Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
White males need not apply

By scorbett in Op-Ed
Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 01:34:55 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

The Canadian Government's Department of Public Works has recently announced a change to their hiring policy - a change that would ensure that only women or visible minorities are given new jobs in that department. The change has given rise to accusations of racism, especially coming from a government that has described itself as "colour blind". The Deputy Minister of Public Works, David Marshall, has ordered the new policy to be put into place for the next five months, at which time it will be reviewed.


From the first linked article:

Robb Macpherson, a labor attorney with the firm McCarthy Tetrault, agrees Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms permits some discrimination to assist groups identified by the government as disadvantaged, but the form it usually takes is through programs that promote recruitment and hiring of qualified people from those groups - not by banning members of a non-minority class.

OPINION - You can't end racism by institutionalizing it

This is a frankly terrible policy decision that can only end badly for the Canadian Government in general and the Department of Public Works in particular.

It appears that the intention behind this move is to bring more diversity to the public service of Canada. Although perhaps well-intentioned, this move will certainly engender resentment on the part of otherwise qualified candidates who will be turned away due to their gender and skin colour. Worse, it flies in the face of stated government policy which forbids discrimination based on those factors. This move may also provide ammunition to white racists in Canada who will argue that that this policy is "affirmative action gone mad" and that this is some grand conspiracy to supplant the white man's rightful place, or some such nonsense.

Racism does indeed exist in Canada, as it probably does in every nation around the globe. This is unfortunate, and it is therefore understandable that the government would desire to rid itself of any appearance of racism. Marshall fears that having an all male and caucasian department might send the wrong message, and so he seeks to remedy this by forbidding the hiring of any more caucasian males. Of course, by doing this, he is fostering the same kind of racism he claims to fight against - the fact that his racism flows in the opposite direction does not mean it isn't just as racist.

You can't end racism by institutionalizing it - all you are doing is changing the type of discrimination in effect. The only way to ensure that there is no racism present in the system is for the government to be truly colour blind and gender blind, meaning that no ethnic group or gender should receive preferential or less-than-favourable treatment.

ARMCHAIR POLITICS - My "ideal world" solution

Marshall's plan should be help up as an example of how not to lay out a governmental hiring policy. The Canadian Federal Government should pay absolutely no attention to race or gender when making hiring decisions. This means that all "affirmative action" type policies should be abolished, as they are inherently racist. Government jobs should go to the most qualified candidate, period.

My justification for this is simple - discrimination and racism have no place in the government of a democratic society. The government should not be allowed to consider skin colour or gender as factors when hiring.

BACK TO REALITY

Of course, my solution may be considered idealistic or even naïve given certain unpleasant realities that exist within our society - namely, that many ethnic minorities come from financially disadvantaged backgrounds and are unable to afford higher education (Aboriginal Canadians, for example, are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-Aboriginals). Therefore, the question that arises is: how can people from such backgrounds reasonably be expected to achieve the necessary qualifications? Shouldn't the government be obligated to step in and lend a hand in an attempt to equalize the situation? This question is especially poignant since in many cases, the government is responsible in the first place for placing those ethnic groups into their current situations.

I suppose another way of phrasing the above question would be this: is racism always a bad thing, or is it possible to use racism as a tool for good, to correct some imbalance that should not have existed in the first place?

My personal opinion is that two wrongs don't make a right, and that a racist government is never a good thing. However, I acknowledge the strong probability that abruptly ending affirmative action and other racist hiring policies would probably do more harm than good in the short term. However, in the long run, a colour-blind (and gender-blind) government is the only truly fair, and therefore desirable, outcome.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o only women or visible minorities are given new jobs
o accusation s of racism
o David Marshall
o stated government policy
o twice as likely to live in poverty
o the government is responsible
o Also by scorbett


Display: Sort:
White males need not apply | 294 comments (283 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden)
KKKanada (1.63 / 11) (#1)
by Wormwood Khan on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 01:07:04 PM EST

I'm glad I don't live in North America.

Fucking barbarians.

UzbeKKKistan $ (1.66 / 6) (#11)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:10:18 PM EST


----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

KKKazaKKKhstan (2.00 / 6) (#37)
by CoolSpot on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 07:09:01 PM EST



[ Parent ]
UzbeKeKeKe-istan $ (1.60 / 5) (#60)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 08:14:45 AM EST


----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

KKKuro$$$hin (2.33 / 3) (#192)
by trav on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:58:13 PM EST

Wait what were we talking about?

[ Parent ]
We are giving me an excuse to write (2.00 / 2) (#199)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 05:11:21 PM EST

kekekekeke.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

The problem, of course (2.44 / 9) (#3)
by Benway on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 01:34:33 PM EST

Is that "most qualified candidate" is itself a value judgment and prone to being influenced by racist attitudes.

Consider, purportedly "objective" hiring criteria that favor white men are frequently not subject to any sort of rigorous demonstration that they actually predict "job performance," whatever that is. Given the deeply subjective nature of "qualifications" and "performance," a system in which employment is determined by these factors alone will be inherenty unfair if the controlling class maintains any residual racism at all.

The point to keep in mind is this. Even though a measure may be objective, it's application to a particular decision may be anything but. For example, it would be perfectly objective, in one sense, to base hiring on height, but of course this would be irrational and bizarre. Don't assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that the selection of any other hiring criteria aren't equally value-driven.

Then what's the solution? (2.87 / 8) (#4)
by scorbett on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 01:42:12 PM EST

Should the government implement deliberately racist policies, such as the one described in the article, in an attempt to remove the inherent racism held by the "controlling class", as you put it? If so, for how long should these racist policies be in effect? Forever? Or until such time as they are no longer necessary? (and how would we know when that is?)

[ Parent ]
Calling the racial preference of minorities (2.00 / 5) (#6)
by Benway on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 01:50:27 PM EST

In hiring "racism" is just disingenuous. Perhaps you can find a dictionary definition that defines racism as straight racial classification, but everyone in real-world debates understands it to encompass animus toward the disadvantaged class.

Anyway, placing minorities in the position to directly and indirectly influence the educational and employment opportunities of other minorities is the perhaps the only way to counteract the effect of deeply-held, subtly racist attitudes. As to how long affirmative action plans should remain in effect, ask me again when certain minorities are no longer grossly disproportionately overrepresented among the impoverished, the undereducated, and the imprisoned.

[ Parent ]

Okay (2.25 / 4) (#14)
by scorbett on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:15:45 PM EST

Anyway, placing minorities in the position to directly and indirectly influence the educational and employment opportunities of other minorities is the perhaps the only way to counteract the effect of deeply-held, subtly racist attitudes.

So you replace one set of deeply-held, subtly racist attitudes with another set of deeply-held, subtly racist attitudes, and in fifty years' time, we'll be debating whether or not whites should receive special treatment by the government because they've been excluded for fifty years.

I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with your point, but it seems quite cicular to me. There has to be a better way than this, surely.

[ Parent ]

You really think requiring proportionality (2.00 / 5) (#19)
by Benway on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:35:19 PM EST

In employment for a few years is going to lead to deeply-held animosity toward whites? That's absurd, frankly.

Look, I understand that the white majority doesn't want to give up what's left of its position of dominance, but that's just too bad. White people don't have a right to a disproportionate share of wealth and political power and the institutions that support that disparity are going to be torn down.

When people of all races are freely and fairly intermixed across all cross-sections of society, then affirmative action can stop. If you really think equality of this sort disadvantages white people in some way, you have an unfortunate and incorrect view of what white people are entitled to.

[ Parent ]

I question the word "equality"... (2.50 / 4) (#23)
by scorbett on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:47:08 PM EST

... when it is used in a context such as the one mentioned in the article. Denying someone a job because of the colour of their skin is not setting a reasonable standard of equality, regardless of your reasons for doing so. However, I admit that my view may be more idealistic than realistic.

[ Parent ]
Quotas (2.57 / 7) (#28)
by Sgt York on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 04:17:28 PM EST

Some years back, I applied to medical school. I didn't get in, for two reasons. One, I wasn't a resident of that state, so the standards were higher. I was also told by one of the guys that wrote me a letter of rec (a faculty member of that school, who sat on the application committee) that I didn't get in due to the "heterogeneity of my karyotype", i.e., I'm male.

There are numerous examples of this, in both gender and race. The effect is now coming about: The black doctor you're going to....did he get into med school because he's qualified, or because he's black?

Racists use this as ammunition, and it causes a backlash. It's twofold, first there's the claim that blacks/hispanics/women are so underqualified that the government has to legislate a boost for them. Second, there's the claim that black/hispanic/female members of profession x are only there because they are affirmative action benficiaries. "Go to a white doctor. You know he got in because he's qualified."

Yes, yes, I know it's not true. This is a tactic used by racists to recruit more racists. This is my argument; that these policies hand ammunition over to people wanting to propagate racism.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Wow, you're right. (2.20 / 5) (#30)
by Benway on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 04:25:47 PM EST

Race policy should try, as its overriding goal, never to offend racists.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (2.60 / 5) (#31)
by Sgt York on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 04:39:29 PM EST

Where did I say that policies shouldn't offend racists? Where did I say that they were offended? Did you read the last paragraph, or did you just go and stack up a few more chips on your shoulder after reading the second paragraph?

I never said that policies should ensure they don't offend racists. I said that the policies should never give them ammunition. My point is that these policies have a backlash, an unintended and undermining consequence. This allows them to convince others that they are correct, propagating the idea. This is the danger.

I don't give a rat's ass if they get offended.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

You called it "ammunition" (1.33 / 3) (#41)
by Benway on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:32 PM EST

Yes, but what we're really talking about is perceived threats to the system of white dominance. Let's not be coy.

[ Parent ]
Ah (2.62 / 8) (#50)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:28:30 AM EST

I forgot to take into account your mind-reading powers. Next time, I shall wear my tinfoil hat, and thus thwart you.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

You seem to be using... (2.25 / 4) (#39)
by BJH on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 08:49:55 PM EST

...a new and interesting, but strangely useless, definition of "reading comprehension".
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
You have a very small mind. (1.25 / 4) (#42)
by Benway on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 09:03:20 PM EST

I know what he's trying to tell me, and it's not as interesting as what he actually is telling me.

[ Parent ]
I think you mean... (2.14 / 7) (#47)
by BJH on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:47:42 PM EST

..."I don't care what he's trying to say, I want him to have said this instead."
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
I think you've only thought (1.60 / 5) (#127)
by Benway on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:06:45 PM EST

About race issues superficially, if at all. If you can't see that "affirmative action is counterproductive" means nothing above and beyond "affirmative action offends racists," then you're really not ready to come to the table.

Maybe stick to the comic book threads and let adults handle the heavy stuff?

[ Parent ]

really? (2.66 / 3) (#168)
by sirmeili on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:43:05 AM EST

So what you are saying is that because I am offended that I will not be considered for a job based on my color of skin or gender, I am racists? Please, pray tell, explain this.

Affirmitive action does not solve anything, it merely shifts the discrimination to another group, in this case white males. Do I have an alternate solution? No. But that doesn't mean affirmitive action is a valid one.

Sir Meili

[ Parent ]
Please (2.50 / 4) (#104)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:57:08 PM EST

Enlighten me. I would love to know what I am actually telling you. I was under the impression that I was telling you that affirmative action is counterproductive, but apparently I am saying something else in an entirely different language.

Apparently I am saying that we should avoid offending racists? I am exceptionally interested in what carrier wave you picked up that gave you that idea.

Mind, I'm not going to enter in a debate. I have already come to the conclusion that you are either a troll, a fool, or simply ashamed of misreading my post at first, and trying to save face. So whatever your reply, it is intended for entertainment purposes only.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Yeah, you said it's counterproductive. (1.33 / 3) (#126)
by Benway on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:04:04 PM EST

But it's only counterproductive in that it's offensive to racists. Now, no matter how hard you try to come up with another reason that it's counterproductive, all you'll be doing is dressing up "it's offensive to racists."

Non-racists do not experience resentment at having their racial advantage removed.

[ Parent ]

Of course they rejected you. You're an idiot. (1.33 / 6) (#43)
by durdee on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 09:09:08 PM EST

It only matters if your doctor graduated from medical school because of affirmative action. Nobody is "qualified" when they're going in.
---
Fact: You have no insight whatsoever into my motivations, personality, or thought process.
[ Parent ]
Medical School has a low drop out rate (none / 1) (#172)
by Grey42 on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:35:26 AM EST

Getting in to Medical School vertually assures that you will get out of Medical School the drop out rate is very low (<10%) in my recolection. Compair this to ~50% for B.Sc. in Engeering or 60% in graduate school for Science and Engeering Ph.D.s or 90% for Humanities Ph.D.s. Most of these programs also have selective or very selective programs but they seem to have a hard time keeping there students in...
-- Grey 42(Chris Lusena)
[ Parent ]
Where did you get those figures from? (1.50 / 2) (#179)
by durdee on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:38:26 PM EST


---
Fact: You have no insight whatsoever into my motivations, personality, or thought process.
[ Parent ]
Acceptance practically assures graduation... (none / 1) (#223)
by DonQuote on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 02:27:16 AM EST

... as medical schools invest a lot of time and money into training their students (especially in Canada where the government heavily subsidises the tuition). In my medical class of 200 students, only about 2-4 ppl who started with me won't be graduating with me. The school is very accomodating (perhaps too much) and unless you're a) a complete idiot or b) so lazy and unmotivated that you don't do ANY work, you will graduate. That being said, there are plenty of medical grads out there who are terrible doctors, regardless of ethnicity or gender... so that's not a real test of competence either. Each individual physician needs to be assessed on their own merits.

-DQé
... Use tasteful words. You may have to eat them.
[ Parent ]
Nobody has the right (2.25 / 4) (#68)
by Already Late on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:00:25 AM EST

to free money/power just because of their skin color.

All that is necessary for equality is for society to provide the same level of opportunity to all individuals.  This is what government should be aiming for.  
Nobody can hope to succeed in life without having several basic needs provided for:  food, shelter, transportation, education, basic healthcare, etc...  How to best provide these thinks is up for debate.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul solves nothing.


[ Parent ]

you talk about "white people" (2.66 / 3) (#171)
by lostincali on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:18:56 AM EST

like we're all just one homogeneous group. It's completely absurd.

Think about it: lots and lots of white people are in a subordinate position in society too. lots of white people are poor, uneducated, and suffering. There are lots of white people who get discriminated against for being white. Oh but that doesn't fit your worldview, just throw it out.


"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

Buddy (2.10 / 10) (#5)
by actmodern on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 01:48:52 PM EST

This isn't about affirmative action. It's about making sure your labour force represents all facets of the community it serves. You want everyone on board. Currently there may be too many caucasion males onboard. They may very well be very qualified but if they don't understand how another local culture lives and thinks they won't be able to serve a multicutural country.

Think of it that way.


--
LilDebbie challenge: produce the water sports scene from bable or stfu. It does not exist.

Ok (2.80 / 10) (#123)
by JahToasted on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:22:17 PM EST

I'm a white male canadian that happened to have lived in Jamaica for five years. I can serve both the white community and the West Indian community. Under your logic I should be given a job right away. Unfortunately, under this policy I won't even be considered.

If you want to make "understanding how another local culture lives and thinks" a required qualification then do exactly that. Don't just assume that a white guy can have no understanding of another culture. That's pretty racist if you ask me.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

Interesting thought (2.16 / 12) (#9)
by codejack on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 02:28:31 PM EST

I would have thought that many on this site would regard "institutionalizing" racism as a sure-fire way to end bigotry; After all, the government can't do anything right, even discriminate, ey?


Please read before posting.

i say yes to quotas (1.00 / 6) (#10)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:01:55 PM EST

if you break down income by race and sex, the disparities are obvious

a truly egalitarian society wouldn't have these discrepancies

but they exist, due to historical afterglow

the disparities should naturally balance out over time, but how long will that take?

so the government engaging in ways of speeding that process up doesn't bother me

of course there are those who are bothered by quotas, but that's only because there are people in this world who can't juggle more than one simple idea in their mind at a time

it's not institutionalizing racism, when the "racism" runs counter to historical precedent


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Because there is wonderful historical precedent (2.25 / 4) (#22)
by Sgt York on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:46:25 PM EST

the disparities should naturally balance out over time, but how long will that take?
If not done carefully, speeding up a natural process is dangerous at least, and catastrophic at worst.

But then again, federal governments like Canada and the US have WONDERFUL track records of knowing the precise consequences of their actions, their foresight is the stuff of legend.

Yes, the inequalities are obvious and need to be rectified. But if we go mucking around in what we assume to be a natural balancing out, things can get nasty. You can't legislate morality. If you try to force this on people that are already racist, that will make them even more racist. And they are obviously the ones with the actual power, as that they are the ones making the hiring decisions. Take away that power, and you can be certain they have other avenues to channel their predispositions.

The only way to stamp out racism is to let it die on the vine. Don't let it spread any further. Shit like this just helps it spread, it gives the racists ammunition to spawn new followers.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

no, racism does not fade away (1.33 / 3) (#53)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:32:41 AM EST

racism has to be shanked to death in the prison yard one morning when it wasn't expecting it and the prison guards are elsewhere

racism is the special provenance of loud vicious stupid people, and it congeals and grows like mold in a wet basement if it isn't actively countered


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Teh insanity gave me teh cancer -nt (2.00 / 5) (#71)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:08:08 AM EST


There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

if you're saying what i think you are saying (2.00 / 2) (#72)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:20:42 AM EST

that i am confusing cause and effect (that i am saying insanity causes the cancer rather than cancer causing the insanity) i have to tell you you are wrong about what racism is

racism happens two ways:

  1. it is fostered and taught and encouraged
  2. it occurs to low iq, high volume retards of their very own volition, in a vacuum of all other influences
in other words, if you have the most egalitarian socety in the world, with all sorts fo white and balck and brown and red and yellow people, all earning the same money, equal parts in every class of society, rich and poor, represented in equal, proportional amounts in all echelons of government and business...

you're still going to find some asshole somewhere saying racist things

really

all it takes for racism in this world is an open mouth and a low iq, forever more

so you must actively fight racism, and push back against, forever

it never goes away, and if you don't fight, it grows, as other low iq retards with open mouths copy each other "oh yeah, that guy is right: blacks are inferior to whites"

racism grows

...like a cancer ;-)

it must be actively pushed back against, forever

you never kill it once, and then it is gone forever

stupidity needs no preconditions to exist


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

*grkkkk* (2.20 / 5) (#75)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:44:53 AM EST

That was the sound of my aneurysm.

Teh further craziness has made teh cancer metastasize and lodge in my brain, acting as teh last straw on vessels already near breaking point from said craziness.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

cool! (2.33 / 3) (#78)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:48:19 AM EST

what can i do to push you over the edge?

and as you die, please open a new diary page

you would achieve instant fame in your death: the first person to actually record their last dying words and thoughts in a blog

teh awesomeness!

it would probably look like this "arrrrrrrrrghdnskask sadd....f"


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ROR (2.80 / 5) (#79)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:06:02 AM EST

I had something really funny written out, ending with my head falling on the keyboard to simulate my K5 death rattle. But as my nose hit 'alt', my forehead hit 'F4'.

And that was much, much funnier.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Seriously, though (2.33 / 3) (#102)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:51:13 PM EST

Yes, racism must be pushed back, like a cancer. However, you need to make sure what you are doing is actually pushing the cancer back, and not feeding it. It is my opinion, and observation, that among racist communities, affirmative action perpetuates racism.

And stop whirling around on me, you normally hold to one theme like a bulldog, but here you're saying first that the "disparities should naturally balance out over time", then you say "racism does not fade away". Make up yer damn mind, boy.

I don't suggest ignoring the problem, that would be suicidal. Are you familiar with the mechanism of letting something "die on the vine"? You don't actually leave the thing attached, you cut it off from its supply, you sever the branch anchoring it. The branch anchoring it is ignorance, not stupidity. I know a lot of nonracist idiots, and I know some highly intelligent, but ignorant, racists.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Historical Afterglow (2.33 / 3) (#24)
by minerboy on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:52:39 PM EST

Or low IQ ? From where do you get the assumption that all ethnic groups should be equally represented in all areas of endeavor ?

I suppose you expect appropriate percentages of Pygmies in the NBA - hell even percentages of white guys in the NBA, or as olympic sprinters. I don't here you squaking about that.

And before you go off on some stupid tangent, you'd be foolish to not hire a qualified individual because of race, and yes, there should be laws that stop blatant discrimination, but social engineered percentages based on false assumptions, and bogus doctrine - fuck off.



[ Parent ]
YHBT. HTH. HAND. (no fucking text) (1.33 / 3) (#33)
by kosuri on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 05:37:38 PM EST


--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]
low iq? i didn't read anything after those 2 words (none / 1) (#52)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:30:08 AM EST

are you serious?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
do you know (1.00 / 2) (#55)
by minerboy on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:29:18 AM EST

What the IQ of the applicants are maybe the non-whites that applied were not as smart as the white males that applied. Maybe smart non-whites apply for better jobs



[ Parent ]
the cult of iq (2.50 / 4) (#61)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 08:33:57 AM EST

there are plenty of high iq people (like high tech asocial coders on k5) who will never crack a 6 figure income their entire life

the reason for this is they don't have much social intelligence

solving a topological puzzle or doing linear algebra is an amazing intellectual feat

but getting along with others and leading them, emotional intelligence, is an entirely different animal, and it is a more important measure of someone's "intelligence" and ability to perform in the workforce, or any endeavor in life, really, such as relationships with the opposite sex, than the cult of iq wants to admit

mathematical reasoning ability is highly overrated in life

it's practically useless

and yet it is the driving force behind an iq score

feel free, dear autistic and aspergers syndrome high iq low social intelligence assholes, to rate this comment low

it's not like you have the social ability to respond coherently to the comment ;-)

and as for the fuckwad i'm responding too: it's entirely appropriate for an asocial loser white male prick to play the blame game rather than working hard in life and achieving on your own initiative

real leaders don't look to someone else for permission, they simply achieve on their own terms, and earn high incomes on their own terms

playing the blame game, meanwhile, is entirely the game of losers

the ONLY people who would complain about the quotas we are talking about is exactly the sort of sheep like loser who only knows how to follow and blame and others, and has a sense of entitlement they defend, because that's all they know how to do

enjoy your life, loser, it's a life of diminshing returns based on your rationale for how you and why you derive your income


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Why would any sane person (2.25 / 4) (#65)
by minerboy on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:01:50 AM EST

Give up an entitlement. People are fighting all over the world to gain entitlement. We have had affirmative action in the US for decades now, notice how the newly entitled people fight when someone suggest we equal things out. On the other hand, a self loathing nihilist like yourself are more than willing to throw any advantage you have into the wind - I suggest you give up your job as an itinerant street busker to some non-white non-male, take one for the team as it were.

The world is truly a warped place when suggesting that the best people get hired for a job is considered an entitlement.

Now listen very carfully - what if the white males that apply for a job have better social and academic intelligences. They have fewer arrests, they have more experience. To not hire them so that you can do a bit of social engineering, well we'll reap what we sew.



[ Parent ]
everything you said would be true (1.00 / 2) (#66)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:39:58 AM EST

if the reverse didn't happen for decades: that is, favoring white males over all others for all of the reason you hate race/ sex quotas today

in other words, you are 100% correct, in a historical vacuum

except that we don't live in a historical vacuum

so what do you have to say to the decades where the reverse happened: unfairly favoring white males?

you talk about us reaping what we sow: well, look what we have reaped: incomes skewed along racial lines

is that fair?

don't you want to do something about that unfairness?

do you deny history?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The problem with history (2.00 / 3) (#77)
by minerboy on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:46:17 AM EST

is that it is subject to different interpretations, so it is hard to decide how to fix an injustice, or even decide what justice is. Then there is the issue of collective guilt vs individual guilt. So, I've never been favored because I am a white male. I've never discriminated against anyone because of race. (beyond some post here on K5, maybe) What should I give up to compensate for past injustices of others. Then how long does this injustice last, how far back can we go, and when will we reach the point when you say - OK, that's enough.

It's the same idea as a war on terrorism, or a war on Drugs, There is no reasonable conclusion, when and what is enough ? If you don't know these things your jhsut pissing in the wind with quotas



[ Parent ]
the problem with history (1.00 / 2) (#80)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:10:07 AM EST

is that it exists

take every variation of interpretation of history you want, but that the japanese bombed pearl harbor can't be denied

take every variation of interpretation of history you want, but that white males have enjoyed priveledges in hiring and power that nonwhites have been refused can't be denied

in other words, that there are variations of interpretation of history is undeniable, you are right about that

but i rest my arguments on facts of history that are beyond interpretation, they are just stone cold fact

so you haven't countered my argument


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

its undeniable (2.50 / 4) (#83)
by minerboy on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:54:34 AM EST

In the past, white males were favored in terms of employment.

But

How should that be linked with what we do today ? - History isn't a vacuum, but its not a ball and chain either.



[ Parent ]
i agree 100% (1.75 / 4) (#92)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 01:14:34 PM EST

"History isn't a vacuum, but its not a ball and chain either"

i couldn't agree more

it's something in between, right?

so the problem is this: could you please explain to me how quotas in your mind are a ball and chain?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

They hold society back (2.20 / 5) (#107)
by minerboy on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:38:53 PM EST

By insisting that less competant people be hired. If quotas would actually redress a wrong, maybe the history argument would work, but they don't. Some have argued, and I tend to agree that, it actually makes things worse. Its tantamount to the application of leeches to relieve a fever

Now, the further question, that you should address, is, why should all races receive equal salaries ? I don't see anything that shows that this has to be true, even in a perfect world. Certainly certain groups of people have certain specific skills, and those skills may be more or less in demand, economically.



[ Parent ]
Ehum (2.00 / 2) (#133)
by PrinceSausage on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:52:58 PM EST

That is "competent". So unless you are member of a minority group you can't post here anymore.

And no - sexually repressed nerds for compulsory nudism isn't considered a minority group.

[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 1) (#134)
by PrinceSausage on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:53:45 PM EST

And I can't even write a complete sentence. Go figure.

[ Parent ]
dude, you're a racist (1.00 / 3) (#163)
by circletimessquare on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:02:52 AM EST

your thoughts are that from the time of hitler

you're an irrelevant dinosaur

all humans are equivalent in intellectual potential, regardless of skin color

so die dinosaur, or grow some iq points

because only low iq people think like you

in the society you seek, where status is determined by intellectual achievement, you're the janitor

because the quality of how you think about race betrays a low iq person, for only a low iq person could come to the conclusions you do, because anyone with a normal or high iq can navigate the same shoals of prejudice and logical inconsistency you founder on and realize why you are intellectually deficient and your arguments are riddled with holes

yes, we need genetic superiority in this world:

so please don't breed


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

problem is (2.00 / 2) (#194)
by minerboy on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:31:00 PM EST

You can't prove that your correct. You are living in a fantasy world.

The patient has a fever, Bleed them

They still have a fever, bleed them some more.



[ Parent ]
No Irish need apply (2.66 / 3) (#173)
by Grey42 on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:46:50 AM EST

"White" is a 20C race, before that there was plenty of discrimation against varies "White" people. Yet somehow this never comes up when dealing with race. Last I check beening Irish or Jewish did not give you a lower income where are the quotas that fixed this?

Just my pet peave when people talk about "whites" having historical preferences when it was realy only some of them. Look at the "slave walls" of Kentucky. They where not built by slaves because their labour was too costly but by Irish day labourers since they cost less, (and new how to do the work).
-- Grey 42(Chris Lusena)
[ Parent ]

history is for learning (2.33 / 3) (#109)
by kansur on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:52:07 PM EST

not correcting

Everyone's afraid to be the first to step into hell.
[ Parent ]

social intelligence (2.00 / 2) (#267)
by Morally Inflexible on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 10:37:51 PM EST

As far as I can tell, social intelligence consists of little more than the ability to lie well. I argue that liars are completely useless.

Of course, it is possible that I think this because I lack social intelligence to the point where I can not even understand what it is.

[ Parent ]

racism (2.33 / 3) (#45)
by banffbug on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:06:01 PM EST

If source of income should be the reason for race benefits, wouldn't it be odd if a native woman was rich? Chances are she is, as canada's gov't will give her $18,000(avg) cheque for turning eighteen and living on a reservation. (i don't disagree with this as some compensation for herding their people into "reserves" *cough* for eternty is in order.) If descrepencies of income are to motivate hiring bonii (bonuses if you prefer), why not drop the race assumption and look at their last 5 filed tax returns to see if they warrant assistance - it might be a white guy.

When making racial policy like this, you invite more great "racial balancing" acts into play........

Quotas bother me because the best person for the job should be my police officer, not some lucky number 250 category defined minority.

[ Parent ]

i didn't know that about canada (1.33 / 3) (#51)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:29:05 AM EST

canada is retarded

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
The native thing is retarded (2.50 / 2) (#131)
by JahToasted on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:18:08 PM EST

Why are we paying people to live on shitty reserves? Yeah, some bad things were done to natives a long time ago, but lets live in the now. A good number of reserves are shitty places to live. Indian Affairs is just perpetuating it buy paying people to live there.

I think we should identify all the problem reservations (some reservations aren't bad places to live), and pay them to leave. Eventually they will be assimilated into the rest of canadian culture (such that it is), and then we will finally end this fucked up situation.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

BS (none / 1) (#287)
by mindstrm on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 02:25:59 PM EST

"A long time ago" is about 40 years... that's how recently we were stealing their children, by law, and sticking them in residential schools run by abusive religious wingnuts.

That's not very long ago.

You talk as if we somehow "own" the reservations and can simply decide to remove them.. those people, as poor as they may be, have soverign rights to that land, and we CAN'T take it away, we don't have the legal power to do so. On the contrary.. they are increasingly finding they have the ability to take back land that used to be theirs, due to old agreements that were not upheld by the canadian government. THe more first-nations lawyers you see, themore you will see this happening.

Power to them I say.

[ Parent ]

Quotas of a different sort (2.66 / 3) (#152)
by starX on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:13:13 AM EST

Quotas of any sort introduced at an official level can only invariably lead to quotas of every sort.  How long would it be until quota based policies mandate race/gender/sexual preference diversity?  This ultimately leads to a less productive work force, and doesn't begin to address the issue of socio-economic stigma associated with these (and I really hate to use this word) "deviant" groups.  

How long will it be until immigration quotas come back?  Remember that race-based quotas were responsible for this tragedy.  The thought of all those people turned away at port just because the quota had been reached should be enough to discourage anyone from ever thinking that an official quota based system could ever be a good thing.

"I like you starX, you disagree without sounding like a fanatic from a rock-solid point of view. Highfive." --WonderJoust
[ Parent ]

Are you a racist homophobic misogynist? (1.66 / 3) (#155)
by Homburg on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:22:11 AM EST

How long would it be until quota based policies mandate race/gender/sexual preference diversity?  This ultimately leads to a less productive work force.

Why? Because all those blacks, women and queers are just not as good as straight white men? That looks like what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

How? (1.66 / 3) (#157)
by starX on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:33:36 AM EST

The key word is mandate.  The problem faced, at least here in the states, is a social one.  My argument is that if you say we must have 2 white mails, 2 white females, 2 Black males, 2 Black females, etc etc etc in a given work place, if some half-cocked federal guideline declares 1) official groups, 2) the guidelines for the inclusion in these groups, and 3) that a given employer must hire an equal amount of employees, managers, and executives from these groups, you are going to wind up with a system that by default excludes those who may be more qualified for the job.  I am unable to hire a very qualified black homosexual man, because federal guidleines require the person I hire to be white, female, and heterosexual.

Make sense now?

Mandating quotas is bad.  It's like trying to stop an arterial laceration with a band aid.  The problem we are dealing with is a deep seated social one, and it would not be fixed with such an artificial attempt at balance.  


"I like you starX, you disagree without sounding like a fanatic from a rock-solid point of view. Highfive." --WonderJoust
[ Parent ]

I suspect not... (2.50 / 2) (#195)
by issachar on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:41:32 PM EST

I suspect he's just saying that ever considering any criteria other than talent would lead to a less productive workforce.

He may or not be correct in that assessement as I notice that pretty much everyone's talking in terms of "well it's just obvious that...". But I doubt he's saying that "blacks, women and queers" are inherently less qualified.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

talent is almost never the criterion used. (1.50 / 2) (#250)
by la princesa on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 10:28:09 PM EST

that is the point of people objecting to the 'omg affirmative action is reverse racism/sexism that leads to hiring unqualified non-whites and women!!!!' meme that is apparently and unfortunately present among many of the posters here.  the means used to select whites more often are at least as subjective as any other criteria.  why allowing other groups in with the use of subjective criteria is bad is what a sane few are asking.  once in, everyone performs pretty similarly.  there's not really any statistically relevant difference, ONCE MINORITIES AND WOMEN GET IN TO THE JOB OR COLLEGE.

white guys always assume anything they get is on pure merit, and that is a lie.      

___
<qpt> Disprove people? <qpt> What happens when you disprove them? Do they disappear in a flash of logic?
[ Parent ]

Please tell me where I can cash in (none / 1) (#292)
by destroy all monsters on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:44:01 AM EST

on the being white thing. I could use the bread right now.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]
When it comes to things like this (2.00 / 3) (#12)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:11:33 PM EST

Canadians suck.

specially because, once you get outside the confines of a world south of Bloor and within a kilometer of Yonge St., most Canadians are pretty damn racist.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.

Where is that? (none / 1) (#82)
by khallow on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:31:48 AM EST

Where's that location for people who don't live there?

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

The corner of Yonge and Bloor (2.00 / 2) (#86)
by hatshepsut on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:28:20 PM EST

is in downtown Toronto...and I would disagree with the grandparent that this area is the sole bastion of equality and egalitarianism in Canada. Sigh.

[ Parent ]
I'm not saying it is: (2.50 / 2) (#113)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:13:26 PM EST

It's just that I've moved all over the country and in most places people are pretty racist. At leats in toronto, they fiegn equality. However, since you are probably at a university, I would include all people within the 500 feet surrounding most Canadian univerities as well.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

eh? (2.00 / 2) (#160)
by milksop on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:32:23 AM EST

What? I'm guessing this is a troll, but come on.

How about the Commercial Dr. in Vancouver? Italians, chinese, japanese, koreans, blacks, whites, hispanics, queers, and on and on. I lived there for a number of years, and I can't think of one instance of anyone ever getting worked up about race. When it's so much of a mess of random, who could possibly be racist-anything when you'd pretty much go out of your mind worrying about it if you were?
--
i make games.
[ Parent ]

Yeah, good point (none / 0) (#177)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:18:42 PM EST

Vancouver too. owever, outside of downown Vancouver, you gots some pretty damn racist BC'ers'.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

let me guess.. (none / 1) (#118)
by issachar on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:39:23 PM EST

that's where you live?

Spare us the ignorant condescension.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

Au contraire, my merde (none / 0) (#181)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:55:26 PM EST

I live out in the sticks.

Now you can draw OTHER conclusions.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#196)
by issachar on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:46:14 PM EST

I'm a tad sensitve as I'm from BC and I'm sick of being labelled as "ignorant, stupid or racist" but people who don't know me. I'm none of the above thank you very much.

As for your "most Canadians are pretty damn racist" comment, that simply doesn't match my experience. For the record, I was born in Vancouver, grew up in the Okanagan valley in BC, and I live in Langley near Vancouver now.

Either you have bad luck in who you meet outside of Toronto or I have very good luck.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

Your tiny Highway 1 corridor did not expose you to (none / 1) (#198)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 05:10:04 PM EST

ALBERTA, SASKATCHEWAN, MANITOBA or NORTHERN FRIKKIN ONTARIO.

Never mind Quebec. Damn, those kids is crazy racist.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

No, I haven't been everywhere in Canada. (none / 0) (#211)
by issachar on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:21:40 PM EST

I have been outside of my "tiny Highway 1 corridor". I've met people from all over. I've met some prejudiced people. My experience does not confirm the statement that most Canadians are racists. I don't think that's true.

I'm not suggesting that Canadians are perfect, but this started with you saying:

outside the confines of a world south of Bloor and within a kilometer of Yonge St., most Canadians are pretty damn racist.
I don't think that's correct.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

Take a relatively small enclave of (none / 1) (#227)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 08:54:47 AM EST

Canadians situated around very large cities in the country, and the very minor University communities out of the question and you have much different picture of Canada than most Canadians would like to admit to.

And, I'm not just talking about white Canadians with very old families. There's a reason there are no black people living on many streets in predominantly Indian niegborhoods in Brampton, Ontario (We're talking dots, not feathers here). Smae goes for Chinese or Korean neighborhoods. Thise cats HATE the black people.

So, we have home-grown racially separated communities as well as the imported variety. Canada is fairly decieved place, at least as far as the media presents it.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Typical Torontonian. (none / 0) (#254)
by justAnotherProphet on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 02:14:10 PM EST

I live in Halifax. Have you ever been outside the GTA? Go to any major metropolitan area and racism drops like a fuckin' rock. Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax.. huge non-white populations. Nobody out here gives a shit what's on your skin.

Fucking Torontonian. You think you're the centre of the universe.

[ Parent ]
I was reading a local paper the other day (2.73 / 15) (#15)
by LilDebbie on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:18:11 PM EST

while enjoying an All-American Quarter Pounder with Cheese at the local McDonald's. There was a front page article discussing the recent city council elections in Minneapolis. In said article, the ethnic heritages of several candidates was brought up before their policies were even mentioned. Was this a white-power, Neo-Nazi rag?

No, it was the local African-American community newspaper.

Reverse racism is still racism people. It's not going to go away if you keep practicing it. That's not a causal relationship, that just is.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Given the long and ongoing history (1.33 / 6) (#21)
by Benway on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:43:18 PM EST

Of marginalization that blacks have suffered at the hands of white politicians, you can't think of any legitimate reason at all that blacks would prefer to be represented by black politicians?

Idiot.

[ Parent ]

It wasn't just that they were black (2.80 / 10) (#29)
by LilDebbie on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 04:18:12 PM EST

One was said to be of Caribbean descent (first generation immigrant) and the other was sixth or seventh generation slave descendant. The latter tried to make a campaign issue out of the slavery heritage and the other shot back that he was descendant from slaves, just not U.S. ones.

Apparently this matters for city politics in a city that never knew slavery.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Small typo you post (3.00 / 3) (#149)
by xC0000005 on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:32:51 AM EST

I think what you meant was "wouldn't they prefer to be mis-represented by black politicians?"

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
The opposite of racism is not racism. (none / 1) (#25)
by durdee on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 04:07:35 PM EST


---
Fact: You have no insight whatsoever into my motivations, personality, or thought process.
[ Parent ]
Reverse Racism is a Misnomer (2.80 / 5) (#108)
by endeavor on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:39:14 PM EST

It's just racism; the position of the racist doesn't change anything.

[ Parent ]
---> counter-racism $ (none / 1) (#114)
by turn that frown upside down on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:22:05 PM EST



[ Parent ]
How would you know? (2.80 / 5) (#138)
by The opposite of racism on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:12:31 PM EST

You never write. You never even call.

You wouldn't know me if I bent you over the dinner table. Seriously.

[ Parent ]

There's no such thing as anti-white racism (1.36 / 11) (#156)
by Homburg on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:30:09 AM EST

A lot of crackers don't get this, but discrimination against white people is not racism. The mistake is to think that racism is simply individual dislike or prejudice against someone based on their race. It isn't - racism is a social system whereby members of a dominant race use their power to subordinate another race. Now, white people are the dominant race, and black people are not, therefore it is not possible for the kind of systematic oppression characteristic of racism to be directed against white people.

This is not to say that prejudice against white people is acceptable or a good thing. But it is not the same thing as the racism which affects black people. All this whining about "reverse racism" just displays ignorance of what racism is.

[ Parent ]

No (3.00 / 2) (#162)
by Razitshakra on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 08:54:57 AM EST

I disagree. So does Google.

Also, "reverse racism" is a phrase used by your camp, because as others here have pointed out, if racism is bad then reverse racism must be good.

--
Lets ride / You and I / In the midnight ambulance
- The Northern Territories
[ Parent ]
Pick up a dictionary! (2.80 / 5) (#164)
by sirmeili on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:10:38 AM EST

rac·ism Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


Definition taken from dictionary.com

[ Parent ]
you're way off (2.50 / 4) (#170)
by lostincali on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:06:53 AM EST

I can think of lots of places right here in the US where blacks are the dominant race and whites are subordinate.

So, according to you I can't be racist against blacks if I'm there?

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

Really? (2.33 / 3) (#180)
by Homburg on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:54:45 PM EST


I can think of lots of places right here in the US where blacks are the dominant race and whites are subordinate.

Name one.

[ Parent ]

federal prisons (2.00 / 3) (#230)
by tkatchevzombie on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 09:17:46 AM EST

crack houses

toxic-dump-formerly-known-as-city

etc.,

[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (2.66 / 3) (#245)
by kosuri on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 01:47:48 PM EST

Name one.
  1. Detroit
  2. Washington DC
Oops, that was two. Sorry. Shall I keep going?


--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

They sure don't look dominant (1.50 / 2) (#247)
by Homburg on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 06:49:53 PM EST

Median per capita income for black people in DC is a third of the median per capita income of white people. The difference is not as stark in Detroit, but black people still earn less than white people there. That's just one measure, but it certainly doesn't suggest that black people are dominant and white people subordinate in either of your two examples. Perhaps you'ld like to try again?

[ Parent ]
Who said anything about income? (2.00 / 2) (#251)
by kosuri on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 11:42:16 PM EST

You were talking about power, not income!

Well, look who's in power.

That's right. Black people are in charge of Detroit and DC.

Any more stupid, incorrect points, or are you through embarrassing yourself?


--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

you can't disregard economic power. (2.00 / 2) (#252)
by la princesa on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 12:23:48 AM EST

and in DC particularly, it is a specific case where the district of columbia has no effective power.  those who run the city of dc have very little power to effect changes in the city, due to restrictions on how one manages that district.  the district of columbia is a very weird case of a city that cannot due to american law have the usual powers city politicians generally have access to.  curiously, as black politicians came to more power in dc, even MORE restrictions were placed on the city officials' powers (the few they did have).  

as for detroit, all the economic power, which quite obviously affects political power, lies in the hands of wealthy white business owners.  detroit is notorious for historical racism and gutting of the city center in favor of moving all the jobs and economic power out to the suburbs, using redlining and intimidation to prevent blacks moving to where the income was.  

are you being obtuse on purpose?  your majority-black city examples still are cities where whites hold all the power.  in dc, it is mostly legal and only partly racism; in detroit, it is mostly racism.  

___
<qpt> Disprove people? <qpt> What happens when you disprove them? Do they disappear in a flash of logic?
[ Parent ]

eh (none / 1) (#253)
by kosuri on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 09:46:49 AM EST

curiously, as black politicians came to more power in dc, even MORE restrictions were placed on the city officials' powers
Like what?
as for detroit, all the economic power, which quite obviously affects political power, lies in the hands of wealthy white business owners.
Let me get this straight. The city government, with total control of tax policy, spending policy, police power, and city planning, is not in power? Ever hear the phrase "You can't fight city hall"? Cities have a tremendous amount of power over businesses.


--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

no, cities don't. (2.00 / 2) (#255)
by la princesa on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 09:03:44 PM EST

perhaps you aren't american, because you really don't seem to understand anything at all about power and its applications in american society.  also, the city government in many cities does not have the powers you are speaking of.  DC is an example of a city that doesn't have direct control over any of those aforementioned things.  and many other cities have diminished or lacking control over at least one of those items.  you are spewing assertions that have never had any basis in american reality and saying others are incorrect for stating items that accurately reflect american social norms and predilections.  there is no special magic Negroville where black americans run everything and own all the businesses.  whites burned those towns to the ground every chance they got, in the past.  

and even if there were presently, the fact that AT MOST you can only think of two instances in which such a thing might be true among hundreds of cities should be illustrative of something you apparently prefer to handwave away.  you are dreaming things about black-majority cities that are inaccurate and false, in addition to ignoring the significance of there only being 2 among easily 50 cities of comparable population.    

___
<qpt> Disprove people? <qpt> What happens when you disprove them? Do they disappear in a flash of logic?
[ Parent ]

You make many wild claims (2.00 / 2) (#256)
by kosuri on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 11:06:47 PM EST

And yet provide no details.

I conclude that you are making this up as you go along because you have nothing of consequence to say.


--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

no, you've made the wild claims. (none / 1) (#260)
by la princesa on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 10:23:28 AM EST

i haven't seen a damn thing from you except unfounded assertions.  very quick googling will demonstrate my assertions at least have bases in reality, which cannot be said of your assertions.  

___
<qpt> Disprove people? <qpt> What happens when you disprove them? Do they disappear in a flash of logic?
[ Parent ]
I've provided links (2.00 / 2) (#261)
by kosuri on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 10:39:31 AM EST

for every claim I've made. You have no links because you are making stuff up.

I'm starting to suspect that you are trolling me. Provide references for all of your wild claims if you want any further response from me.


--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

Come on (2.33 / 3) (#206)
by mrcsparker on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 07:11:42 PM EST

White people are the dominant race? Maybe in the 1950s, but now the tables are turned a bit. I wish that I was a minority in the United States - I would have access to all sorts of great programs that would give me immediate advantage over my non-minority counterparts. Look at a program like SBA 8a - I would not only get preferred status on all sorts of contracts, but I could charge up to 10% more than a non-minority company on the same contract.

[ Parent ]
Lucky, lucky black people (1.50 / 4) (#215)
by Homburg on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 10:58:38 PM EST

You've forgotten great programs like the "lock you up" program, or the "shoot you in the street" program. Oh, how lucky these minorities are.

[ Parent ]
Wall Street Journal Story (3.00 / 2) (#243)
by Shajenko on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 10:52:54 AM EST

This reminds me of that article in the Wall Street Journal, that called poor people "Lucky Duckies" because they pay little to no taxes. I would love to ask them, "If you think they're so lucky, why don't you just quit your jobs, sell all your assets, and pay no taxes as well?"

[ Parent ]
Got me (none / 1) (#248)
by mrcsparker on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 07:12:44 PM EST

Rather than being cute, why not say out-right what you are trying to imply?  You pointed to 2 articles on the internet, and that is supposed to be it?  Argument won?

Lazy and typical k5 response.  I still stand by what I said.

[ Parent ]

Seemed pretty obvious, but hey (none / 1) (#268)
by Homburg on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 12:26:09 AM EST

In your post, you ignored the existence of racism, which is, you know, the whole justification for AA.
You made no attempt to balance the advantages given black people by anti-discrimination legislation against the continuing difficulties they face, two of which I pointed to. Would you still prefer to be a member of a minority group, given that that would probably mean you would be poorer, less well educated, at greater risk of police abuses?

[ Parent ]
You ascribe to race what you should to class (none / 1) (#290)
by destroy all monsters on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:49:25 AM EST

As if poor "white" people had it any better? It isn't being a "minority" that makes one disadvantaged - it's the situation they inherited at birth. That's a long way off from being a racial argument. When was the last time you saw poor whites getting any sort of leg up?

If you're going to focus on racism make sure your own house is clean - and I can't think of a single ethnic group that doesn't have its racists.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

This can actually be good. (1.75 / 4) (#26)
by V on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 04:11:21 PM EST

Only a moron would fight for equality of rights. If you are fighting you might as well go for the goal of having privileges.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens

Non-racist solutions (2.85 / 20) (#32)
by pyro9 on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 05:27:41 PM EST

Shouldn't the government be obligated to step in and lend a hand in an attempt to equalize the situation?

The question often comes up. Interestingly, the least objectionable solution which automatically applies help where needed comes from completely removing race/gender from the equasion.

The problem is not that under-educated poor MINORITIES need a hand up, the problem is that under-educated poor PEOPLE need a hand up. Why does race/gender need to enter into the picture at all? Is a poor white male born to poor white parents somehow less in need of a good education? Address the issue of providing education for poor people (whatever their race) and if indeed minorities are overrepresented in the class (I find this likely), they will be helped in their proper proportion and improvement in racial equality will be a natural side effect.


The future isn't what it used to be
yep (2.50 / 4) (#46)
by banffbug on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:31:04 PM EST

that's what i think too. poor people a are poor, and immigrants aren't poor. And i don't like race policy one bit, it is simply not neccesary.

Of course this is my western viewpoint, as someone growing up in a more ethnically defined region would maybe lean towards laws and customs according to culture, not country. Or someone whose country acknowledges 2 or more sets of standards, something very hard for the melting pot mentality to realize, hence foreign foreign policy and industrializing of the world and trade wars. Is race not an issue to global society anymore and if not then are those who are not included in the global society to be treated differently?

[ Parent ]

WHAT ABOUT MERIT? (2.80 / 5) (#62)
by zorba77 on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 08:37:26 AM EST

Granted my example stems from the US but the logic is the same as what you speak of. The company I used to work for had affirmative action in place, and there were plainly visible tendencies in place. I worked in Desktop Support, which requires technical skill. Maybe you have the oppurtunity for a freer hand in hiring in other areas but in technical areas, you need to have the skills. We had one token individual, and while that term may seem racist, that is in fact what he was. In addition, he stole from the company, and it was relatively common knowledge, but overlooked per policy. He could barely speak coherent english or anything else, making communication difficult at best. And his troubleshooting skills were non existant. He simply compensated by trying to get others to do the work for him. Bottom line, to hell with what he is or where he's from, the guy was obviously incompetent. What good is a policy that is oblivious to needed skill levels and just rewards some dumb fuck with a job he can't do. This guy, hate to say it, would find it difficult to flip burgers let alone anything technical.
Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
[ Parent ]
Proof (1.33 / 3) (#69)
by virg on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:00:26 AM EST

Your example proves his point. If this guy had gotten a decent education, he very likely would have been less of a burden on your company. His policy is to ignore race/gender/whatever entirely, and push strong educational assistance for the underpriveleged. This idea lets out the concept of positive discrimination while pushing those who need educational assistance most to the top of the pile for training.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
my only retort here (2.25 / 4) (#87)
by zorba77 on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:31:08 PM EST

 is a bag of walnuts is too kind for carrot top, way too kind.
Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
[ Parent ]
Merit is the only perminant solution (2.25 / 4) (#81)
by pyro9 on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:18:53 AM EST

Various affirmative action schemes that don't somehow consider merit are doomed to failure. All they do is propel someone into a position they can't handle. Further, they set the next generation up to be in the same boat. Such schemes do a lot to perpetuate racist stereotypes as well. Meritorious minority workers are set up to fail by suspicions that they might be there as a result of inappropriate affirmative action.

That is NOT what Affirmative Action was ever meant to do (but may, perhaps, be what it would inevitably become). The idea was that given EQUALLY meritorious cantidates, choose the minority. Like many such programs (unfunded mandates) when it came time to make sure there would be appropriately meritorious cantidates through education programs (read when it came time to choose between education and pork for rich white cronies) the money never appeared.

Skilled, highly employable, and well educated people raise their children with values that tend to make them similarly employable. Programs that help disadvantaged people (of any race or gender) to gain skills (including necessary social skills) and education not only help the current generation, but any child that sees them as a role model. The role models created by hiring unqualified minorities to fulfill the appearance of racial equality do not show the way to merit.

Offering a high quality education starting in elementary school and continuing through a 4 year program (without regard for ability to pay) would do a lot to level the playing field.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
EXACTLY (2.33 / 6) (#105)
by firefox on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:04:29 PM EST

There are many poor white people, and even certain white ethnicities that are overly poor compared to others, while some "visible minorities" are more wealthy on average than whites, like some recent immigrant groups who form investment collectives etc. Using terse races for affirmative action, or inverse racism or wtf they call it, is brain damaged. And using gender? I don't know how old these politicians and beurocrats are, but nowadays there are more women than men in universities(atleast here in canada), and young(early 20's) women usually have better jobs than young men. The pedulum has already swung, and they are just getting more extreme every year, I don't know ANY significantly low income white males who DON'T go into crime it's gotten so bad. Maybe some of this is just regional experience.

[ Parent ]
As a new Canadian I feel qualified to comment (2.25 / 4) (#34)
by MSBob on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 05:50:18 PM EST

The employment situation for newcomers to Canada is not good. Recent studies showed that most immigrants here earn significantly less than those bor here and even more importantly, they will never achieve income parity with their Canadian born peers. This is true among most ethnic groups, ranging from white East Europeans through Chinese and Middle Eastern immigrants.

This situation has to be rectified if immigrants are to continue settling in Canada rather than using it as a stopgap to destination United States.

From personal experience of mine, I made out OK. I found a job quickly and don't consider myself underpaid. I'm in software development business.

However, my wife has a degree in accountancy (earned from a British university) and spent three years looking for work here, and even now she is decidedly underpaid for her skill level.

Hopefully that will be rectified once she receives her Chartered Accountant papers. What is outrageous is that she was forced to re-take many accounting courses she had already completed in the United Kingdom. Accounting has regional idiosyncracies, but it is definitely not so different as to make you study the whole field over again. She considers herself "lucky" because she has a job right now. However, her pay is essentially "graduate leve" despite her having several years of experience in the field, prior to coming to Canada.

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

why did you immigrate (2.66 / 3) (#35)
by minerboy on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 06:31:04 PM EST

if The employment situation for newcomers to Canada is not good.



[ Parent ]
Are you Japanese? (1.50 / 2) (#56)
by tetsuwan on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:46:11 AM EST

work = life, or what?

I think life is more than work, money and consumption.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

so solly, not japanese (1.00 / 2) (#59)
by minerboy on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:57:38 AM EST

I was simply curious what reasons other than economic someone might have for moving to Canada. I was also suprised that the writer suggests that there are advantages to high immigration rates beyond economic - what could these be ?



[ Parent ]
Not advantages, but reasons (2.50 / 2) (#64)
by tetsuwan on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 08:44:09 AM EST

at least Sweden has several percent of its population from various conflicts in the world. Chile, Iraq, Iran, ex-Jugoslavia, Somalia, etc.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

This is a dirty little secret... (2.50 / 2) (#186)
by MSBob on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:42:13 PM EST

of the Canadian immigration ministry.

You never learn about the prejudice and discrimmination of immigrants here until you land and try to start your new life here.

The government of Canada actively courts people to come and settle here. They even give away glossies that talk about your "new life" in Canada! Of course, nobody is gullible enough to believe all the sugar coated stories in that brouchure but I don't think most are prepared for the level of hardship that most endure after coming here.

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
Oh come on... (2.40 / 5) (#128)
by JahToasted on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:10:21 PM EST

do those studies also show how familiar immigrants are with english? what their education level is? Not all immigrants are as well educated as you may be. And you got a good job easily, right?

As to your wife's situation, yeah is sucks the university wont recognise her previous courses, but is that because of racism or just a fucked up university policy? And if she's not a chartered accountant, its no surprise she can't get a job. I've heard about enough shady accountants to know not to hire anyone who isn't chartered unless you know they're honest and know their shit. I sure as hell wouldn't trust my books to a total stranger no matter what their race is.

Listen, getting a job outside your social network is hard, racism has got nothing to do with it.

Sorry to rant at you, but I'm a little sick and tired of hearing about immigrants who are "victims of racism" because they can't find work as soon as they deboard the plane. Hey, I've got a degree in computer science plus several years experience but now I'm doing manual labour jobs, and I won't even be considered for certain jobs because my race. Can I be a victim of racism too? But no, I'm can't a victim of racism. Why? Because I'm a white male.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

Misunderstandings (2.50 / 2) (#184)
by MSBob on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:33:00 PM EST

First of all, nearly 60% of immigrants to Canada are under the "Skilled Independent" programme which targets highly skilled professionals.

Two, it was local companies that refused to recognize the validity of a top tier British university. My wife had to attend the local provincial uni to even get a chance at the foot in the door.

Three, you can't receive a chartered accountant paper in Canada without working as a non-chartered accountant first. See how the vicious loop closes here?

Four, even the federal government recognizes the immense hurdles that newcomers to Canada face with society's prejudices. Why won't ordinary Canadians start to recognize the problem too?

Finally, I'm not bitter. We're better off here than we would have been in the UK. Yet, we see people that face similar obstacles as we do and never get their shot at making a career here. In a way we "lucked out" and are considered an exception rather than a norm.

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
damnit (2.50 / 2) (#202)
by JahToasted on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 06:40:18 PM EST

why is it because you face hardships it must be because society is prejudiced? If I went to an area where no one knew me and tried to find work as a non-chartered accountant, don't you think people would be hesitant to hire me? add to that the fact I was capable of leaving the country at a moments notice?

Now what if I had lived in the community my whole life, my entire family lived there, etc, etc?

You see the difference? Its not racism its just that people want to know who they're trusting all their money to. If you have no roots in the community then there isn't much stopping you from running off with a bunch of money, is there?

As for not recognising courses from other countries... well they probably have ten people who have courses from nearby universities applying for the same postion. Verifying your wife's credentials is a lot harder than checking out everyone elses. Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be attributed to incompetence.

Every job I see posted in my field requires 5 years experience. I can't get that experience because I can't get a job. Vicious cycle, eh? Around here we just say shit happens and move on. I didn't realise it was because all society was prejudiced against me.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that I'm facing similar hardships despite the fact I'm a white male canadian. Do you have to be a certain race to have your hardships recognised by the federal government? Apparently so.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

Err (none / 1) (#286)
by mindstrm on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 02:14:41 PM EST

I don't think he said anywhere that it was prejudiced... he just stated how things were, and he's not wrong.

Canada (And I speak as a Canadian, eh?), for a country that is very big on importing skilled immigrants, has some serious problems with those immigrants finding skilled work, even in sectors where we NEED the workers (Medicine, for one)

Nobody is saying we should just trust foreign schools and credentials blindly, however, making someone go back to school to re-take a bunch of courses they already took from a good foreign university simply so that they can get into a certain profession is silly.

In other words, if a mechanical engineer comes over, he shoudl be able to take the local engineer's exam without going back to university to study just because he doesn't have a canadian degree. (After all, if you can pass the exam, you are supposed to be qualified).

[ Parent ]

Governance by statistics (2.33 / 6) (#36)
by cronian on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 07:07:48 PM EST

This is just another example of policies being driven by statistics. They look at the statistics, and find that they seem to indicate a racial bias. Thus, they hire more minorities to fix the statistics.

The statistical approach to social issues is just following in the long-established ideology of economics. However, there they like to focus on numbers like GDP.

The general fallacy arises from collecting data that is correlated with the problem. Suppose there are two events E and F, where E is a major problem, and F is something nobody really cares about. However, a time t=0, it is determined that P(E|F)=.99 and P(E)=.99. Changing E is probably quite difficult and the fact that it persists means that the bureaucrats probably don't really want to change it, but the bureacrats need to show progress. So, they work to change the situation so that at time t=1, events E and F are statistically independent, and P(E)=0. However, often, P(F) holds constant.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
Idiocy and short-sightedness (2.16 / 6) (#38)
by stuaart on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 08:21:41 PM EST

By using `positive' discrimination, any genuine achievements of an immigrant community are created as achievements-with-help, which is exactly what a struggling community does not need. Genuine strength unfortunately cannot be helped along in this way no matter the good intentions people at the top might have.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


True, but (none / 1) (#242)
by HollyHopDrive on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 07:47:09 AM EST

there is something to be said for pouring more resources into underachieving schools (often with a disproportionately high percentage of minority pupils, although that is less my concern than the fact that the poor get an inferior education) so that there can be a more equal starting ground.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

OMG (1.40 / 5) (#40)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 08:56:42 PM EST

That was the funniest story I've read in a while, could be straight from the pages of The Onion. Truth really is blaah blaah blaah.

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


Yeah well, (1.50 / 6) (#48)
by trhurler on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:23:18 PM EST

What do you expect from Soviet Canuckistan? There's a reason sane Canadians all end up living in the US.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Yeah it's called NHL ~ (3.00 / 3) (#49)
by Kurosawa Nagaya on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:40:09 PM EST


The reason for this is simple: we're all full of shit ~ circletimessquare
[ Parent ]

Yeah it must be that great health care system n/t (1.33 / 3) (#94)
by Tezkah on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:10:15 PM EST

HMOHMOWHAT?

[ Parent ]
Hmm (2.00 / 2) (#178)
by trhurler on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:33:02 PM EST

I don't know anyone who is in an HMO anymore; they're dying off and being replaced by other arrangements that are much more beneficial to both the insured and the insurers.

And yes, Canadians with the means do seem to come here for health care a lot. I wonder if maybe they don't want to wait six months for an MRI and then find out their tumor WOULD have been operable five months ago... heh. Funny how that works.

The fact is, the US "healthcare problem" is vastly overrated. There are plenty of places uninsured people can get cheap preventative care in the US, and the doctors who staff those places tend to whine about being underutilized. This is similar to why women make less money than men: in salary negotiations, THEY DON'T ASK FOR IT! Instead, poor people wait until something bad happens to them, and then go to an emergency room thinking the cancer they didn't bother to get checked up to catch early can somehow be treated by an ER full of people who set broken bones and sew up lacerations! About the only kind of medical care NOT readily available to everyone is the massively expensive treatments for advanced cancers and so on - but guess what? Those aren't available to you in Canada either, because if they were, the system would go bankrupt. So, Canadians with the means COME HERE for treatment for such things.

All this really means is that some kinds of health care really ARE expensive, and that someone has to pay that bill. The reason insurance is expensive is that it DOES cover most of those kinds of things. The fact is, as an insured American, I have THE BEST healthcare available anywhere, period.

Oh, and anyone who can keep a fast food job for six months can get insurance. The myth of the unavailability of insurance is really more about the inability of some people to hold down even the simplest, most basic of jobs without being fired for not showing up, fucking around, being rude to others, and other shit that we all learned how to do right back in KINDERGARTEN.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
racist government? really? (1.25 / 4) (#54)
by dimaq on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:02:45 AM EST

are you calling your government racist simply because they propose or enact laws discriminating majority? (that is not racist) or because the politicians have a racist mindset and run white supremacy meetings in their homes? (that would be racist and then you have to show it)

you are wong. (none / 1) (#57)
by turn that frown upside down on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:22:06 AM EST

are you calling your government racist simply because they propose or enact laws discriminating majority? (that is not racist)
ask the Hutus what they think about discrimination of majorities.

[ Parent ]
discrimination != racism, aye? (2.50 / 2) (#161)
by dimaq on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 06:55:01 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Come on (none / 1) (#165)
by Razitshakra on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:31:40 AM EST

You are saying that discriminating people because of their race is not racist.

That is just stupid.

--
Lets ride / You and I / In the midnight ambulance
- The Northern Territories
[ Parent ]
that's not what the article was saying (none / 0) (#224)
by dimaq on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 04:03:17 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Clarification (none / 0) (#226)
by Razitshakra on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 08:17:28 AM EST

I was referring to the part where you wrote:

are you calling your government racist simply because they propose or enact laws discriminating majority? (that is not racist)

and the part where you wrote:

discrimination != racism, aye?

This in the context of a story about a proposal to ban hiring of white males altogether.

--
Lets ride / You and I / In the midnight ambulance
- The Northern Territories
[ Parent ]
racism and ratial discrimination (none / 0) (#270)
by dimaq on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 08:35:07 AM EST

what the article talks about is racial discrimination, which is different from racism.

once again, racism is not the same as racial discrimination.

check wikipedia or something.

[ Parent ]

Well, according to Merriam-Webster... (2.50 / 2) (#271)
by sirmeili on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 09:36:39 AM EST

(please take special notice of number 2)

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Sir Meili


[ Parent ]
I give up. nt. (none / 0) (#274)
by dimaq on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:47:21 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I'm sorry... (none / 0) (#281)
by sirmeili on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 03:42:00 PM EST

if you give up because of my comment, yet you asked the reader to research it and I did. The fact is you were wrong. And excuse my ignorance, but what does 'nt' mean?

[ Parent ]
The only way Affirmative Action would ever work (2.42 / 7) (#58)
by Insoc on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:42:34 AM EST

is if it's class-based and not gender/colour/ethnicity based.

Seriously. Poor people = more prone to being ignorant (for a variety of reasons I won't get into here), no matter the colour.

IAWTP (2.87 / 8) (#98)
by kansur on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:35:56 PM EST

The problem with poor [ethnicity] people isn't that they're [ethnicity], it's that they're poor.

Everyone's afraid to be the first to step into hell.
[ Parent ]

well... (2.50 / 2) (#225)
by eraserewind on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 07:09:05 AM EST

a look at less ethnically divided societies would mostly refute your idea that class based systems are going to succeed where race based ones fail. (and besides, the fact there is too close correlation between race and class is the whole raison d'etre behind these systems anyway) Generally speaking, hard work, a positive attitude towards education, and a responsible attutide towards money is enough to move any family out of poverty. Handouts, quota systems and positive discrimination directly undermine the emergence of all of those.

[ Parent ]
every argument against quotas (1.90 / 10) (#67)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:49:26 AM EST

is 100% true... in a historical vacuum

except that history shows us that white males have been unfairly preferred for decades, nay, centuries

so if you are against quotas, you either deny history, or you blithely choose to ignore it, or you are ignorant of it

every single argument against racial quotas fails as soon as history is taken into account

so, if you are against quotas: take any argument you have against them: boom, history obliterates your argument

quotas make sense ONLY in light of history

and i don't see history going anywhere

so if you are against racial quotas, you lose the argument, because every argument you have is framed in a historical vacuum

your argument is a nice intellectual exercise, but it takes place in an antiseptic hypothetical universe where white males and nonwhite males have had equal footing for the last century in terms of preferential treatment

such a hypothetical universe doesn't exist

therefore, in reality, with history taken into mind, your argument collapses


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Wow... (2.33 / 3) (#73)
by kcidx on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:34:22 AM EST

...I for once, find myself in agreement with CTS.

I fear the end is nigh!

[ Parent ]

It does help that he's contradicting his usal idea (2.80 / 5) (#112)
by issachar on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:06:44 PM EST

He's justifying Affirmative Action and ethnic based quotas on the basis of historical context. (Real past oppression etc.)

Normally he rips someone a new one if they try to justify terrorism on the basis of past oppression. (Colonialism). Using history as a mitigating factor against something that would normally be wrong is "racism" and treating others (muslims) as though they're monolithic and not responsible for their actions.

I'm not commenting on either of CTS's positions right now. But it's funny to see the conflict.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

So you support discrimination? (2.00 / 3) (#74)
by some nerd on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:40:45 AM EST

Really, do you support only women and "ethnic minorities" being considered for employment in positions that e.g. a caucasion male could do just as well?

Unfortunately race monitoring is a neccessary evil, although personally I always refuse to answer such questions or give silly false answers as a tiny ineffectual protest. Should hiring demographics differ substantially, in the statistical sense, from those of applicants over an extended period then there are grounds for investigation.

However any open non-meritocratic discrimation policy or quota system is silly and counterproductive, especially an off the wall one like this. To have such a thing is to confirm people's latent racist beliefs that yes, there is a race quota system, and yes, They are in fact taking all Our jobs. The effect of this is that existing discrimination may be "balanced", or wildly overbalanced in the case of this article, but either way the initial discrimation is strengthened.

--
Home Sweet Home

[ Parent ]

it's very simple (2.00 / 3) (#76)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:45:28 AM EST

until women and men and all races earn the same income for the same job, and are represented in job classes in proportions equal to their proportions in the general population, the government must initiate quotas to remedy the situation

because racism proliferates and breeds, it must be actively fought against, it does not fix itself, it only propagates: stupidity needs no preconditions to exist, and stupidity breeds more stupidity

as soon as income disparities and representational disparities in business and government are evened out, quotas should go away

to argue otherwise, as you seem to, is to be ignorant of history


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

wrong (2.57 / 7) (#85)
by zenofchai on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:07:37 PM EST

the government must initiate quotas to remedy the situation

quotas are an attempt at applying duct-taping at the end of the supply chain.

start at the beginning of the supply chain. create a talented work force.

to do that (at least in the US) you'll be more fighting the sentiments of other minorities who persecute those of their own race who "act white" and achieve in school than you'll be fighting racist whites who want to keep non-whites down.

to do that (at least in the US) you'll be more fighting the home conditions of poor children (disproportionately non-white) than you'll be fighting class descrimination by the wealthy who want to keep the poor down.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

i don't have an argument with you (1.50 / 2) (#89)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:41:07 PM EST

there are two subjects here:
  1. that we have historical wrongs to right
  2. how do we do that?
you agree with me on #1, and you have moved onto subject #2, which is a different argument i don't want to have here

because i simply have a problem here in this thread with the motherfuckers you see below my parent comment who seem to think that arguments put forth in a historical vacuum have any value, as if past racist discrimination for the benefit of white males didn't exist, or that making arguments without taking that historical fact into account have any merit whatsoever


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Easy. (2.40 / 5) (#95)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:24:30 PM EST

We invent a time machine, so that we can give reparations to those who were actually slaved.

History is just that, history. You can't go back and right wrongs that happened before we were born. You can only do rights from this point forward.

Do you think some slave that was whipped to death in 1821 gets any comfort out of knowing that his great-great-great-great-grandaughter Zaqueesha got a state gubmint job despite her inability to use proper grammar?

Hell, we can't even make up for Zaqueesha, giving her a shitty education in an inner city school. It's over and done with.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Reparations & slavery (2.25 / 4) (#100)
by NightHwk1 on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:43:26 PM EST

I think the concept of reparations would be a nightmare if it were attempted, and even if it could be done properly, there isn't much of a chance that it would make a difference.

But, this is not something limited to the days of slavery. There is a much longer history of race and class discrimination, and it is still present today. Society has come a great distance from where it was in the 60's, but I believe that distance is only about 50% of where it needs to go.

[ Parent ]

Uh. (1.66 / 3) (#106)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:10:42 PM EST

CTS suggests reparations, just instead of doling out cash, he wants to give jobs. And since they're deceased, he'll give them out to descendants.

Even racism someone suffered from 5 years ago... you can no longer make up for it.

I'm not saying that if a black woman was turned down a job only because of her skin color, that we shouldn't overrule the hire and give it to her. That's a reparation that makes some sense.

But as time marches on, it becomes impossible. And it's much more efficient to just be fair from this point forward. Will she still feel hurt? Probably for years, but if the next employer is fair and gives her a job, that's a better way than litigating and legislating for 10 years over the job she unfairly missed.

And enacting quotas just perpetuates things. In 100 years, will be be enacting white guy quotas, because they're under-represented?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

wrong (none / 1) (#97)
by kansur on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:34:36 PM EST

You started out on #2 by defending quotas.

IMHO, the only way to reach a color-blind world is through education.

Everyone's afraid to be the first to step into hell.
[ Parent ]

do I agree? (2.50 / 2) (#99)
by zenofchai on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:39:05 PM EST

I didn't mention (I don't think) any agreement with the sentiment that "we have historical wrongs to right". I barely even voiced agreement that the current status is something that needs to be "remedied" or "righted" at all by any action performed by "we". What I did say that if you wanted to affect real change, these are the things to look at, not quotas, which haven't worked to accomplish much of anything but engender another generation of prejudice and growing unrest.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]
Then your reply to me is inconsistent (2.50 / 2) (#124)
by some nerd on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:40:48 PM EST

"Positive disrimination" is a method for attempting to correct bias, so it falls under point 2. My argument is that it is used too much and too openly, with the result that it often has counterproductive effects i.e. encourages racism. A better approach is educational uplift for the socially deprived of whatever background, allowing workplace equality to be achieved through meritocratic means which can be clearly seen to be fair. Progress is thus more likely to be made in the long run.

The "historical wrongs to right" doesn't apply so much in the UK where there is thankfully a good deal less ghetto-isation (yeah that's probably not a word whatever) but I certainly agree that a society where sex/race/etc don't matter for employment purposes is an ideal to strive for.

--
Home Sweet Home

[ Parent ]

The past is no excuse (2.00 / 4) (#84)
by khallow on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:01:40 PM EST

It amazes me how you can talk about centuries of history of discrimination and ignore decades of history of failure with affirmative action and related social policies. IMHO, we should eliminate affirmative action. It is just another racist discriminatory policy.

Instead, we should be looking at improving educational opportunities. School vouchers and other educational subsidies seem quite relevant here. Finally, we should decriminalize "victimless crimes" like prostitution and the trading and using of recreational drugs.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

the past IS an excuse (2.40 / 5) (#88)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:37:31 PM EST

as long as there is income disparities between the races, we should make amends on that

even you admit that: "Instead, we should be looking at improving educational opportunities"

...well wait, didn't you just say there is no reason to do anything? the past is no excuse, didn't you say that? then what is the "excuse" for trying to improve educational opportunities? try to remain logically consistent in what you say: either we have to improve the situation, or we don't. you are trying to have another argument: HOW do we improve the situation.

"Finally, we should decriminalize "victimless crimes" like prostitution and the trading and using of recreational drugs."

on second thought, nevermind trying to remain logically consistent. you can't even stay on the subject

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

If the past is an excuse (2.66 / 3) (#96)
by kansur on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:32:43 PM EST

Then how long is it until reverse reverse racism is put into law? During my entire life, affirmative action policies have worked against my race.

Everyone's afraid to be the first to step into hell.
[ Parent ]

the policies stop (1.00 / 2) (#117)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:26:46 PM EST

when income equity is achieved

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Listen (1.60 / 5) (#130)
by Benway on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:16:43 PM EST

It's clear to me that the white people (men, mostly) on Kuro5hin do not want equality. They are frightened and offended at the thought of minorities beinging equally represented in the Senate, on the benches of our courts, in the boardrooms of our Fortune 500 companies.

[ Parent ]
You are a complete moron (none / 1) (#291)
by destroy all monsters on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:10:06 AM EST

1. You have no basis for this belief as what you are actually trying to do is tell everyone that if they don't agree with you that they're white supremecists.

2. I don't think that anyone here or elsewhere believes that black, female or any other politicians, businessmen, or jurist of any stripe will do anything not out of their own self interest. Corruption, cronyism and bullshit is something any race can handle just fine.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

income equity between which groups? (2.33 / 3) (#158)
by issachar on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:38:25 AM EST

Income equity between the groups that CTS recognizes as distinct? The ones that "those in power" see as having been marginalized historically?

That wouldn't work. Income equity between all ethnicities then. Except of course they have this minor tendency to be subdividable. So income equity between all people then?

So you want wealth redistribution then?

Your problem is that you're looking for equality of outcome. You should be looking for equality of opportunity.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

staying on subject (2.66 / 3) (#101)
by zenofchai on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:43:30 PM EST

"Finally, we should decriminalize "victimless crimes" like prostitution and the trading and using of recreational drugs."

on second thought, nevermind trying to remain logically consistent. you can't even stay on the subject

any conversation about racism and poverty can and perhaps should logically include a judicial system that puts many, many times more non-white poor men into prison than their percentage of population.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

sure, why not (1.50 / 2) (#116)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:26:14 PM EST

in all seriousness, the carrot is always better than the stick... that is, positive rather than negative: let the brothers out who did nothing but smoke some weed

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
what about small time growers (none / 1) (#142)
by zenofchai on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:04:13 PM EST

sometimes classified as "small time dealers" I suppose. what use is being legally able to smoke a little weed if nobody is allowed to grow it?
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]
there are other reasons (none / 1) (#166)
by khallow on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:35:58 AM EST

the past is no excuse, didn't you say that? then what is the "excuse" for trying to improve educational opportunities?

Why are you trying to argue that crimes of the past are the only basis for justification? You'll never win this argument that way. I see that certain ethnic groups, particularly Black Americans, are collectively undereducated with the worst public school systems. *Now* not then.

on second thought, nevermind trying to remain logically consistent. you can't even stay on the subject

If you don't understand the relationship, then you don't understand the problem.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

every argument against murdering 6 million germans (2.28 / 7) (#103)
by pbkobold on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:53:42 PM EST

is 100% true... in a historical vacuum

except that history shows us that germanic peoples have been unfairly preferred for decades, nay, centuries

so if you are against murder, you either deny history, or you blithely choose to ignore it, or you are ignorant of it

every single argument against holocaust equalization fails as soon as history is taken into account

so, if you are against murder: take any argument you have against them: boom, history obliterates your argument

murder make sense ONLY in light of history

and i don't see history going anywhere

so if you are against holocaust equalization, you lose the argument, because every argument you have is framed in a historical vacuum

your argument is a nice intellectual exercise, but it takes place in an antiseptic hypothetical universe where germanic peoples and jews have had equal footing for the last century in terms of preferential treatment

such a hypothetical universe doesn't exist

therefore, in reality, with history taken into mind, your argument collapses

[ Parent ]

Brilliant (1.66 / 3) (#150)
by starX on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:59:48 AM EST

But you're wasting your breath, I'm afraid.  This sort of reducto ad absurdem approach presumes the person with whom you're arguing with is logical to begin with.

"I like you starX, you disagree without sounding like a fanatic from a rock-solid point of view. Highfive." --WonderJoust
[ Parent ]
Absurd (2.66 / 3) (#151)
by Homburg on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:09:50 AM EST

There's a really obvious disanalogy between the two situations. Affirmative action is targetted against systematic discrimination against minorities which still exists, and (plausibly, anyway) leads to a situation in which that systematic discrimination no longer occours. Your attempted reductio of 'holocaust equalization', on the other hand, is clearly incapable of undoing the present effects of the WWII era holocaust (those present effects being, that a lot of people would have been alive more recently than in fact they were). So it's not the same as affirmative action.

[ Parent ]
Not Really (2.00 / 2) (#213)
by pbkobold on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 10:22:05 PM EST

A. My post was merely meant to show that using past wrongs to justify current policies which in a vacuum would be considered bad, is really quite a slippery and dangerous slope.

B. Affirmative action is targetted against systematic discrimination against minorities which still exists, and (plausibly, anyway) leads to a situation in which that systematic discrimination no longer occours.
Actually, it would just lead to a situation where systematic discrimination is codified into law and legitimized.

C. Your attempted reductio of 'holocaust equalization', on the other hand, is clearly incapable of undoing the present effects of the WWII era holocaust (those present effects being, that a lot of people would have been alive more recently than in fact they were). So it's not the same as affirmative action.

AA isn't intended to undo the present effects of systemic racism. Education programs or something would be that solution. AA says to minorities, "hah, you're so stupid you need our help to even get in here. You really can't do anything without us white folks can you?"

Alternately, we can see it as an attempt to punch whitey in the face by taking away their education opportunities, but that really isn't any better is it? You'd just be creating another problem in lieu of the first, not "solving" racism. Sure, AA isn't quite as bad as "holocaust equalization", but it sure stinks of the "past wrongs justify future ones" thing, and holocaust equalization is an instance of that for sure.

[ Parent ]

The justification is _present_ wrongs (2.00 / 2) (#221)
by Homburg on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 02:02:49 AM EST


AA isn't intended to undo the present effects of systemic racism.

Really? That's what AA advocates say they intend. Are they mistaken about their own intentions, or lying, or what?


AA says to minorities, "hah, you're so stupid you need our help to even get in here. You really can't do anything without us white folks can you?"

No it doesn't. It says "you're being discriminated against - here's a systematic policy which will offset some of that discrimination."


You'd just be creating another problem in lieu of the first.

And what problem is that? The "problem" that suitably qualified black people would get jobs? The "problem" that you would no longer benefit from white privilege?

[ Parent ]

quotas are wrong (2.00 / 3) (#111)
by kbudha on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 04:19:24 PM EST

I guess reverse racism is acceptable too huh?

History shows that might makes right. Look at how the US stole land from the indians.
Or how Nazi Germany rose in power.

I guess history doesn't always win every arguement.

Cry me a river for the plight of minorities.
My generation has what to do with the discriminations of the past?

Once again for all the "intellectual" meandering going on here at K5.
My sig says it all.
-


[ Parent ]

So two wrongs make a right??? [nt] (none / 1) (#122)
by Razitshakra on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:03:26 PM EST



--
Lets ride / You and I / In the midnight ambulance
- The Northern Territories
[ Parent ]
yes nt (none / 1) (#125)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:02:08 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Cool (1.50 / 2) (#289)
by The opposite of racism on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 11:56:40 PM EST

So if you made that retarded post, and then tomorrow someone beats the living shit out of you, together those two things add up to something good?

Wow, there is a god.

[ Parent ]

BOOM! (none / 1) (#135)
by gdanjo on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 08:12:09 PM EST

That argument was whack, dude.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

He's right people (2.00 / 5) (#140)
by The opposite of racism on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:28:29 PM EST

Think about it. If you take history into account, everyone in Italy is responsible for the genocide of the Gauls. They totally let Caesar do it! This makes quotas difficult, because the Gauls were completely fucking wiped off the planet, but basically no one should be hired to do a job in Italy who is Italian. And because the Gauls will be dead forever, the quota system should also be in place forever. Two wrongs make a right, so this is totally fair.

[ Parent ]
To think there are 'two wrongs' here is bullshit (2.50 / 4) (#153)
by Homburg on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:19:15 AM EST

Affirmative action is not aimed at morally compensating for some past wrong. It's aimed at changing an unjust situation in the present (namely, systematic discrimination against minorities), which is caused by a past wrong.

Here's a better analogy. You're walking down the street, and someone steals your wallet. Luckily, you see a policeman who chases down the thief. The policeman then says, "well, I can't force this man to give you back that wallet - that would be reverse theft, and two wrongs don't make a right."

The policeman's argument here is obviously absurd - rectifying the present effects (you not having your wallet, minorities having poorer access to jobs) of a historical wrong (the theft of your wallet, centuries of discrimination against minorities) is not morally equivalent to the original wrong, even if the  method used (forcably removing the wallet from the thief, discriminating in favor of minorities) is superficially the same.

[ Parent ]

A better analogy (2.80 / 5) (#167)
by Cro Magnon on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:36:47 AM EST

Your grandfather stole some guys wallet. Both your grandfather and the victim are dead, but the law steals your money and gives it to the victim's grandson.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
You obscure the point (none / 1) (#182)
by Homburg on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:01:10 PM EST

In your analogy, it's not clear whether or not there is a present injustice caused by the historical acts. If there is, it's a reasonable analogy - but note that in that case, it's also reasonable for the law to forcibly transfer the money. If, in your analogy, there is no present injustice, then you don't have an analogy to affirmative action and, you missed my whole point.

[ Parent ]
How about this. (2.50 / 2) (#278)
by grendelkhan on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:35:44 PM EST

Thief steals gramps's retirement savings. Thief goes on to become a successful small businessman, providing quite for his family until the next two generations. Gramps dies penniless in a ditch.

You're all, "they shouldn't be rich! I should be rich!", and demand that the fruits of that original theft, several times removed, be turned over to you.

My question is, when do we declare everyone equal? If law school admissions are affirmatively-acted upon, then shouldn't everyone be at a fair starting point upon graduation? If not then, when? Affirmative action is an ugly hack--the goal is to give everyone a fair shot. Is there some actual plan for doing that? Is AA moving us in that direction?
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

Another analogy (2.80 / 5) (#197)
by Razitshakra on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 05:02:49 PM EST

Here is my wallet-stealing analogy:

Affirmative action is like if your wallet gets stolen and you lack the means of getting it back from the thief, you feel entitled to go steal some third persons wallet.

Or to be more concrete, there were tenured positions in Sweden, where I live, that I were ineligible for not because I as an individual was lacking or had done anything wrong, but because I belonged to group (males) that the State had decided to discriminate against.

--
Lets ride / You and I / In the midnight ambulance
- The Northern Territories
[ Parent ]
Doesn't quite work (2.00 / 2) (#216)
by Homburg on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:03:27 PM EST

The individuals in the analogy stand for groups. Your analogy would then be something like, because blacks are disadvantaged by the legacy of discrimination, the government institues affirmative action for short people (i.e., a third group).

Or, in your more concrete example, you forget that you also belong to a group (males) that society has (through inertia) decided to discriminate in favor of. You benefit from this every day of your life; it's not unjust to lose out on one employment position in order to rectify that situation.

[ Parent ]

Individuals vs groups (2.66 / 3) (#228)
by Razitshakra on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 09:01:28 AM EST

The individuals in your analogy stand for groups. In mine they stand for individuals. The point being that I don't accept collective guilt for being born into a particular group, I'm responsible for my own behaviour. The State should give equal rights to everyone.

--
Lets ride / You and I / In the midnight ambulance
- The Northern Territories
[ Parent ]
Source of first link (2.66 / 9) (#70)
by jmj on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:04:05 AM EST

Have you checked the website that first link points to ? WorldNetDaily.com.
They should rename that site to EveryNonWhiteNonBaptistIsOutToGetMe.com.
Unbelievable that people who have so much in the world think they're the ones being persecuted.

Instinctively I always reacted badly to affirmative action ("racism is bad, and AA looks like racism"). But it does seem the only way to change certain organisations, provided that it's clearly a temporary measure.

People who think employers are suddenly going to prefer hiring incompetent idiots over perfect candidates just because the idiot has a certain skin color or is female are misrepresenting the situation. AA only kicks in when you have 2 good candidates, with no objective preference between them. In cases like this AA would mean you choose the candidate matching the AA criteria. If none of the people matching the AA criteria are up to the job, they will not get hired.

Compare that to what happens now without AA when you have two equivalent candidates : maybe you pick one because he supports the same sports team as you, or because you like redheads. Maybe you just flip a coin. How is that fair for the other candidate ?

Affirmative action is not institutionalized racism, it is a way to progress slowly to a society with less racism. Yes, it will provoke racist reactions. But racists shouldn't be our yardstick for the whole of society.

Define temporary (2.50 / 6) (#93)
by kosuri on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 01:29:31 PM EST

Instinctively I always reacted badly to affirmative action ("racism is bad, and AA looks like racism"). But it does seem the only way to change certain organisations, provided that it's clearly a temporary measure.
Affirmative Action has been used by universities since the 60's, required by federal contractors since 1965, and required by most state contractors. The year is now 2005. Please tell me what you mean by "temporary"?

If you are a college graduate working from age 22 through 65, you will be working for 43 years. Affirmative Action has currently been in place for 40-some-odd years and shows no signs of going away.

How do you expect white people to ever be hired for anything when in many fields an open job posting will generate a few hundred resumes?

Do you expect white people to endure AA for their entire working careers?

How many generations (22 years) of AA are needed to repent for slavery which ended 140 years ago (6 generations)?

I've always felt strongly that AA is racism, and racism is bad. Racism is always bad. Permanent racism is bad. Temporary racism is bad. It's all bad. I specifically believe that you are naive for:

  1. Believing that temporary racism is somehow ok
  2. Believing that Affirmative Action is actually temporary.

--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]
Slavery? (2.60 / 5) (#115)
by thejeff on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:22:49 PM EST

How many generations (22 years) of AA are needed to repent for slavery which ended 140 years ago (6 generations)?

Slavery may have ended 140 years ago, but Jim Crow, real legalised racism, only ended at best 40 years ago. That's not quite 2 generations. When you're trying to change a whole society, it may take a little while.

How do you expect white people to ever be hired for anything when in many fields an open job posting will generate a few hundred resumes?

And yet it seems that white people do find jobs. Strange isn't it. Is the unemployment rate for whites lower than for other "races"?

[ Parent ]

Temporary (2.66 / 6) (#120)
by jmj on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:50:49 PM EST

Affirmative Action has been used by universities since the 60's, required by federal contractors since 1965, and required by most state contractors. The year is now 2005. Please tell me what you mean by "temporary"?
So what you're saying is that since the 60's no white male has been hired by any university or by a federal contractor because they have AA rules. Sure...

Do you expect white people to endure AA for their entire working careers?
Endure what ? If you're the best man for the job, you will still get the job. What exactly are you enduring ?
How many generations (22 years) of AA are needed to repent for slavery which ended 140 years ago (6 generations)?
What do slavery reparations have to do with affirmative action ? You seem to think that AA is somehow meant as some kind of punishment ? It's not. It's meant to break up "old boys networks" in the workplace, where racists or sexists refuse good people just because of their skin color or sex. Those kinds of attitudes are not acceptable in a civilised society, but if enough people tolerate it things will never change. You need to force these people to accept reality, they are the ones with the problem.

I do happen to think slavery reparations are ridiculous, since no one who committed the crimes is alive anymore. But they have nothing to do with affirmative action.

[ Parent ]

No (2.40 / 5) (#137)
by kosuri on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:02:20 PM EST

So what you're saying is that since the 60's no white male has been hired by any university or by a federal contractor because they have AA rules.
No, I never said those words. Only you did.
Endure what ? If you're the best man for the job, you will still get the job. What exactly are you enduring ?
You've obviously never done any hiring, and that's ok. Imagine a situation where you post a job and receive 200 resumes and interview the 15 best candidates. Well, there never is one "best man[your words, not mine... who says it's not a woman?] for the job. Each person has his or her own strengths and weaknesses, so you are left with a judgment call. AA says you use race as a tie-breaker. How is that not racism? And how is that fair to anybody? To say, "Well, you were born XYZ color so you get the job." How do you think that makes the people who were rejected feel? More importantly, how do you think that makes the person who was hired feel?

Try an experiment for me. Apply to the top 5 medical schools. Now, have a black female friend do the same. See who gets into ANY of the top 5 med schools. You will not. She will get into all 5.

What do slavery reparations have to do with affirmative action ?
Who cares what the reason is? Racism is always wrong. Are you racist?
It's not. It's meant to break up "old boys networks" in the workplace, where racists or sexists refuse good people just because of their skin color or sex.
If I'm part of some "old boys network", it's news to me. Nobody ever sent me the membership materials. Would you mind forwarding them to me?
--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]
Hiring (2.66 / 3) (#169)
by jmj on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:59:53 AM EST

You've obviously never done any hiring, and that's ok.
I'm an IT Manager. I've looked at hundreds of resumes and interviewed 15-20 people. This resulted in 4 people being hired.
"best man[your words, not mine... who says it's not a woman?] for the job
"Best man for the job" is an accepted English expression which is not meant to exclude women. Which you know perfectly well.
Each person has his or her own strengths and weaknesses, so you are left with a judgment call. AA says you use race as a tie-breaker. How is that not racism?
By definition there is no objective tie-breaker in this situation. Anything you come up with (see examples in my previous post) could be considered "unfair" to someone. AA has at least the redeeming value of trying to make the organisation a more accurate representation of society as a whole.
How do you think that makes the people who were rejected feel? More importantly, how do you think that makes the person who was hired feel?
I'm not really interested in how the rejected applicants feel. If someone wants to be angry against black people, he'll invent a reason anyway. You only have a limited number of open positions, so someone will get disappointed anyway.
The person who got the job got it because of his qualifications. Again, why would any employer choose to hire someone who's not fit to do the job ?
Try an experiment for me. Apply to the top 5 medical schools. Now, have a black female friend do the same. See who gets into ANY of the top 5 med schools. You will not. She will get into all 5.
So you're angry that someone who satisfies the admission criteria is accepted into med school. How is it the black woman's fault that there are more applicants than vacancies ? There's also a very easy way to get one of the available spots : be better than the other candidates.

[ Parent ]
Qualifications (2.50 / 2) (#190)
by kosuri on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:49 PM EST

When one of the qualifications to get into med school is being part of a privileged race (black, hispanic, etc.), I feel justified in criticizing it.
--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]
experiment? (none / 1) (#175)
by thejeff on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:31:04 PM EST

>> So what you're saying is that since the 60's no white male has been hired by any university or by a federal contractor because they have AA rules.

>No, I never said those words. Only you did.

But they seem implied by the experiment you propose:

>Try an experiment for me. Apply to the top 5 medical schools. Now, have a black female friend do the same. See who gets into ANY of the top 5 med schools. You will not. She will get into all 5.

Do you really claim that any black female will be admitted to the top med schools? And no white males? Is this borne out by enrollment at these schools? Where do all those white male doctors come from?


[ Parent ]

Just try it (none / 0) (#189)
by kosuri on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:48:07 PM EST

You'll see.

You won't get admitted to any top med school. I promise.
--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

Right (none / 0) (#201)
by thejeff on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 06:23:10 PM EST

Of course I won't. I've got no pre-med. No experience. Not the remotest qualifications.
Nor any interest.

Are you claiming that a black woman with the exact same lack of qualifications would be admitted?


[ Parent ]

Yes. (none / 1) (#212)
by kosuri on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:40:26 PM EST


--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]
If affirmative actions is such a burden (1.33 / 3) (#129)
by Benway on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:11:41 PM EST

To white people, one of the following must be true.

1) White people are unemployed at a rate greater than other races.

2) White people inherently superior to members of other races and thus able to overcome an unfair playing field.

3) Non-whites labor under other burdens unfamiliar to white people.

So which is it? If it's 3, and clearly it must be, why is leveling the playing field with AA so abhorent do you? Is it just a desire to retain your racial advantage?

[ Parent ]

No (2.66 / 3) (#136)
by kosuri on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 08:52:17 PM EST

To white people, one of the following must be true.
You fail to demonstrate why 0, 1, or more of your statements must be true. Fortunately, you are simply wrong.
why is leveling the playing field with AA so abhorent do you? Is it just a desire to retain your racial advantage?
Leveling the playing field is fine by me. This can be achieved by providing everybody with a quality K-12 education. AA is not leveling the playing field--is stacking the deck. AA says that if you are of a preferred race, then you are preferred over those of another race. Well, that's racism in its purest form and it's wrong to do.

Also, what is my racial advantage? How does my skin tone make me any better than someone of a different skin tone or whatever?

Are you racist, Benway? You sure sound like it. Do you think black people are inferior? That they can't compete with white people? That they need some kind of head start? You sound very very racist to me.
--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

Oh, I'm simply wrong? (2.00 / 3) (#139)
by Benway on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:26:49 PM EST

I notice that you didn't actually explain how whites "burdened" as they are by AA achieve such success in the workplace if blacks aren't laboring under a greater burden still.

No, you just shake your head vigorously.

As for the accusations of racism, please. How trite. Yeah, I'm advocating "racial discrimination," as understood hyper-pedantically. Racial discrimination to correct long-standing social inequality was never the problem. The problem was, is, and has always been the marginalization of people of particular races.

To suggest that all racial discrimination is equal is to completely ignore both history and the present day reality that many minorities face. Black people can't compete with whites, but it has nothing to do with inherent inferiority. It's due to pervasive attitudes within the white majority that keep blacks marginalized. To suggest that this can be rectified with "education" is nonsense. What's needed is robust minority representation at every level of government and business.

The fact that you think it's AA that stacks the deck tells me that you're a dumb kid, though. The deck was already stacked and AA is an attempt to correct the corrupt dealer's shuffle.

Education is important, but it's not the whole answer. To suggest that a black person who attends the same elementary and high school as a white person has the same opportunities is to part ways with reality.

I don't mean to be harsh, but wake the fuck up and look at the real world. Your post drips naivete.

[ Parent ]

Utterly ridiculous (1.66 / 3) (#143)
by kosuri on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:21:25 PM EST

I notice that you didn't actually explain how whites "burdened" as they are by AA achieve such success in the workplace if blacks aren't laboring under a greater burden still.
A lack of a quality education is a huge burden. I think that I already proposed a solution to this, however.
As for the accusations of racism, please. How trite.
Well, don't believe my words, believe yours...
Black people can't compete with whites
Hmmm.. methinks your mouth will get you into a heap of trouble someday... Watch what soundbites you create, big guy.
It's due to pervasive attitudes within the white majority that keep blacks marginalized. To suggest that this can be rectified with "education" is nonsense. What's needed is robust minority representation at every level of government and business.
Are whites even the majority, anymore? I'm not so sure that we are. Anyhow, I believe that "race" doesn't matter, so there is no reason to stack the deck. People are individuals, and they stand on their own.

Also, having "robust minority representation at every level of government and business" does nothing for the success of that minority community. Look at the US capital. The Mayor, and 9 of the 13 city council members are eligible for affirmative action. Minorities are represented everywhere in DC government and local businesses, yet most DC "minority" residents (they're not really the minority... DC is roughly 60% black) live in awful conditions. Now do you think that DC black residents live in awful conditions because of lack of representation in government and local businesses? Of course not, because they are fully represented. The reason the conditions are awful is because DC schools are, by far, the worst in the country. It's insane how bad they are. Boggles the mind.

If it'll help, I can go through how every other thing you said was also wrong, but I think I've left you with enough to think about. When you are ready to open your eyes and look at how the world actually works, let me know. And thanks for the four-letter words. They add a lot to your otherwise braindead post.
--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

I see. (2.66 / 3) (#148)
by Benway on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:08:51 AM EST

"Anyhow, I believe that "race" doesn't matter"

If you mean that you don't care about people's races, that may be true. You're the expert on what you think. However, if you mean that a person's race doesn't have a profound effect on the course of their life, all other things equal, you're insane.

With your DC example, you've cleverly demonstrated that good schools are important for a community. Thanks for that insight. Hint: "Bad schools cause poverty" doesn't rebut "patterns of racism cause poverty" at all.

Education is great. I support education. If you think better schools are enough to achieve racial equality, you're living in a fantasy land. Blacks and whites educated in the same damn schools experience radically different lives as blacks struggle with systemic racism in employment, housing, and every other aspect of life.

[ Parent ]

You're not reading (2.50 / 2) (#188)
by kosuri on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:46:17 PM EST

But that's ok.
  1. Every successful black person I've ever worked with would tell you that you're wrong about education. I don't really care that you don't believe me. You are simply wrong.
  2. What I was rebutting was when you said that "Blacks can't compete with whites" because "What's needed is robust minority representation at every level of government and business." My rebuttal was that in DC, "minorities" are well represented in government and business, yet they still live in poverty. So your contention that representation would fix poverty is simply wrong. But this is no surprise. You have no idea what you are talking about and it shows.

--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]
I don't know what I'm talking about? (none / 1) (#214)
by Benway on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 10:29:35 PM EST

That's rich.

Any serious examination of what's wrong with Washington DC wouldn't ignore the fact that Congress has plenary power over the city and its local government is consequently crippled. Convenient to ignore that fact, wasn't it?

As for reading comprehension, what I actually said was that representation was necessary for fair competition between blacks and whites. I didn't say that representation was a cure-all for poverty.

Every successful black person you've met would claim that education alone is enough to overcome the disadvantages black people face? You're clearly lying. Give up.

[ Parent ]

Rich (2.50 / 2) (#219)
by kosuri on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:13:28 AM EST

Ok, do you mean to tell me that the US Congress is intentionally screwing up the District in order to keep the black man down? I'd love to hear you explain the details of that gem.

Actually, don't. It's not relevant. Instead, explain Detroit. Same story as DC. Mayor is black, but this time the ENTIRE city council qualifies for affirmative action. Again, minorities are well-represented, yet the city is a cesspool. How is minority representation helping the minority residents of Detroit to not live in a war zone?

Your weak position is showing signs of total failure.


--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

Simple. (1.50 / 2) (#264)
by Tezcatlipoca on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 05:33:56 PM EST

At least for the US add up the years of slavery plus the years of legalized apartheid and you may begin to come up with a fair figure to redress the balance.

Much fairer would be that people that started with a better foothold in life, thanks to the economic benefits derived from both slavery and apartheid, would pay back compensation, but that is not going to happen.

When should it all end? I don't know, but maybe you should ask the minorities their opinion.

As for calling Affirmative Action racism, it is so disingenious and morally repugnant that I will not reply to that, since somebody ejaculating such nonsense is beyond redemption.

Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?
[ Parent ]

justice... (2.00 / 2) (#282)
by Rich0 on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 12:12:51 PM EST

At least for the US add up the years of slavery plus the years of legalized apartheid and you may begin to come up with a fair figure to redress the balance.

How about a more just system.  For each american total up the number of years that they personally owned a slave.  They will be forbiddent from taking any jobs for which a more qualified former slave is eligible.

Just because a bunch of white people were idiots 120 years ago doesn't mean that we all still are.  Just because most blacks were denied equal opportunities 50 years ago doesn't mean that they all still are.  

Sure, many minorities are born into unfortuante circumstances and lack opportunities.  Thousands of children are abused every year of any racial background.  Life isn't fair - we just need to make the most of it.  Racial discrimination and child abuse and whatever else is the problem should be punished when it is proven.  Otherwise, we'll have to admit we just don't live in utopia and try to get along.

No government policy is going to turn the world into paradise.  If anything, they tend to make things worse - especially where AA is concerned.

[ Parent ]

Coin flipping (2.33 / 3) (#246)
by LocalH on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 02:40:13 PM EST

Compare that to what happens now without AA when you have two equivalent candidates : maybe you pick one because he supports the same sports team as you, or because you like redheads. Maybe you just flip a coin. How is that fair for the other candidate ?
Actually, flipping a coin would be the most fair of any method - if you have two identically qualified candidates, then the coin would one an objective way to pick one. A coin can't discriminate based on any protected status. A coin can't pick one because the other smells. A coin has roughly a 50/50 chance of hitting heads or tails, especially on just a single flip. I would rather someone use a coin flip to choose between two equally qualified candidates, than have them choose one because of some stupid AA crap. AA is just reverse racism, where black people feel that since the ancestors of today's white man treated them like shit, that they have the right to do it to us today.

[ Parent ]
Persecution complex (2.00 / 2) (#259)
by jmj on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 09:04:58 AM EST

AA is just reverse racism, where black people feel that since the ancestors of today's white man treated them like shit, that they have the right to do it to us today.
Another white man with a persecution complex... Clearly the fact that you have a computer with Internet access proves that you've been forced into poverty and homelessness by all those black people stealing "your" job.

AA has nothing to do with punishment. People who choose to believe that are already biased against black people (or any other group of people they happen to hate). How could a black man ever be as good as they are, or even better ?

[ Parent ]

Persecution complex my ass (2.66 / 3) (#262)
by LocalH on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 12:50:37 PM EST

Oh, bullshit. It's wrong to give ANYONE a job because they are of a certain race, whether minority or not. I'd even extend that to gender and sexual orientation as well. Jobs should be given based on only merit - who is the best qualified for the job? If I am applying for a job, and a black person comes along and is more qualified for the job, then I have no problems with them getting the job. However, if I'm more qualified, but they still get the job because of AA, then I got shafted. AA is the reverse situation of someone hiring a white person just because they're white, even if they're not as qualified for the job. And neither situation is right. You're assuming I hate black people just because I state that I hate AA. That's the main problem with discussing AA - people tend to conflate hating AA with being racist.

[ Parent ]
Qualifications (2.50 / 2) (#265)
by jmj on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 06:01:14 PM EST

Oh, bullshit. It's wrong to give ANYONE a job because they are of a certain race, whether minority or not.
They didn't get the job because of their race, they got the job because they were qualified to do it. There are no buses going around town loading up people while announcing through loudspeakers : "Free jobs to anyone who can prove they're black !".
AA is the reverse situation of someone hiring a white person just because they're white, even if they're not as qualified for the job.
Except that that's not what's happening under AA. I'll ask the question again : why would any employer hire someone who can't do the job ? If there are no qualified candidates, he'll choose to leave the position open instead. Why put an extra cost on the payroll if it's not helping the company ?

If you find yourself in a situation where you're constantly missing a job in favor of someone equally qualified, there's only one thing you can do : make yourself a better candidate. Give employers a reason to prefer you over someone else. If all candidates are equally qualified, why should you be entitled to the job ? By definition you're not better than the others, so you have no reason to be upset when the job goes to one of the other people. The exact same thing happens when 10 white candidates qualify for 1 position. But somehow you wouldn't be upset by that ?

Like I said in my original post : I understand the gut feeling of unfairness. But if you just stop to think about it you realise that it's not any more unfair than a cointoss. If you apply to 10 jobs you could lose the cointoss 10 times too. There is no law of averages guaranteeing you a job. It may suck, but that's how this universe works. You can only improve your chances by not being subject to the tie-breaker in the first place.

That's the main problem with discussing AA - people tend to conflate hating AA with being racist.
I'm not confusing the two at all. If the AA system is being abused, I would expect any reasonable person to object to that. But if you look at the most vocal opposition of AA and the arguments they use, you can clearly see the racist tendencies. It always comes down to the belief that a black man could not possibly be qualified to do a job. He must have gotten some preferential treatment to avoid the tests or interview, I mean, he's black, right ?

[ Parent ]
computers can be cheap (1.00 / 3) (#285)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 02:18:27 PM EST

Don't assume that just because someone is posting on the internet that they are posting from a computer which they own.

Granted I don't think anyone is "stealing" "my" "job", but as someone who's crawled up from pretty much nothing, racism is the last thing I look forward to dealing with when looking for a job.
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Behind the times already (2.20 / 5) (#90)
by hatshepsut on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:46:38 PM EST

Apparently the policy in question has already been retracted. The backlash against institutionalizing any sort of policy other than "may the best candidate get the job" pretty much blew the whole thing up, in what... 48 hours?

While I can see the "reversing the racist/sexist policies of the past" viewpoint, I just can't subscribe to it myself. I would not want a job if I felt that one of the criteria for getting it was my sex (age/ appearance/ race/ religion/ lack of religion/ country of origin/ whatever). I went to school for many years, worked hard, and put in long hours to get to where I am. If a company (or whomever) can't appreciate that, for whatever reason, I can take my skills and experience elsewhere.

I know the idea behind a policy like this is that if 2 equally qualified candidates show up for one position, and one is a white male and the other is not, then there is a policy in place dictating that the white male would be passed over this time in favour of the other candidate. The problem is that when it comes to APPLYING policies like this, what will happen is that all of the people who don't meet the initial criteria (in this case, all white men) will not even be considered. So, the issue of 2 equal candidates is moot.

All that said, I wouldn't work for our government directly anyway, every person I have met in gov't (and in my job, I deal with gov't workers a lot) has been a socially backward, borderline (or outright) lazy, overly-entitled nitwit with a gross over-appreciation of their own expertise and importance. I can say, however, that few to none of them have been fully bilingual (and many were definitely not native English or French speakers), so those who raised that point in comments above can rest easy.

Link? (2.00 / 2) (#91)
by scorbett on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:53:27 PM EST

Do you have a source that states the policy has been officially retracted? I can't seem to find mention of that in the news sites.

[ Parent ]
I read about it (none / 1) (#110)
by crazy canuck on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 04:07:36 PM EST

in the paper today
it's officially dead

[ Parent ]
Policy Retraction Link (3.00 / 3) (#119)
by bustedchop on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:48:25 PM EST

Brison rescinds memo on hiring white men

[ Parent ]
Thanks (nt) (2.50 / 2) (#121)
by scorbett on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:01:16 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Yeah affirimative action is fine in theory... (2.66 / 9) (#132)
by JahToasted on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:34:52 PM EST

Lets say we have two groups of people, Group A and Group B. Group A is rich, they have all the management positions, they control all the hiring. Group A prefers to hire other people from Group A, not neccessarily because they are racist, but because they have the most in common, are friends with, or related to, people in their own Group.

Group B is poor, and will never get the good jobs because people in Group A aren't likely to hire them.

Ok so Group B is poor, and if we don't do something, they will always be poor. So lets help them out and give them preferential treatment in the job selection process. Try to counteract Group A's tendency to only hire among their own group. This is only temporary, until hiring is fair.

Problem is, it isn't temporary. Group B isn't going to be any more fair in their hiring than Group A was. They are only going to hire from among their own group too. To make matters worse, Group A feels betrayed. Now they can't get jobs and its all because some do-gooders wanted equality. Now they are resolved that if they get power again they are never going to make the mistake of helping those Group B fuckers. Never Again.

So your grand scheme to end racism just made a whole bunch more.

And you think this is hypothetical? It isn't, I'm watching it happen.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison

What the hell are you talking about. (1.66 / 3) (#141)
by Benway on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:31:39 PM EST

Of course people like to hire people similar to them, but nobody is suggesting continuing AA until all the people in control are former minorities.

So stupid.

[ Parent ]

You're right. It is stupid. (2.00 / 3) (#144)
by buddhaseviltwin on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:38:32 PM EST

...and the parent poster never asserted that people are suggesting continuing ASS until all the people in control are former minorities.

YOU interpolated that.

[ Parent ]

correction (2.50 / 2) (#145)
by buddhaseviltwin on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:39:42 PM EST

...and the parent poster never asserted that people are suggesting continuing AA (How did I typo AA into ASS?) until all the people in control are former minorities.


[ Parent ]
Try again. (1.00 / 2) (#146)
by Benway on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:53:03 PM EST

"Group B isn't going to be any more fair in their hiring than Group A was. They are only going to hire from among their own group too... Now [Group A] can't get jobs..."

How else would Group A be left unable to get jobs because Group B people only are hiring Group B people?

[ Parent ]

of course not... (2.75 / 4) (#204)
by JahToasted on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 06:54:40 PM EST

but nonetheless, that is the end result. No one sees a problem until its really bad. By then you've passed the point of no return.

In New Brunswick, the french were always poor while the english were relatively well off. This had been the case since the 18th century when Britain took control of the area from the French.

So the government started giving the french preference in the job selection process... and well things went pretty much as I described above.

We went from people grumbling about it in private to now people grumbling about it in public. Now people are starting to agree with the bigots.

Hey, I used to be for affirmative action, but now? Well all I know is I just want to get the hell out of here. the do-gooders just proved the bigots right, and I don't want to be around any of them anymore.

You know of anyplace there aren't a lot of whiners who think they're victims because they aren't being carried around on a fucking litter?
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

Hmm really? (none / 0) (#234)
by SlashDread on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 02:30:52 PM EST

Im a stupid Dutchie, but Brunswick is on the british island yes?
So your now saying this The "FRENCH" (descendants? how the hell do you discrimiate people who are genetically 99% LIKE YOU??) are richer than the Brits, in this English town, and the CAUSE is AA".

Please elaborate, and proove your point. I find this largely unbelievable, but who knows..

[ Parent ]

Nope (none / 1) (#237)
by JahToasted on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 07:06:36 PM EST

New Brunswick is a province in Canada, the only one with a mix of both french and english.

And dude, people straight out of Africa are genetically 99.99% LIKE YOU, how do you discriminate against them? Think about it for a second and you'll realise that discriminating on arbitrary differences is the definition of bigotry. Aren't the Northern Irish the same as the Republican Irish? The Palestinians and Jews are descended from the same Semitic people too.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

The only thing that is stupid (2.66 / 3) (#238)
by artis on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 09:16:25 PM EST

Is looking at skin color instead of helping disadvantaged people of all colors.
--
Can you know that you are omniscient?
[ Parent ]
name.. (none / 1) (#233)
by SlashDread on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 02:25:46 PM EST

a single real world example..

[ Parent ]
One Word (2.00 / 5) (#147)
by roybean on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:56:39 PM EST

What would otherwise be my long winded reply to your "color-blind government" proposal, can, because of recent events, be summarized into one word: France.

Just to back up my argument, here is an article from the BBC.

stinky? definitely. necessary? maybe. (2.75 / 8) (#154)
by blindsight on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:21:06 AM EST

I don't know about other places, but here in Canada you walk into any workplace and you see the lower income positions dominated by women and 'minorities', the higher paid positions dominated by white men.

From McDonald's to the local grocery store, to the average office. Despite policies of non-discrimition, this doesn't really seem entirely coincidental.

The only institution that seems to be bucking the trend is the most ferocious when it comes to deciding which employees are profitable and which are not. By far the most responsive to the changing political and cultural face of Canada is the banking industry. With a low profit-margin, white men are becoming like the dodos in the front lines at banks (at least here in the west), but remain heavily concentrated in regional offices.

But the public sector in Canada remains polluted with sexual and racial politics. Central Canada sees plum government positions filled with the standard white-bread guy from where? Central Canada, and nowhere else.

Western Canadian tourism promotion? Recruit people in Ontario and Quebec and send them to British Columbia to do the job, bearing their humdrum and irrelevant-to-the-west french/canadian questions to a region dominated by south asian/asian cultural mores.

It's hilarious.

It's pathetic.

It's typically Canadian.

When nobody can (or wants to) think anymore, that's when policy becomes handy.

Note the Liberal sponsorship scandal that has crippled the current government. Everybody looking for a scapegoat when it's the cultivated inertia of STALED political correctness when it comes to the (increasingly ridiculous, increasingly plaintive) french canadian separatist tendencies. It's not the first time either, the federal scandal that saw the Min of Human Resources sponsoring Liberal causes to upwards of a billion dollars, which somehow mysteriously deflated to an estimated 300 million after years of nowhere inquiries. Of course, heavily staffed/heavily documented/heavily footnoted inquiries are another typical governmental pastime in Canada.

It's sad. Maybe such a jaundiced-racially-biased-hopelessly-flawed-policy is the only way to effect change in such a constipated BILGE PUMP of a bureaucracy. So, if it's the only path to change: yay for political correctness, it covers up underlying problems for a little while, then it becomes the problem itself.

whew.

anyone agree with me?

uhh...go Canada

?

yes (none / 0) (#203)
by SlashDread on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 06:51:38 PM EST

I would be pretty suprised if the Canadians wrote something like : "We must nit hire white males".
Instead, they probably follow a common Dutch route (probably other palces, but Im Dutch) often populr misnamend "positive discrimination".
It usually is phrased something like "If all qualifications are equal, we prefer to hire minorties.." Which is not discrimination, not literally, and definatly not in spirit.
The goal, and likely outcome, is obviously that it will lessen discimination. It will do so because over time minorites will be better represent, better intergrated with common culture.
Two types of people have a problem with this: rabiat anti-racists, who seem to see any and each racial noticability as a foul act. Rather than a -fact-. It is a -fact- minorities are misrepresented often in many countries. It is a -fact- loads of governement sill registar "race" of their constituants or even visitors. It is a -fact- loads of minorities in THEIR countries see the west not giving a fuck about the minorities in our countries. And radicalize sometimes.
We better recognize our western society is still ridden with "apartheid", if not slightly hidden racism.
The second type is the racist. They seem to think that pointing out perceived discimination will somehow make their every day discriminatory hiring processes ok.
Im thinking this misguided but probably well intentioned front page article was written by, and voted in front by catagory 1 people..

[ Parent ]
normally we don't... (3.00 / 3) (#210)
by issachar on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:13:59 PM EST

I would be pretty suprised if the Canadians wrote something like : "We must nit hire white males".
Normally we don't write anything like that. This time the Department of Public Works actually wrote that. There was a public outcry and they backed down. We're back to the "positive" discrimination now.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

Immigrants and Indians (1.62 / 8) (#159)
by the77x42 on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:49:24 AM EST

Immigrants. Immigrant credentials are ignored here in Canada. You could have been an electrician for 30 years and hold multiple degrees, but if you're Polish, you're going to be stuck with a cleaning job. There's a lack of skilled labour in BC and there's no way the government will do anything to accept immigrant education, in part because there's no standard for evaluating international education.

This will change, as immigration in industrialized societies is relatively new. Mosaic-style nations are just going to have to play catch-up and develop some (inter)national standard. The big US meltings pot need not apply as everyone there is going to be stuck with a McJob anyway.

Immigrants are already at a disadvantage most likely not because of the colour of their skin (most immigrants I know are white), but because their foreign education is completely meaningless in a different country.

Indians. Arg. This is a big push behind jobs and universities. Everyone wants to see more successfull Indians/Aboriginals. It's currently an oxymoron. Unfortunately, natives are secluded from society in the following ways: they live outside the 'public' realm in tax-free reserves, they have their own system of laws and government in many cases, and are in charge of their own schooling. What does this make them? Immigrants; immigrants into Candian society.

Natives aren't going to get anywhere in a modern culture while they are still building their own all over again. If you want a job working with people, I'm sorry, you just can't if you've grown up in a locked room.

Women. They should just shut the fuck up and serve my beer.

What's required for highly skilled positions is a way of determining competence outside of a 15 minute interview. Objective analysis of a person's skills should come prior to a subjective analysis of their personality. Too often I see these things done opposite. Furthermore, foreign experience and credentials should be accepted by some means as equivalent to local credentials and experience.

I remember one time in my earlier years I was going through a stack of resumes. Anyone with a name I couldn't pronounce (this was a computer job, so you can bet there were a lot of Asians) went straight to the trash. And that was just looking at the top. Once you get down to education, how am I to judge if you went to a degree mill or a credible institution? Of course, my thinking has changed now. Of course....

I'm all for anyone succeeding in a job. You want the best people possible, not the most normal distribution of colours and sexes. But, alas, this is the Canadian Government, and this is a Public Works position. What better way to attract the votes of minorities while making sure the votes of white males who aren't interested in such low-paying jobs don't change.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

Let's be fair about this... (2.20 / 5) (#174)
by karlandtanya on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:02:26 PM EST

What we have hear is a case of "Well, now that the discrimination is pointed the other way, you don't like it so much, huh?" "Too bad. It's your turn now; you'll take it and you'll like it."

Vengeance for the victims.

Since victimhood is redemptive, anybody who can paint themselves the victim has license to victimize anyone else.

Generally, this is presented as fair and just, as we seem to be more likely to remember from childhood that "turnabout is fair play" than "two wrongs don't make a right."

In the specific instance of employment and discrimination, we see the following:

We're all competing for these jobs. Some people compete within the employment process; some people compete in the political process.

We all tend to agree that the correct way to compete is in the employment process--that is, discrimination based on ability to do the job. If you're the best qualified for the job, you get the job. Simple as that.

Then we accuse each other of using the political process to override the outcome of the employment process. "Fair" seems to be the standard here. Trouble is, "fair" is not defined the same for everybody. "Fair" means whatever yields the outcome desired by the person saying "fair".

"It's the old boy's network and that's not fair." "It's reverse racial discrimination (implying that there is an acceptable "forwards" form of racial discrimination), and that's not fair." "You're more able, but that's only because you have an advantage (impossible to refute and meaningless--a tautology--look it up), and that's not fair." "You're less able, but you got the job, and that's not fair."

Finally, having painted ourselves the victim of unfair discrimination, we proceed to do exactly the same thing to someone else.

But that's fair because it was done to us first.

Guess the k5 folks need the /. sig.

Thought you were smarter than that.

Oh, well.

If all you can complain about is the spelling, everyone assumes you support the content.

Mathematical ly Speaking (2.33 / 6) (#176)
by czolgosz on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:32:23 PM EST

Competition is a rate-dependent phenomenon. The only way such a system can be fair is if the initial conditions are identical for all competitors. This is manifestly not the case in Canada, the US and the UK.

Interesting how nobody compains much about being the beneficiary of an unfair and discriminatory system. Also interesting how upset those beneficiaries get when attempts are made to rebalance the system to redress past wrongs.

I agree with the other posters that the existing system is riddled with incentives and favoritism for the privileged and well-connected, and with hidden barriers for those on the outside. I recognize that massive social-engineering efforts would be needed to fully correct this situation. Compared to those, the rough justice of a temporary moratorium on hiring white males doesn't look particularly brutal, despite its unfairness when viewed in isolation.

The risk is that this corrective measure becomes permanent, and diverts effort from eliminating the root causes of the discrimination: inequality, differences in access to education, racism.


Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
I don't buy it... (2.33 / 3) (#193)
by slashcart on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:25:54 PM EST

I agree with the other posters that the existing system is riddled with incentives and favoritism for the privileged and well-connected, and with hidden barriers for those on the outside... Interesting how nobody compains much about being the beneficiary of an unfair and discriminatory system.
I don't think anyone feels that they are a beneficiary of a discriminatory system.

In fact I'm not even convinced "the system" is discriminatory. I've searched in vain for evidence of a subtle yet all-pervasive racism in corporate America. I've found no evidence for the existence of such a phenomenon.

I should offer a disclaimer. I'm the member of a traditionally priveleged group. In fact I'm the offspring of privelege--my mother owned a company, and my father was a physician who held high positions in the medical establishment.

Although that privelege benefitted me when I was a child (free travel!), it has had little or no effect on my career advancement. My college professors had no idea who my parents were; my bosses and interviewers had no idea who my parents were; and my co-workers have no idea who my parents were. Furthermore, my parents have never made a phone call to an "old boys network" to assure my promotion. My parents have never intervened on my behalf, either in my schooling or my profession. In fact, they don't even have the ability to do so--I work in the computer field and my parents would have no idea whom to call.

In my life, grades and promotion have been commensurate with effort. The same has been true for my minority friends.

That has been the case even for schooling. I went to private University, which I had assumed was the bastion of the rich, but I found that it offered deep discounts and low-interest or no-interest loans to everyone in the middle class and below. In fact, almost all of my friends there were from impoverished backgrounds (just by chance), and they used to joke that I should get special treatment (like free pizza) since I actually paid to go to the place.

In my profession, I've seen no evidence of discrimination. I work as a computer programmer in a shop where salaries are much higher than the norm. There are 10 programmers on my team--4 white men, one recent Polish immigrant, two Chinese (one recently immigrated), one Indian woman, and two Indian men.

Since I'm a member of a traditionally priveleged group, perhaps bias or lack of evidence has prevented me from seeing the subtle racism that surrounds me. I'd be happy to examine evidence that demonstrates the existence of such racism, but nobody has ever presented any evidence. In fact, the only evidence presented is based on outcomes--certain groups have more successful members than other groups. Unfortunately, however, in the US, the most successful groups are East Asians, Eastern Europeans, and Jewish people. Measured either by net worth or by career advancement, those groups are disproportionately wealthy and successful. As a result of their success, Affirmative Action programs in California made it more difficult for them to enter University than for whites.

It appears very likely to me that underpriveleged groups are that way because their subcultures do not encourage academic effort. The overpriveleged groups (East Asians, Eastern Europeans, and Jewish people) encourage academic effort very strongly, and their success is the result.

[ Parent ]

Well (2.50 / 2) (#200)
by stoolpigeon on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 05:39:02 PM EST

Look at the numbers for minority enrollment in Universities in the U.S. See if what you experienced is anecdotal or if far fewer minorites make it to college. Look at the life expectancy and crime rates for those in lower socioeconomic brackets.

Your experience, and this is true of every person, is narrow. There are millions of people in this country. No one person can get a handle on the lives of all those people.

But when you look at the big picture statistically, you find that the disadvantaged have many barriers to overcome.

You wont see these things because you didn't grow up in the projects with one or no parents. You didn't go to schools that were drastically underfunded. These issues are real and some feel that the best way to alleviate the problem is by giving preference so that the disadvantaged can level the playing field. I don't agree and I don't think it has or will work-- but that doesn't impact the reality that our society is heavily stratified-- and real privlege comes the higher you are on the ladder.
I ran. I ran so far away.
[ Parent ]
Raw numbers are not proof of racism (2.66 / 3) (#208)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 07:48:26 PM EST

which is exactly what pisses so many whites off.

Racism does occur, but the reason you didn't get into my college isn't automatically due to racism.

Affirmative Action is a blunt instrument - it has value, but it also causes secondary damage. Every white who perceives themselves to be a "victim" of affirmative action becomes a potential member of the next generation of racists.

People who think "clown" is an insult have never met any.
[ Parent ]

as I see it (2.00 / 2) (#220)
by khallow on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:31:32 AM EST

Look at the numbers for minority enrollment in Universities in the U.S. See if what you experienced is anecdotal or if far fewer minorites make it to college. Look at the life expectancy and crime rates for those in lower socioeconomic brackets.

So as I understand it, we'll screw over these people with a shoddy educational system because that supports our skewed ideology, then as a sop, we'll put in place discriminatory hiring laws.

The grandest irony of the US liberal position is that it is primarily responsible for modern racism. Of the (IMHO) three big factors, education, discrimination in the workplace, and crime, the liberal side contributes far more to the first two than the conservative side.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

I buy it, but don't agree w/ the implementation (none / 0) (#288)
by perplext on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 01:09:42 PM EST

I 3'd the parent b/c it makes a compelling argument.

That said, the article notes that "the form [corrective measures] usually takes is through programs that promote recruitment and hiring of qualified people from [disadvantaged] groups - not by banning members of a non-minority class" -- I'm inclined to favour this convention over the moratorium idea.

I find the idea of a moratorium on white male hiring to be prima facie offensive, and so justifiable only insofar as there's a serious problem in the department to which it is being applied (by "serious problem" I mean such disproportionate representation of that even a preference for minorities over white males wouldn't fix the problem if both parties were permitted to apply).

Unless Public Works has in fact been shown to be highly disproportionately staffed by white males, I'd call the proposed policy a well-intentioned step too far. Even if PW is only moderately disproportionately white male dominated, the prior "preference" convention on new hires should suffice.

[ Parent ]

If you liberazis keep this up, (1.00 / 4) (#183)
by Sesquipundalian on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:02:42 PM EST

All white square headed people everywhere will go on strike. Think you how shitty your world will be when all of the whites refuse to help anyone else, and just retire to our abstract philosophical pursuits in our hobbit houses.

We won't invent anything for you
We won't manage anything for you
We won't negotiate with anyone or keep any of the peace for you
We won't solve any pressing world problems for you
We'll just wait until the giant black hole comes to gobble you up and then we'll say "So long and thanks for all of the fish", and then we'll be gone and then so will you.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
I must protest these two points... (1.50 / 2) (#185)
by slashcart on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:40:19 PM EST

We won't negotiate with anyone or keep any of the peace for you
We won't solve any pressing world problems for you
We white people are not renowned for the above two qualities. Quite the opposite. It's our job to cause world problems and instigate wars. We've been quite successful at that for the last 400 years.

[ Parent ]
The parent is an ass, but you are also full of sht (1.75 / 4) (#205)
by mrcsparker on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 07:03:23 PM EST

If you really believe that. Lazy liberalism.

[ Parent ]
If I am an ass, (1.00 / 3) (#209)
by Sesquipundalian on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 08:28:28 PM EST

your comment position in this thread makes you a dingle-berry!


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
[ Parent ]
ha - who is the dingleberry now? (1.50 / 2) (#249)
by mrcsparker on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 07:13:47 PM EST

Oh crap.

[ Parent ]
Oh, yeah, I forgot. (2.66 / 6) (#207)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 07:44:28 PM EST

'cause there were no wars in America before the Europeans came, no wars in Asia before the Americans came.

Have you, in fact, ever in your life, actually read a book?

People who think "clown" is an insult have never met any.
[ Parent ]

bwahahaha! (none / 1) (#191)
by superdiva on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:53:10 PM EST

Think you how shitty your world will be when all of the whites refuse to help anyone else, and just retire to our abstract philosophical pursuits in our hobbit houses.
  1.  Our world is already shitty.
  2. Whites already refuse to help anyone and retire to abstract philosophical pursuits; it's called the Eastern Establishment.

_____________________________________________

"replace 'cuddle' with 'doggystyle so hard you see stars' and let me know if that works better." [ Parent ]
Ok whitey (none / 1) (#217)
by Frequanaut on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:15:32 PM EST

Keep it up bitch.

You white folk are a shrinking minority.

[ Parent ]

oh goody (none / 1) (#284)
by iggymanz on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 09:18:07 PM EST

then I can receive all kinds of financial aid and receive preferential treatment and get granted business contracts at the expense of the majority now? w00h00, you owe me.

[ Parent ]
lol wtf (none / 1) (#229)
by tkatchevzombie on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 09:13:03 AM EST

square-headed people? lol wait a bit while me gets me ye olde trusty square-n-compass.

[ Parent ]
Liberazi? Didn't he play piano? [n/t] (2.50 / 2) (#276)
by grendelkhan on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:20:31 PM EST


-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]
Will you be retiring to Galt's Gulch, suh? [n/t] (none / 0) (#277)
by grendelkhan on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:22:10 PM EST


-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]
So.. (1.33 / 3) (#187)
by The Amazing Idiot on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:46:04 PM EST

If I takes me trusty Sharpie pen and color me black, I's gits a job?

(said in faux New Orleans accent)

Education costs ? (2.50 / 2) (#218)
by drsmithy on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:01:15 AM EST

[...] that many ethnic minorities come from financially disadvantaged backgrounds and are unable to afford higher education (Aboriginal Canadians, for example, are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-Aboriginals).

I would have thought Canada, like Australia, has a system whereby anyone can attend University with no up-front costs and a repayments scheme that didn't kick in until a certain level of income was reached ?

Nope (3.00 / 2) (#222)
by ultimai on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 02:22:38 AM EST

You get a student loan that usually doesn't cover all costs (cost of living + tutition + books) and thus have to work part time while going to school.  Repayments (w/ interest) start kicking in after around 5 months of not attending university.

Student loans have a notrious reputation for not being payed either.

[ Parent ]

A managing director has a problem. (2.40 / 5) (#231)
by HollyHopDrive on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 09:46:32 AM EST

Profits are down and he has to make someone redundant. He calls into his office all the possibly expendable people and explains the situation to them.

The woman says, "If you fire me, that will be sexual discrimination. I will take you to a tribunal and sue you for everything you've got."

The Asian man says, "Don't even think about letting me go. Racial discrimination, buster."

The wheelchair-bound man says, "Equal opportunities for all. You can't fire me."

All eyes then turn to the young, able-bodied white man in the room. He looks about nervously and then says, "I think I might be gay...."


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.

You jest but there's a lot of truth there (2.66 / 3) (#232)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:00:35 PM EST

I've met several (and know one or two quite well) upper management and directors at city firms that take exactly the opposte view to "PC" employment practices. In their eyes if they hire someone and that hire does not perform they want to get rid of them fast and with no fuss. Women and minorities cabn make fuss, so they won't get the job in the first place.

Now you could still get them if you somehow managed to prove that was what they were doing, but the attitude is "we hire young white males because if we need to kick them out again we can".

/hates city types with a passion. Sociopaths who care for nothing much other than acquiring money.....

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Building a testable hypothesis (none / 1) (#235)
by cronian on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:35:47 PM EST

Well, if you combined the two, it would appear that young white people could get hired more easily, but minorities would be less likely to get fired.

I think there is another issue as well. If a company is doing sleazy stuff, who will they hire? Most obviously, they will probably first resort to different forms of nepotism. However, after that, what strategy will give them workers most willing to implement their sleazy politics. Does race play a role?

I wonder if these hypothesis might be testable with real-world data. Is there somewhere where you can get the racial makeup of various jobs at various companies?

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
I know about PC. (2.75 / 4) (#241)
by HollyHopDrive on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 06:31:15 AM EST

I consider myself relatively PC because I would prefer to be called a chair than a chairman, and if disabled people don't want me to say they have "special needs" then I won't.

But I do know how insane PC can become. My father once worked in the public sector and was hounded for being white, male and hetero. He was once accused of taunting gays because he put his hand on a Xerox machine to see if it was overheating (it caught fire later). I shit you not.

At the same time, the anti-PC brigade is often a champion for racism and sexism. "PC correctness gone mad" can go mad.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

special needs? (none / 0) (#244)
by issachar on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 10:55:58 AM EST

That was the PC term I was taught. I was taught "disabled" was an insensitive term.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose?


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

Better term (2.50 / 2) (#258)
by Stain of Mind on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 07:50:27 AM EST

I prefer the term "defective".

[ Parent ]
It's now thought by some (none / 0) (#272)
by HollyHopDrive on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:16:32 AM EST

that since everyone has needs, it is wrong to point theirs out as being "special". And it is true that "special" is fast becoming a derogatory term. I once wrote an article about disabled people (I used to work with some) and ran it by a friend of mine who is blind and wheelchair bound. She liked it, but asked that I not refer to her college as a "special needs" one. So I changed it as she required.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Is there something missing here? (none / 1) (#275)
by grendelkhan on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:19:52 PM EST

He was once accused of taunting gays because he put his hand on a Xerox machine to see if it was overheating (it caught fire later).

Are you leaving something out? How is touching a copier an expressive gesture of any sort? I ain't buying that that's the whole story.
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

What happened: (none / 1) (#280)
by HollyHopDrive on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:39:17 AM EST

It was an insane PC office and he was hounded for being white, male, able-bodied and heterosexual. One day in the copying room, he thought the machine was overheating and he put his hand on it to see. (It caught fire shortly after and had to be scrapped.) He heard someone come in behind him and without even turning around he said, "I think this machine's a bit hot, touch it and see what you think."

Turned out the guy who had come in was gay, and he promptly reported my father to the boss. He said my father had run his hand over the machine in a suggestive manner, implying that it was a warm and beautiful woman, and had thus taunted this man about his sexuality.

I am fully aware of how ridiculous this story is. So is my father. But the boss was not. She hauled my father into her office and proceeded to threaten him. It wasn't until he told her to go the fuck ahead and fire him, and threatened to take her to tribunal for unfair dismissal, that she backed down. He said he knew he was never going to win, as he had been working there only a few months, but it would be worth it because he would contact the press and make a laughingstock out of her and the whole company. He would make them known as the company that fired a man for raping a Xerox machine.

Could you make this shit up?


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

This happens at my work (public agency) (2.66 / 3) (#236)
by doormat on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 05:49:02 PM EST

First, it takes a hell of a lot to fire anyone, regardless of race (white men included). The last guy to get fired was because he had a DUI in a company owned vehicle. However - I've never seen anyone who isn't a white male get fired or "pushed out".

Women and minorities claim racism/sexism when their boss approaches them about how little work they've accomplished. They get transfered to another department. It doesnt matter if their boss is really a bigot (in the situations I've been closest to, usually the boss isn't a bigot but rather just an asshole to everyone and not just the minorities). It kinda reminds me of the Catholic church, just in reverse.

We have this other thing too, called the "diversity committee" - basically its comprised of people (mostly minorities but some whites) who have been in trouble with their bosses about not doing any work. So they get put on the committee and its just one big excuse to not do the job they were hired for - from regular joes making $35,000 yr to senior engineers making $90,000.
|\
|/oormat

[ Parent ]

Did you see... (none / 0) (#257)
by The Diary Section on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 05:00:19 AM EST

the recent documentary about the sex discrimination act? I think it was presented by Wasshername Frostrup.

One interesting thing they highlighted was that suing under it not limited in the same way other things are, such as personal injury. So as it stands you get (at most) the price of a small car if you lose a limb or an eye or something whereas you can go for the price of a house for discrimination. So you get these strange cases being brought now where a woman has had an accident at work and presses the case as a form of discrimination (e.g., the flooring was unsuitable for high heels, the weight to be lifted by employees was unreasonable for women and so on).

They concluded that it was possible it was going to increase rather decrease discrimination in that it rendered employing anyone other than a white middle class healthy male potentially devestating financially which is in absolutely nobodies interests.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

Damage costs (none / 1) (#273)
by HollyHopDrive on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:19:17 AM EST

don't mean anything. When you look at the sorts of insane amounts handed out for libel costs (is Catherine Zeta-Jones' career really going to suffer if people think she's on the Atkins diet? How damaging is it really to a soap star to be called "boring" in a red-top tabloid?) and compare it with what people get for serious negligence cases where they lose limbs, or rape victims, it is just obscene.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Bingo! (2.66 / 3) (#239)
by goldenballs on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 10:36:26 PM EST

Why not a simpeminded solution? How about a lottery draw from all qualified applicants for the Canadian Department of Public Works jobs? Feel like a number? Well, you are! The government is the people (the numbers). So, why not the numbers making up the government? Red or Yellow, Black or White it's B-19 that got the job tonight.
()()...)))))))\
Stupid (2.00 / 2) (#240)
by Silver6 on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 01:07:11 AM EST

This sort of thing absolutely blows my mind whenever I hear about anything of the sort. If you believe that this sort of reverse descrimination actually works you are fooling yourself and need to become a capitalist already.

Race does not matter to me at all. I do not understand why it matters to anyone else, particularly attempting so hard to help races with lower average incomes.

America and Canada are two countries with free public education. That means free teaching, free textbooks, and free transportation. Only a moderate amount of effort is required in today's world to get decent grades and make it into a decent college. Many argue that the economic divide between the rich and the poor comes into play with college. Realistically however, given the number of scholarships, grants, loans, and federal financial aid (at least in the US, I don't know about Canada), and the ease at which someone can find a job, college is very very affordable. Failing that, local junior college are even more affordable, and they make it very easy to get a degree. We live in a society where your economic position depends a great deal on personal effort, and with a modicum of intelligence it is very easy to move out of the lower classes if one wants too.

Given that economic position is determined largely by effort, reverse-descrimination such as this basically implies that those races or even sexes which have lower average incomes are unable to expend the effort needed to elevate themselves, and for the sake of racial equality, they need to be given positions in college or in the workplace. It is simply not true, and it is the fallacy of such systems. If you treat someone like they are less intelligent and need free extra assistance, then what incentive do they have to actually try? Look at the native Americans. The system of reservations has made it so they never really had to join American society. Whether it is their fault or the government's fault the average native american has a much lower income than the average non-native american. If you want a race to be absolutely equal to every other race, then treat them like they are.

In a truely race-less society, things like average income are just interesting statistics, they do not matter, because everyone is equal. Stop fucking around and treat them equally.

True Equality (2.25 / 4) (#263)
by truckaxle on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 04:39:51 PM EST

Why not quotas in all fields of human endeavors?

For example, why not have quotas for NFL running backs or require countries to sponser 100m Olympic sprint candidates via a quota system? And just look at the NBA do I need to say anymore.

Why not have prize money marathons were "Kenyans need not apply".

Also I have noticed lopsided participation by race in jazz music- surely this must be corrected. And why do tolerate racially and gender askew chess play - maybe each year the global chess community would be required to bestow Grand Master status based on the current prevailing racial percentages. Or Nobel peace prized in science should be equally awarded to class, race and gender.

Then maybe human progress will be fairly equally stifled.

Some like it hot Mozilla Users get an automatic %5 Discount . . .
"race card" (2.25 / 4) (#266)
by CAIMLAS on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 09:07:34 PM EST

do you even realize that you're playing the "race" game yourself by drawing any distinction between different races - for instance, your statement that aboriginal Canadians are more likely to be impoverished? So what that they're aboriginal - what causes them to be impoverished? It's not their race, and that's what your statement subconsciously implies.

What other factors are there which might impact the situation? Well, how about violence? Government subsidies? Alcoholism and other drug abuses? These are all much more uniform indicators which don't have any sort of racial boundry - except the government subsidies which are given to most natives (at least here in the US).

Personally, I think all social programs and legislation should be made constitutionally illegal in the US and Canada - and all other western democracies, for that matter. They degrade the foundations of a democracy (specifically a democratic republic) by giving politicians a perpetual problem which they can attempt to solve: "blacks are poor, more money for blacks" or god knows what other racist nonsense. "Blacks" are people too, and they're capable of doing the same thing everyone else is: making decisions to better themselves. Saying otherwise is racist.

If all such social manipulation by government was outlawed, people could then address each individual greivance of descrimination on it's own - based on the current laws which already make it quite clear that things like discrimination and violence (no need for 'hate crime' bullshit) are unacceptable.

(Sorry, I'm speaking from a US-centric perspective, so much of what I say is probably not only untrue in Canada, but not that terribly plainly obvious and philosophically divergent from what most Canadians accept.)
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

End Racism (3.00 / 3) (#269)
by A synx on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 02:42:32 AM EST

End Racism.  Fire the racists.  Quotas?  wtf?  Fire the racists!  End of subject.

yes fire the racists... (none / 0) (#294)
by empirical on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 04:30:17 AM EST

then we'll alienate them, while projecting sensationalized stereotypes about the type of ignorant bigots they are.  then we'll purposely not hire them based on the group we've put them in.  that will show them how much better we are.

sorry.
"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing." H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
[ Parent ]

The Why of Racial Hiring Quotas (2.50 / 2) (#279)
by Inhibit on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:04:24 PM EST

I'm not entirely sure why people implement racial hireing quotas.  One thought that crosses my mind, though, is that people in the position to hire are accounted more likely to hire someone like themselves to fill a position.  So if you've got old white men of Italian descent running an establishment, they're likely to hire young white men of Italian descent.  Not because they're Italian, but because they're likely to have similar backgrounds.

Now, that's fine if it's a small Deli.  But what if the establishment were the financial sector of a government?  Anyway, something to that effect is probably what the laws are attempting to head off.  They're probably written with the idea that if X percent of the population is a certain racial makeup, then their should be Y qualified applicants for a position from that makeup.

I'm not saying this works mind, I'm just supposing that that's the thought process.  France just treats everyone as French citizens, with no break down, and that apparently has it's pratfalls too.  Personally, I fall in on the less government is usually better government thinking.

-- Inhibit, PCBurn Linux hardware/software reviewer

The real racists (none / 0) (#283)
by vordan on Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 12:44:33 PM EST

Nah! The real racists are Australians - you know - "mates"

The white man in canada... (none / 0) (#293)
by empirical on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 04:25:09 AM EST

I think it is racist and "un-PC" of the government to say that only women and minorities will be hired. I also think it would be ridiculus for any white male to say he has been the subject of discrimination in hiring practises in the country of Canada. At least yet. Obviously racism cannot be stopped. At best we can adopt programs like affirmative action to remedy the symptoms, but at some point we're sacrificing fairness (no pun intented) for equality. Perhaps that is fair.
"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing." H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
White males need not apply | 294 comments (283 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!