant for 4 time what I would have made. The playing field still isn't level. Slavery may have been over for a long time, but racism isn't.

I may not be racist, so it isn't fair when I am treaded less for being white, but how often are black, asian, latin, etc. people treated unfairly for no reason? I can take a little heat for my race being stpuid for a while.

stevie667 · 04-13-2005, 01:43 PM

I always though racism against whites was called political correctness?

yatzr · 04-13-2005, 03:45 PM

nosoup: have you tried sending in some rejected "non-white" applications as "white" to see if there's ever a difference? Or maybe sending rejected "white" ones in as "white" again? I only ask because I'd think different people would decide on each one, and when they're borderline, different people would give different results. Just a thought.

NoSoup · 04-14-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yatzr

nosoup: have you tried sending in some rejected "non-white" applications as "white" to see if there's ever a difference? Or maybe sending rejected "white" ones in as "white" again? I only ask because I'd think different people would decide on each one, and when they're borderline, different people would give different results. Just a thought.

Yes, I have. I have switched white to non-white and they have been approved, I have also switched non-white that were approved to white and they were denied. After switching them back, I get the original result.

I would understand the whole situation a lot more if the problem had something to do with people and their specific preferances - but the parameters that are used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are fed into automated underwriting - computers make the decisions, people have nothing to do with it...

blakngold4 · 04-14-2005, 10:02 PM

NoSoup...here's the biggest problem i see with your argument. you say "if our goal is equality, in my opinion, we shouldn't be helping some more than others based on the color of their skin." you're missing part of the statement: it's only true if people are equal to begin with. if large groups have been dumped in holes they have to climb out of, treating everyone equally will serve only to maintain the same levels of imbalance in society that existed before.

my views on this subject as a whole have changed dramatically in the past five years. i've applied to college, gone, graduated in 3 years, applied to law school, and gone there too. it sucks. don't go. anyway, i see plenty of people who didn't have the same sat/lsat scores i did that got into better colleges than me. is it fair? not really. is it good policy? probably. my parents worked for what they have, but they had enough to lay out 13 G's for private school, and i know that i got 34hrs of college credit, among other things, from having a chance to go to private school. looking back, do i understand why some "less deserving" minorities got into schools that i didn't? yeah. did it piss me off when it happened? yeah, but the thing is, for every minority you can find that gets affirmative action admission to your favorite school, i can find four fairly privileged white kids who were squarely on the fence but got turned down. it's not perfect. i think it's ridiculous that the rich black girl at my private school gets her choice of college even though my SAT is over 200 pts higher, but she also spent four years as the only black girl in her class, so it's not like there are too many others like her.

since all things go back to baseball, i'll borrow this bit from a quality book: two guys run to first in fairly similar times. one runs with perfect form and gets down the basepaths smoothly. the other runs a little wild, and may be slightly inefficient in making the trek. who do you take? answer: the one without the form. he's already about as fast as the other guy, and he can be taught to run with form, making him better long-term.

ps...quotas aren't real. don't talk about them. the college i went to had well over 20,000 students, and in a class of 4500 freshmen, they had 200 black kids show up. this isn't wisconsin either. the state's about 1/8th black, and they get 200 black students. sorry, but i got no problem letting in an extra hundred less advantaged students or minorities when the demographics at my school (and many my friends attended) are overwhelmingly full of white kids from middle and upper class homes.

pennywise121 · 04-15-2005, 11:13 AM

at the risk of starting another flame war, there would appear to be some misconceptions here that no one noticed.

first, affirmative action does not mandate preference in all situations. AA only comes into play when it is deemed that there is a problem. now, before any of you respond with the kneejerk flame, i ask that you actually sit down and READ the legislation. (oh, and btw, quotas dont exist, as was pointed out a bit earlier)

second, we can spin "fact" any way we want to, but the census info that was posted was correct (and, not that it is any consolation, but i have run the numbers myself). if u want statistics, ive got plenty of them. like for instance, blacks are arrested more than three times as often as they actually commit the crime they are arrested for. or, perhaps the API scores for inner city and mostly minority schools being around 1 or 2, while there is a little (predominantly) white city of..... 130,000 people a bit south of me that has API scores of 9 and 10, some of the best in the nation.

i refuse wholeheartedly to get into hypotheticals or any form of "i know a guy." all i can do is report the things that are collected.

to complain about preferential treatment in colleges without looking at the dismal quality of education recieved by understaffed, underfunded schools is simply wrongheaded.

as for the so-called "culture of poverty" (the idea that minorities are socialized to remain in poverty) is a load of crap, sociologically speaking. open a newspaper. turn on the news (local is best). please, some one tell me how many instances of positive white males there are in any given hour. now, tell me how many violent crimes by minorities are reported. the simple fact is that we live in a white world. if you were told day in and day out that you couldnt amount to anything, you would start to believe it (a la labeling theory).

i understand that this forum is dedicated to giving people the chance to express their thoughts, and for that i am very appreciative. but seriously now, before you post another comment, stop and take a look at the world around you. then compare this to the "common knowledge" that everyone is so aware of. Do you see a disparity between the two?

I do.

F-18_Driver · 04-15-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pennywise121

to complain about preferential treatment in colleges without looking at the dismal quality of education recieved by understaffed, underfunded schools is simply wrongheaded.

as for the so-called "culture of poverty" (the idea that minorities are socialized to remain in poverty) is a load of crap, sociologically speaking. open a newspaper. turn on the news (local is best). please, some one tell me how many instances of positive white males there are in any given hour. now, tell me how many violent crimes by minorities are reported. the simple fact is that we live in a white world. if you were told day in and day out that you couldnt amount to anything, you would start to believe it (a la labeling theory).

i understand that this forum is dedicated to giving people the chance to express their thoughts, and for that i am very appreciative. but seriously now, before you post another comment, stop and take a look at the world around you. then compare this to the "common knowledge" that everyone is so aware of. Do you see a disparity between the two?

I do.

So do I. And now that I've written two big fat checks to the government which dishes it out to everyone except me, I'm going to grab my checkbook again.

I just need to know how big a check to write to Colin Powell and Oprah to alleviate their misery. Oh, and Jesse Jackson. Maybe I should send a check to the estate of Johnny Cochran too.

(Translation for anyone who needs it: My point is that these people overcame perceived or actual racism. Why do others claim it's impossible?)

If this counts as a flame, I guess I'm guilty.

jbw97361 · 04-15-2005, 03:34 PM

HERE'S A GREAT IDEA

Just eliminate the race checkbox from all forms, government and private. If you feel the need to differentiate yourself from others based on the color of your skin and not the content of your character, you are a racist by definition.

Just dont even let it be an issue.

pennywise121 · 04-15-2005, 04:03 PM

see, you are very and firmly rooted in your feelings, and that is okay. the simple fact of the matter is that you are looking at the exception and thinking that it proves the rule. the simple fact that there are three famous african americans (four, including the supreme court) in washington and oprah does not mean that everythign is okay. of the hundreds of television shows and thousands of people working in washington, five is not such a huge number.

simple numbers are against you. and it doesnt matter how many people you know or i know that have made it, the facts remain the same. there are entire groups of people that are not as advantaged as you are. if you think this isnt the case, think about whether you would want to trade places with any minority living in an inner city..... south central LA for example. with over a 50% unemployment rate since the factories left the inner city, do you think you could make it? put yourself in the shoes of the people you claim are so advantaged and ask yourself this: would you change your skin color to become a black man if you could?

if the answer is no, you need to acknowledge that there is a reason for it. if everythign was equal or they have it better, there would be no question about whether you would do it.

simple fact of life at the moment is things are not equal. not even close.

if u want a personal story instead of statistics, here u go: i am a white male, and i come from a rather poor family, but i am about to graduate with my Masters in Sociology and will be attending Berkeley this fall to start my doctoral work. thing is, at every step i have been advanced and seen my friends fall by the wayside because they couldnt afford to advance, or werent able to. it takes money to get into college, and when a family cant afford to put food on the table, college start-up expenses are a bitch. i dont know of a single person in six years of college that was there on any scholarship for ethnicity. when it comes right down to it, minority students have not had the same opportunities as i have. there is not a day that am not thankful for the advantages i have had.

but you know one big difference between me and most of my friends? i could do exactly what i am about to do to this thread. LEAVE. i got out because i was advantaged; they didnt because they werent. if you want to believe that you are the victim, go ahead; its youre right. but i havent the time to argue with you about our differences. the challenge still stands. look around you and see how many positive images of whites and negative stereotypes of minorities you see.

as for me, i've said my piece

questone · 04-21-2005, 06:47 PM

The funny thing is that, when most white people complain about being discriminated against, they only think that they are being discriminated against. They only pewl about "the poor, suffering white people". As far as they're concerned, racism ended somewhere between mlk's death and the cosby show.

05-26-2004, 04:04 AM	#83 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	Wow, so much going on here. As a white South African, my experience of "affirmative action" has been far from positive, although I can understand the need to have them. I was granted a university place only to be told two weeks before the start of the term that my place was going to be given to a black student instead, in order to satisfy quotas. I have been denied jobs because preference was being given to black applicants. With regards to "affirmative action," I am in two minds: Pros: It does at least attempt to address the imbalance. It provides opportunities to those who were previously denied them and gives them the chance to compete on an equal footing. In theory, it is only supposed to last for a short period of time, allowing those previously discriminated against a chance to excel and "level the playing field." Cons: It doesn't teach "minorities" to fend for themselves. They start to rely on the "positive discrimination" rather than their own abilities in order to better themselves. These are generally the people who also still cry "racism" on the odd occasion that things don't turn out their way instead of looking at their own failings and shortcomings. They don't work as hard because they don't have to. They don't exert themselves because there is no need. This breeds a culture of dependence that can be very cushy and difficult to break free from. Some previous victims of discrimination seem to be reluctant to be seen as equal, in case they lose all the privileges of "positive discrimination." They still play the race card when it suits them and as such have taken "positive discrimination" to a new level. There's a recent case of a Sri Lankan cricketer who technique has recently been scientifically determined to be contrary to the rules of the game (if you don't follow cricket, I won't bore you with the details of this study). Despite this hard and fast evidence, his administrators have threatened to sue the ruling body if they don't overturn this decision, which they have called a racist plot hatched by white nations. Since the end of apartheid, all of the South African sporting teams have been subject to racial quotas too. A few years ago there was uproar when the government objected to the inclusion of a white player in our national cricket team and replaced him with a player of colour instead (the omitted white player has since made his debut and is recognised as one of the world game's rising stars, while the coloured player has barely been heard of since). But more than highlight the injustice behind much "positive discrimination," this incident highlighted just how ashamed many "minorities" are to be seen to be benefitting from "affirmative action." The player involved made many public statements about how embarrassed he was to have benefitted in this way. And it wasn't the same as a job applicant being hired with the reasoning being kept behind closed doors. It was on the front pages. Everyone knew that Justin Ontong was being selected because he wasn't white, and he didn't like it one bit. It makes me wonder how many of those being hired for private jobs or being awarded scholarships because of the colour of their skin would feel if the real reasons behind their appointment were to be made known to all their colleagues. They are happy to benefit from it in private, but if the truth was made public knowledge, how would they feel? I'm a great believer in the saying, "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man how to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life." This is what "positive discrimination" should model itself around. Give people opportunities to better themselves. Subsidise education, grant more scholarships, develop more training programs, maybe based on income levels rather than ethnicity. But once education has been completed and qualifications achieved, they're on their own. The goal should be that everyone enters the workplace on equal footing. If they've been given a subsidised education and they've just fucked around during it, then tough. If they've taken advantage of it and benefitted as they should have, then they will reap the rewards of their hard work. "Affirmative action" can be beneficial if it not abused, but abusing it is just too easy at the moment. It's intentions are good, but it just doesn't work. I'm not sure that any official intervention will though, if the people who it is supposed to help don't stop relying on it as the sole means of their betterment. They have to realise that at some stage, they must take responsibility for their own destinies. Last edited by DJ Happy; 05-26-2004 at 04:07 AM..

04-12-2005, 12:09 PM	#90 (permalink)
squirrelyburt Crazy Location: Central Wisconsin	They got BET (Black Entertainment TV) and Miss Black USA... not a probelm for me, but could you imagine the screams if whites started W(white)ET or had Miss white USA? I'd watch that just for the uproar __________________ If you've ever felt there was a reason to be afraid of the dark, you were right.

04-12-2005, 12:43 PM	#94 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Manx the only illogic I see is your own, the arguement isn't whether or not minorities are as racist as white people. The issue is since when does legislated discrimination become legit? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-12-2005, 12:55 PM	#96 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	So discrimination is legit as long as you are sticking it to whitey? Yeah that's sound logic... __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-12-2005, 06:07 PM	#101 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there is a curious problem with ancient threads that get bumped in that it is not obvious how to deal with the entirety of the previous discussion--does it still matter? does it still frame the debate? do you respond to posts that are over a year old? anyway: i read through the more recent tendrils gorwing off the seemingly dead stump from before and wondered if i had accidentally stumbled in to another of those annoying college republicans stage pinhead agitprop bakesales while pretending that the pricing policies something like a coherent metaphor for how affirmative actions works. same goofball thinking from the right in the responses. it's like there is some secret conservative parlor game that involves trawling around for threads in which they can say exactly what got shot down each of the last 20 times it was posted so they can write the same arguments down again. maybe they get fabulous prizes. maybe there is something erotic about writing this kind of argument, something erotic i wouldnt understand because it think the arguments are just stupid. the question is not "discrimination in general" but the problems caused within the u.s. by slavery, then by the appalling sequence of events that was reconstruction, a history of racism, a civil rights movement after world war 2 that demanded a lot more than affirmative action--things like basic changes to the american capitalist order--but instead the movement was handed affirmative action. so the question of discimination was, and remains, about this particular type of discrimination practiced by these particular agents upon this particular set of other folk for no reason really beyond the color of their skin. if the americans were a bit less world class in their virtuoso use of racism, they probably would not have seen the extension of anti-discrimination legislation to include other groups--but they were, and the americans really have no-one to blame but themselves for it. to read that history does not matter from the same people who in other threads spend much time grovelling at the feet of the fetish-objects the call the Founding Fathers, defending obvious lunacy like the doctrine of original intent is just funny. they do seem to like the reconstruction period, however, these folk who claim that history is not binding on them except when they say it is....they reproduce alot of the arguments floated by white poorer southerners of the period: like the sense that they were the victims of federal government attempts to provide some recompense for the folk who had previously been understood as objects, commodities...dealing retrospectively with the fact of racism and its effects...you know, i am sure these people felt that history did not weigh on or bind them either--hell, by reconstruction (1870, say) the civil war was over, it was history, it ended ....what....5 years before why should the past weigh on the present. and there were the same arguments for limiting the authority of the federal government, which threatened the continuity of systems of racist privelege---the same types of arguments for states rights, for local control.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-12-2005, 08:46 AM	#87 (permalink)
Jesseboy Upright	I hate to bring back a thread from the dead, but I wanted to chip in my two cents and see this debate come back to life... One of my very good friends from high school was a Native American and because he lived on the reservation he was given a portion of the profits from a nearby casino. His tribe is located in Minnesota and it is relatively small, the casino that they run is huge, as well as highly profitable. Since he turned 18, he has gotten weekly checks for many thousands of dollars a piece - he has so much money he doesn't even know what to do with it. He spends his days sleeping and his nights partying - the money being used to purchase alchohol and other materials that he ends up snorting. The whole situation pisses me off because he basically makes just under $300,000.00 a year for sitting on his ass because of his blood - while others are working their asses off and still struggling. The reason I bring this up is because I don't believe that we should still allow native americans to have all these special rules that help them out ridiculously. Don't get me wrong - America has done many terrible things to a great number of people(s) - but paying for it for the rest of forever is ridiculous. Same goes for slavery. It was terrible, it happened, it's done. I think that monetary subsidation is a fraction of what should be given to those that acutally survived it, but someone should not be rewarded because their great great grandfather was a slave. War and conquering land typically involve terrible things - but it happened os long ago it shouldn't have any real effect on what happens now to those related to those who were mistreated... You don't see Rome paying out to countries because they had conquered them...

04-12-2005, 11:25 AM	#89 (permalink)
Manx Loser	A taste of medicine. Instant Karma. Dissapointing. Not suprising. Nothing I would shed a tear over. I'm sure you realize that it always has and always will go both ways, yes? Fortunately for the white folk, there are more of them and they traditionally hold, and started with, the upper hand. So discrimination will always ultimately favor them, by virtue of mathematics.

04-12-2005, 12:51 PM	#95 (permalink)
Manx Loser	And the answer is purely logical: When there is no alternative method of dealing with the adverse affects of discrimination against minorities. So when you argue against that week after week after week, your illogic gives me a headache.

04-12-2005, 07:02 PM	#102 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm white and I don't care. I was going to teach in Canada right out of college. I had friends up in (name of Canadian College withheld) and they needed a music prof. The problem? They already had a good amount of white men working there. I knew I didn't stand a chance against females or non-whites. I had no problem with that. I stayed local and became a consultant for 4 time what I would have made. The playing field still isn't level. Slavery may have been over for a long time, but racism isn't. I may not be racist, so it isn't fair when I am treaded less for being white, but how often are black, asian, latin, etc. people treated unfairly for no reason? I can take a little heat for my race being stpuid for a while.

04-13-2005, 01:43 PM	#103 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	I always though racism against whites was called political correctness? __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

04-13-2005, 03:45 PM	#104 (permalink)
yatzr Insane	nosoup: have you tried sending in some rejected "non-white" applications as "white" to see if there's ever a difference? Or maybe sending rejected "white" ones in as "white" again? I only ask because I'd think different people would decide on each one, and when they're borderline, different people would give different results. Just a thought. __________________ Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

04-14-2005, 10:02 PM	#106 (permalink)
blakngold4 Upright	NoSoup...here's the biggest problem i see with your argument. you say "if our goal is equality, in my opinion, we shouldn't be helping some more than others based on the color of their skin." you're missing part of the statement: it's only true if people are equal to begin with. if large groups have been dumped in holes they have to climb out of, treating everyone equally will serve only to maintain the same levels of imbalance in society that existed before. my views on this subject as a whole have changed dramatically in the past five years. i've applied to college, gone, graduated in 3 years, applied to law school, and gone there too. it sucks. don't go. anyway, i see plenty of people who didn't have the same sat/lsat scores i did that got into better colleges than me. is it fair? not really. is it good policy? probably. my parents worked for what they have, but they had enough to lay out 13 G's for private school, and i know that i got 34hrs of college credit, among other things, from having a chance to go to private school. looking back, do i understand why some "less deserving" minorities got into schools that i didn't? yeah. did it piss me off when it happened? yeah, but the thing is, for every minority you can find that gets affirmative action admission to your favorite school, i can find four fairly privileged white kids who were squarely on the fence but got turned down. it's not perfect. i think it's ridiculous that the rich black girl at my private school gets her choice of college even though my SAT is over 200 pts higher, but she also spent four years as the only black girl in her class, so it's not like there are too many others like her. since all things go back to baseball, i'll borrow this bit from a quality book: two guys run to first in fairly similar times. one runs with perfect form and gets down the basepaths smoothly. the other runs a little wild, and may be slightly inefficient in making the trek. who do you take? answer: the one without the form. he's already about as fast as the other guy, and he can be taught to run with form, making him better long-term. ps...quotas aren't real. don't talk about them. the college i went to had well over 20,000 students, and in a class of 4500 freshmen, they had 200 black kids show up. this isn't wisconsin either. the state's about 1/8th black, and they get 200 black students. sorry, but i got no problem letting in an extra hundred less advantaged students or minorities when the demographics at my school (and many my friends attended) are overwhelmingly full of white kids from middle and upper class homes.

04-15-2005, 11:13 AM	#107 (permalink)
pennywise121 Upright Location: Sacramento	at the risk of starting another flame war, there would appear to be some misconceptions here that no one noticed. first, affirmative action does not mandate preference in all situations. AA only comes into play when it is deemed that there is a problem. now, before any of you respond with the kneejerk flame, i ask that you actually sit down and READ the legislation. (oh, and btw, quotas dont exist, as was pointed out a bit earlier) second, we can spin "fact" any way we want to, but the census info that was posted was correct (and, not that it is any consolation, but i have run the numbers myself). if u want statistics, ive got plenty of them. like for instance, blacks are arrested more than three times as often as they actually commit the crime they are arrested for. or, perhaps the API scores for inner city and mostly minority schools being around 1 or 2, while there is a little (predominantly) white city of..... 130,000 people a bit south of me that has API scores of 9 and 10, some of the best in the nation. i refuse wholeheartedly to get into hypotheticals or any form of "i know a guy." all i can do is report the things that are collected. to complain about preferential treatment in colleges without looking at the dismal quality of education recieved by understaffed, underfunded schools is simply wrongheaded. as for the so-called "culture of poverty" (the idea that minorities are socialized to remain in poverty) is a load of crap, sociologically speaking. open a newspaper. turn on the news (local is best). please, some one tell me how many instances of positive white males there are in any given hour. now, tell me how many violent crimes by minorities are reported. the simple fact is that we live in a white world. if you were told day in and day out that you couldnt amount to anything, you would start to believe it (a la labeling theory). i understand that this forum is dedicated to giving people the chance to express their thoughts, and for that i am very appreciative. but seriously now, before you post another comment, stop and take a look at the world around you. then compare this to the "common knowledge" that everyone is so aware of. Do you see a disparity between the two? I do. __________________ Food for thought.

04-15-2005, 03:34 PM	#109 (permalink)
jbw97361 Tilted	HERE'S A GREAT IDEA Just eliminate the race checkbox from all forms, government and private. If you feel the need to differentiate yourself from others based on the color of your skin and not the content of your character, you are a racist by definition. Just dont even let it be an issue. __________________ JBW

04-15-2005, 04:03 PM	#110 (permalink)
pennywise121 Upright Location: Sacramento	see, you are very and firmly rooted in your feelings, and that is okay. the simple fact of the matter is that you are looking at the exception and thinking that it proves the rule. the simple fact that there are three famous african americans (four, including the supreme court) in washington and oprah does not mean that everythign is okay. of the hundreds of television shows and thousands of people working in washington, five is not such a huge number. simple numbers are against you. and it doesnt matter how many people you know or i know that have made it, the facts remain the same. there are entire groups of people that are not as advantaged as you are. if you think this isnt the case, think about whether you would want to trade places with any minority living in an inner city..... south central LA for example. with over a 50% unemployment rate since the factories left the inner city, do you think you could make it? put yourself in the shoes of the people you claim are so advantaged and ask yourself this: would you change your skin color to become a black man if you could? if the answer is no, you need to acknowledge that there is a reason for it. if everythign was equal or they have it better, there would be no question about whether you would do it. simple fact of life at the moment is things are not equal. not even close. if u want a personal story instead of statistics, here u go: i am a white male, and i come from a rather poor family, but i am about to graduate with my Masters in Sociology and will be attending Berkeley this fall to start my doctoral work. thing is, at every step i have been advanced and seen my friends fall by the wayside because they couldnt afford to advance, or werent able to. it takes money to get into college, and when a family cant afford to put food on the table, college start-up expenses are a bitch. i dont know of a single person in six years of college that was there on any scholarship for ethnicity. when it comes right down to it, minority students have not had the same opportunities as i have. there is not a day that am not thankful for the advantages i have had. but you know one big difference between me and most of my friends? i could do exactly what i am about to do to this thread. LEAVE. i got out because i was advantaged; they didnt because they werent. if you want to believe that you are the victim, go ahead; its youre right. but i havent the time to argue with you about our differences. the challenge still stands. look around you and see how many positive images of whites and negative stereotypes of minorities you see. as for me, i've said my piece __________________ Food for thought.

04-21-2005, 06:47 PM	#111 (permalink)
questone Crazy	The funny thing is that, when most white people complain about being discriminated against, they only think that they are being discriminated against. They only pewl about "the poor, suffering white people". As far as they're concerned, racism ended somewhere between mlk's death and the cosby show.