MovieChat Forums > American History X (1998) Discussion > I agree with Derek's dad on most point.....

I agree with Derek's dad on most point...


Besides all that "ni66er bullsh!t" talk I'd say Derek's dad made some good points. I mean why is it that the standards need to lowered in the workforce to cater to black people? Why does there need to be a certain ratio of equal race? You can't solve racism by forcing employers to hire black people just so it seems "fair". The man was right to say that if you score higher in tests it means you get the job and you're hired. And it's not a black/white issue. I've met plenty of smart black people (much smarter than me) who're completely motivated and able to take on any job.

reply

I agree 100%, my uncle and his friend years ago both tried out to be police officers in Philadelphia and despite having higher test scores than two black aspiring police officers, they didn't get the job, it instead went to the other candidates. That shows how messed up the US is, employers should higher the most qualified candidates instead of trying to up their diverse employee stats. It's simply stupid.

BTW, this film is a masterpiece.

reply

Curious, how do you know the black guys weren't qualified, or even more qualified than your uncle and his friend. Did you see their resumes or their transcripts? Or did you just assume that they can't be qualified because of their skin colour?

https://twitter.com/CMoviegrapevine
www.moviegrapevine.com

reply

This happened a little bit before I was born so this is what I was told (I was told the others were unqualified, I assume this was observed during physical training). I love how you automatically assumed I was racist, triggered much?

reply

Not triggered. I think it's a fair question since I find the assumption that "black guy hired= unqualified" is pretty common. You said yourself, you were only told this story. You don't even know how your dad and his friend know their competitors were unqualified.

https://twitter.com/CMoviegrapevine
www.moviegrapevine.com

reply

He didn't say they weren't qualified, just that his friends scored higher on the test, which is a pretty big part of the hiring process.

reply

Right, and I asked how his uncle knows that the black guys got lower test scores. He doesn't know, but here he is carrying on with this story. For all we know, his uncle saw two black guys get hired and assumed they had lower test scores.

https://twitter.com/CMoviegrapevine
www.moviegrapevine.com

reply

"You can't solve racism by forcing employers to hire black people just so it seems "fair"."

In principal, that makes perfect sense. The scene in question demonstrates how racism can grow on people and how it can be seductive when it starts to make a lot of sense from a certain point of view. I'm not accusing anyone in this thread as being racist or potentially racist, but I think you raised a point where clearly a lot of people feel is an area of great contention. Even liberal Democrats have a difficult time defending the logic of Affirmative Action sometimes.

Affirmative Action was put into place to try and combat the racist policies that were the very fabric of the country from the beginning. It's been fifty years since the Civil Rights Act, and while that seems like a long time, it's nothing compared to the centuries in which blacks have been indoctrinated as slave or second class citizens. Even though they made progress over the years, you can't just say "we're all equal now" and expect everything to fall into place. Not only will that take time (if it happens), but it will take action too.

Affirmative Action was meant to try and combat the deeply stemmed favoritism in hiring, which did NOT go away with the flick of a switch in 1964. That's not a question of morality, that's just plain logic. You can't end traditions centuries in the making with one little law.

Can we pose Affirmative Action in a certain light, where we can say it's ironically racist in that it takes race into account? I suppose. But it's also unfair to say it results in people being hired solely based on their race, because it's not.

I personally have a problem with Affirmative Action, but not for the reasons everyone is posing in this thread. As a matter of fact, I think it's counterproductive specifically because it confuses a lot of people in this manner, and that in turn creates resentment which is harder to fight.

Eh I don't know what 'phallocentric' means, but NO GIRLS!

reply

"As a matter of fact, I think it's counterproductive specifically because it confuses a lot of people in this manner, and that in turn creates resentment which is harder to fight."

True, but if that resentment comes from people's ignorance of how AA works, then why should blacks be blamed for that? People think it means a black C student can get any job. Normally it is a case of a minority being selected from a POOL OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES. There are stats to show it has helped white women the most.

https://twitter.com/CMoviegrapevine
www.moviegrapevine.com

reply

I agree!

reply

This film, and others, pander to latent racism stereotypes in the audience's minds and conjures up single instances.

US and UK history ignores many intelligent, talented black people who struggled to get a chance, and some who succeeded only to be airbrushed out.

But the racist west? Ignore it all and substitute with cr4p.

reply

Affirmative action doesn’t mean that someone less qualified is going to get hired, numbnuts.

reply

IT ALSO DOESNT MEAN THAT SOMEONELESS QUALIFIED WONT BE HIRED.

reply

That’s a double negative, and you should feel ashamed.

reply

IM NOT

reply

Yeap, it does.

If you're hiring the most qualified people, and then affirmative action is introduced, it means hiring different people from the most qualified ones, and those (obviously) won't be the most qualified ones.

reply

it means hiring different people, who obviously won't be the most qualified ones.


Nah. That’s not how it works. No company would hire someone unqualified for the job just because they’re a minority.

Change my mind.

Something tells me you have a party to attend to while wearing a pillow case.

reply

That’s not how it works. No company would hire someone unqualified for the job just because they’re a minority.

Evidence?

reply

That’s not how burden of proof works.

reply

You want to force private companies to hire people who are not the ones they considered the most qualified ones, it's up to you to give credible evidence those people you're forcing them to hire are qualified enough.

reply

I’m not “forcing” anyone, it’s already a law. It’s called the civil rights act of 1964. It basically means someone isn’t going to be discriminated against for employment based upon their age, race, religion, or gender. Do you even American bruh?

reply

I'm still waiting for the evidence that they are qualified enough...

Of course, I know you won't provide it, because you can't. You will continue making excuses.

reply

Wow, I’ve never seen someone talk themselves into a corner so fast before.

reply

I repeat: you want to force private companies to hire people who are not the ones they considered the most qualified ones, it's up to you to give credible evidence those people you're forcing them to hire are qualified enough.

You are supporting that policy, it's up to you to argue it. The moment you're asked to provide credible evidence that support what you're arguing, then you start 'it's a law, it's not me, la la laaaa'. Well, you're supporting that law here, it's up to you to provide credible evidence.

reply

Ya ya, it’s up to you to provide some kind of empirical evidence that the private sector’s economic efficiency has been severely impacted by this tidal wave of unqualified workers you’re imagining. Because that’s not an argument I’m making, but one you pulled out of your arse. So be my guest. I’m not going to do your own research to support your strawman for you. Heh.

What you can’t seem to grasp with your pigeon-sized brain is that a company hiring someone less qualified merely on the basis of their race would be in direct violation of the law.

In all honesty, your argument is retarded because you’re requiring me to provide evidence that I literally don’t have. I’m not an employer or talent scout who has all the test scores of applicants for a job, idiot. How exactly am I supposed to prove they’re qualified? Who exactly are they/ anyway? Are you saying minorities are inherently not qualified? Are you an idiot racist? I think so.

reply

Don't bother arguing with degree7, nothing he says makes any sense. He will talk in circles and make up statistics to avoid being wrong.

reply

Yes, I am indeed the master-debater.

reply

Yeap, I pretty much realized it, that's why I didn't answer him anymore.

The topic at debate was whether a ruler should have the right to tell a private company who they should hire. I asked for some evidence those people were as qualified as the ones a company would have hired originally. As expected, he can't, because those people are less or even much less qualified, that's why affirmative action exists. If those people were equally qualified, the market would evolve by itself to have them hired. That's actually one of the biggest critics made by economists to affirmative action that has never been answered.

I expected him to argue that a ruler shouldn't be required to provide that evidence. And that's what he did, but his argument was that... 'it was the law'. WTF? If that's an argument to defend that a law should be, then every law that ever existed was fair, because all them were 'the law'. The argument was stupid, and I stoped wasting my time answering him.

As an interesting corollary, while the 'it's the law' argument was non-sense to defend whether a law if fair, it's a meaningful non-sense. It's a type of non-sense that I have seen before, something that I've seen in very conservative guys ("the law is the law and it's fair because it's the law and that's enough!"). And it's not the first time I'm noticing how the modern left is starting to share more and more elements with the old traditionalist conservatives.

reply

Shouldn't they hire the best qualified?

reply

That's racist and nazi.

reply

There’s no quota to be filled for AA programs.

reply

?

reply

Affirmative action doesn’t mean that someone less qualified is going to get hired, numbnuts.

So what does it mean? It seems everyone here has a different idea on that.

reply

It means exactly what it means.

reply

Does it mean the best qualified should be hired?

reply

It means that the talent field is as diverse and fair as possible. So yes, in the end, the most qualified person is hired.

reply

That makes no sense. Either the most qualified are hired or they aren't. The fact that race is factored in at all negates the concept of best qualified person for the job.

reply

That makes no sense. Either the most qualified are hired or they aren't.


Please explain how that applies to AA? If anything you’re going to have more qualified people with more diversity.

The fact that race is factored in at all negates the concept of best qualified person for the job.


No, because that would be in direct violation of title vii of the Civil Rights Act, and would be illegal.

reply

Please explain how that applies to AA? If anything you’re going to have more qualified people with more diversity.


The whole basis of AA is positive discrimination based on race. If you're factoring in anything other than qualifications and suitability for the role, you are no longer hiring based on the most qualified individual.

reply

That is a myth about AA. It doesn’t factor race into employment qualifications, because AA is not based on quotas, and that would also be illegal and discriminatory. What it does is remove barriers to employment. What AA is is a federal
Program designed to provide placement goal outreach to different workforce pools. It’s not saying “X gets the job over Y because he’s black” or “We need one more black, let’s hire Z.”

reply

You manage to say a lot without saying anything.

What it does is remove barriers to employment.


And what are those barriers?

reply

You manage to say a lot without saying anything.


It’s pretty straightforward logic. I’m not sure how your inability to keep up with the conversation reflects poorly on me.

And what are those barriers?


Kind of the whole point of the Civil Rights Act. Maybe try reading up about it at your local library. A mind is a terrible thing to waste after all.

reply

Once again you've managed to say nothing and avoided making a substantive point. You can't debate to save your life.

reply

Wow, I’ve never seen so much projection from someone before. Does that mean you forfeit the debate as you’re unable to counter my points?

reply

First of all, you've made no valid points. Secondly, you just edited your post and changed what you've written. You've done this with several posts in this thread which not only makes you a terrible debater, but a dishonest one too. It's actually shocking how bad you are at this.

reply

If you call fixing a typo or adding clarification being a "bad debater," then you obviously have no idea how to debate. There's nothing stopping you from replying to my points, but you won't because you're a coward. I'd say the only shocking thing here is how openly you flaunt your stupidity. Not something to be proud of.

reply

If you call fixing a typo or adding clarification being a "bad debater,"


LOL ok buddy, you're not fooling anyone. You've changed complete sentences and even added paragraphs in your response to kukuxu. You absolutely suck at debating which is why you have to resort to such tactics, and even with the edits your arguments are still loquacious nonsense. Now begone.

reply

Except the content of the post is the same, so it doesn't even matter. What imaginary rule book do you have that says you can't fix mistakes in old posts? At this point you're just being silly and arguing a nonsensical point. You have completely failed to counter any of my points and are just acting like an angry little barking dog now. Stupid neckbeard.

reply

Except the content of the post is the same


The empty ramblings of a low IQ neanderthal? Yeah definitely the same content.

What imaginary rule book do you have that says you can't fix mistakes in old posts?


Again, stop lying. You didn't just fix typos, you changed sentences and added paragraphs. You're a pathetic little weasel that can't debate honestly to save his life.

reply

low IQ neanderthal

Aw, at least try to be proud of your family lineage.
you changed sentences and added paragraphs.

I added like one extra sentence and rearranged some to make it flow better. I didn't change the argument itself. Again, what rule says I can't edit my own posts?

reply

I added like one extra sentence and rearranged some to make it flow better.


So now it's changed from fixing a mistake to adding an extra sentence and rearranging them too. Next step is to admit you also added paragraphs to a previous post. Ladies and gents, this is how you get a moron to contradict himself.

reply

So now it's changed from fixing a mistake to adding an extra sentence and rearranging them too.

That's the same thing. You need to calm down Liquid, we don't want you to have another aneurysm.

reply

It's not the same thing but thanks for playing. I'm glad you stopped editing your posts though, well done.

reply

It's not the same thing but thanks for playing.

Yes it is sweetheart.
I'm glad you stopped editing your posts though, well done.

Actually i edited this one just for you.

Night night goober.

reply

Night night jackass, i'm sure you'll cry yourself to sleep tonight.

reply

I don't think about you at all. Anyway, good night, some of us have to actually work for a living.

reply

Ok good luck working the fryer at KFC. I'll take a Zinger Tower meal please.

reply

With extra spit?

reply

Why not just hire the best qualified person? Why AA/diverse/diversity etc?

reply

Why not just hire the best qualified person?


That’s what AA is.

Why AA/diverse/diversity etc?


Because in America everyone deserves equal opportunity to be employed, as it’s their civil right. It might be a strange thought if you’re from another country though.

reply

Why not just hire the best qualified person? Why AA/diverse/diversity etc?

reply

Why not just hire the best qualified person?

That’s what AA is.

Why AA/diverse/diversity etc?

Because in America everyone has the right to equal opportunity for employment. It might be a strange notion if you’re not from here though.

reply

Why not just hire the best qualified person? Why AA/diverse/diversity etc?

reply

Why not just hire the best qualified person?

That’s what AA is.
Why AA/diverse/diversity etc?

Because in America everyone has the right to equal opportunity for employment. It might be a strange notion if you’re not from here though.

reply

Why does one need to use phrases like AA/diverse/diversity etc to hire the best qualified person, why not just hire the best qualified person?

reply

That’s what AA is. In America everyone has the right to equal opportunity for employment. It might be a strange notion if you’re not from here though.

reply

What prevents the the best qualified person from being hired, when the the best qualified person gets hired?

reply

You're beginning to see my point.

reply

So you're saying AA/diverse/diversity etc is just mumbo jumbo?

reply

No. But your comment is.

reply

To hire the best qualified person is mumbo jumbo, if so, why is that?

reply

No, your previous comment is mumbo jumbo.

reply

What prevents the the best qualified person from being hired, when the the best qualified person gets hired?
is mumbo jumbo?

reply

No, that one was okay, because it conceded to my point. I meant the one after that.

reply

So you're saying AA/diverse/diversity etc is just mumbo jumbo?
is mumbo jumbo, but
AA/diverse/diversity etc
is not mumbo jumbo?

reply

yes

reply

When one hires the best qualified person, why does one need AA/diverse/diversity etc?

reply

That’s what AA is. In America everyone has the right to equal opportunity for employment. It might be a strange notion if you’re not from here though.

reply

What is AA? How is the best qualified person given unequal opportunity, when the best qualified person is hired?

reply

That’s what AA is. In America everyone has the right to equal opportunity for employment. It might be a strange notion if you’re not from here though.

reply

AA is What is AA?

How is the best qualified person given unequal opportunity for employment in America, when the best qualified person is hired?

reply

That’s what AA is. In America everyone has the right to equal opportunity for employment. It might be a strange notion if you’re not from here though.

reply

How is the best qualified person not given unequal opportunity for employment in America, when the best qualified person is hired?

reply

Don't bother JohnnyDoe. He will repeat himself like a parrot and avoid elaborating on his previous points when he knows it doesn't make any sense.

reply

Well, the easy, and correct answer is: Makes it so everyone can achieve those same scores. Give disadvantaged people in the inner cities the same access to education that those in the suburbs get. Furthermore, the whole school voucher programs are about taking money away from inner city schools and give them to rich private schools.

reply

The problem is, black culture simply doesn't value education as much as other minorities such as Asians. There comes a point where black people need to help themselves. You can't blame the rest of the world for your lack of success if you're not willing to put in the work.

reply

Are you Asian?

reply

LiquidOcelot, I sincerely wish that were true.
The problem is, 'culture' is based on environmental factors, which you don't get to choose.
And having the 'will to put in the work' or not, is based on genetic factors and experience, which you don't get to choose either.
One's success is mostly due to being lucky...
...and you probably won't believe me if I tell you I identify most with what Americans would call "a Republican" (albeit one that doesn't believe in free will...).

reply

And having the 'will to put in the work' or not, is based on genetic factors and experience, which you don't get to choose either.


You can apply the same logic for professional sports where blacks tend to dominate, but there's no affirmative action for less represented races there.

At some point there needs to be accountability for their own actions, you can't constantly blame everything on external factors and then expect a handout. And it's pretty dangerous to blame their lack of academic success on genetics, it's almost inferring that blacks are inherently less intelligent.

reply

"You can apply the same logic for professional sports where blacks tend to dominate, but there's no affirmative action for less represented races there."
***
Agreed.
I'd apply the same thinking to athletes. Or to child murderers.
The latter, society definitely needs to put away in order to protect itself, but also has to recognise they are "unlucky" as well, and that they can -and must- be judged 'penally', but not 'morally'.

"At some point there needs to be accountability for their own actions."
***
Somewhat agreed. it's a difficult problem.
Most of the time, we do indeed need to behave as if we enjoyed free-will and were 'self-made' (even though we know it's not the case) for society to function. But we need to acknowledge, account for, and remedy, the inequalities that produce 'less successful minds" so to speak.
Michael Jordan is a fantastic basketball player. But he was lucky:
- he developed into a very tall and very fast man,
- he was able to train at an early age,
- he had the right mentors and coaches,
- he didn't have any debilitating accident in his prime,
- he was born in an era where people enjoy and will pay money to watch 10 guys throw balls through a hoop,
- etc.
Similar reasoning with, say, Bill Gates.
Or reverse reasoning with, say, unlucky Charles Whitman. If I'd had Charles Whitman's brain (tumor pressing against the amygdala included) and childhood, I too would have shot 17 people from a university tower (and of course my victims would have been unlucky as well...).

reply

I think you're getting a bit philosophical when talking about luck and free-will, that's all very subjective and based on an endless number of factors. For this world to function we need certain things to remain objective. Education and jobs at the top of that list. If blacks are performing poorly academically it's something they need to resolve on their end. There's no point babying them and giving them an unfair leg-up without the appropriate grades/qualifications. I'd personally find that incredibly patronizing if I were in their shoes.

reply

"I think you're getting a bit philosophical when talking about luck and free-will..."
**
That, also, is quite possible.
I don't have the answers. I find that philosophy helps understand facts that help build sound political systems that help make the laws that help build a safer and fairer society that help individuals live more satisfying lives...
But, like everything, it can be overdone as well.


"For this world to function we need certain things to remain objective."
***
Agreed.
For this world to function on a fair and equitable basis, we need to objectively understand whether people are self-made (i.e. have free-will) or not, and whether or not they are entirely responsible for their predicament and disposition, or at the mercy of external factors (i.e genes + environment) which they do not choose.


"If blacks are performing poorly academically it's something they need to resolve on their end"
***
I respectfully disagree. Not if even a small portion of the reason why they are performing poorly is not entirely and completely "on them" (i.e. external historical and political factors), which I believe is the case.


"There's no point babying them"
***
Agreed.


"...and giving them an unfair leg-up without the appropriate grades/qualifications."
***
The operative word here -and the one we seem to disagree on- is 'unfair'.

reply

"And it's pretty dangerous to blame their lack of academic success on genetics, it's almost inferring that blacks are inherently less intelligent."
***
It can be a slippery slope indeed.
Tell me, do you think it more (or less) dangerous to infer that they are unsuccessful because they are lazy ("not willing to put in the work")?

But the 'genes vs. environment' dichotomy appears to be a false one: genes do not magically activate or 'express themselves' in a vacuum; environment plays a major part in their expression, or lack thereof (see Robert Sapolsky in 'Behave' for a recent review of contemporary research on the subject).

I believe it would be dangerous indeed (and wrong, and unfair) if one was to infer the corollary that any race is "inferior" and therefore must not be treated as equal (in the eyes of the law, and with regards to their right to the pursuit of happiness, etc.), for the simple reason that, statistically, most (not all) of its members are more likely to have certain genes (and live in certain environments) that do not favour academic success.

Also, you'd have no guarantee that a specific individual from that particular race would be in the population featuring both the genes and upbringing in an environment conducive to academic failure. So you'd have to treat every individual from any race, equally.

reply

Tell me, do you think it more (or less) dangerous to infer that they are unsuccessful because they are lazy ("not willing to put in the work")?


Definitely less dangerous as laziness is a learned behavior. If you're inherently less intelligent then there's just no hope. And I didn't say they were lazy, I said they weren't putting in the work due to their culture. Education is not as aggressively promoted in black households as it is in white and asian households. Their idols tend to be basketball players and rap artists, whereas asian households for example promote professions such as accountancy and medicine. Education is front and center.

reply

"Definitely less dangerous as laziness is a learned behavior. If you're inherently less intelligent then there's just no hope. "
***
Well, that would be true, and I would agree with you, if what you call "laziness" was not correlated with intelligence and/or environment whatsoever. But I don't think that's the case.

Laziness seems undoubtedly linked to a less than optimal capacity to project oneself in the future (and anticipate one's failure), as well as the lack of education and the role models it provides. It can also be a correlation of mental illness (which we know also has a genetic+environmental origin): try getting out of bed early and "put in the work" day-in day-out when severely (clinically) depressed.

What do you think of the following example:
some (but not all) rich white -or asian, or black why not?- trust fund kids raised by nannies and with a silver spoon in their mouth are lazy too.
Some are even culturally indigent, but most of them are lucky enough to benefit from the superior education (home tutors and all, you don't even have to wake up early in the morning to go to school!) their absent parents' money provides.
Would you say it's fair that these kids more often than not end up with very comfortably lives and successful careers? Is it any of their own doing? After all they were also guilty of laziness. And you have to put in considerably less work when able to afford high-priced home tutors, and already have a vast network of more-or-less influential friends and parents' friends.

The argument could also be extended to ruling on whether it's any of their own doing if they were born to parents in a culture where one is taught not to resist arrest (even when innocent), because they know they'll be able to afford a good attorney?

reply

The answer is that it doesn't matter what's fair.

There's a small window that allows societies to progress. If you're not giving chances to the descendants of poor people... you're wasting talent and you're eliminating social competition and meritocracy. If you're giving them exactly the same chances, taking away any disadvantage... then you're eliminating working incentives. Parents work hard so their children have it better. If they can't make any difference, there will be no incentive to work hard.

Too much disadvantages, you're eliminating competition and meritocracy. Too little disadvantages, you're eliminating incentives. The window of progress is narrow. In this particular question, it doesn't matter what's fair, because, in a nutshell, you don't have room to choose.

reply

"The answer is that it doesn't matter what's fair."
***
I think it does.
I believe the perceived fairness of a society by its members (i.e. how fair they think they are treated, with regards to the law, education and career opportunities, etc.) is an essential component of its cohesion.
It seems like a built-in psychological feature of human beings that perception of unfairness generates anger and leads to violence, stemming from a sense that one has "nothing to loose" ("if the game is rigged, why play by the rules?", etc.).


"If you're giving them exactly the same chances, taking away any disadvantage... then you're eliminating working incentives."
***
The way I understand it, I think you "eliminate working incentives" only if you implement an 'equality of outcome' rather than 'equality of opportunity' policy. Only the latter seems fair, and will not undermine the value of 'hard work'.
At the same time, I recognise that a "fair society" is an ideal towards which we must strive, but one that is probably impossible to fully achieve. If only because it's an easily verifiable fact of life that intellectual and physical aptitudes are unevenly (=unfairly) distributed among individuals. Even with equal opportunities, some will always be born better equipped for success.
But in a fair(er) society there should be a way for these lucky individuals (one that is also fair to them...) to 'give back' to the community.


"The window of progress is narrow".
***
How do you mean?

reply

"Education is not as aggressively promoted in black households as it is in white and asian households. Their idols tend to be basketball players and rap artists, whereas asian households for example promote professions such as accountancy and medicine. Education is front and center."
***
I believe that to be true as well. And apparently, so does Harvard's Faculty (with regards to the higher test grades Asian students need to achieve in order to pass,compared to African-American's... but that's another story for another thread).
What it sounds like we don't agree on, is on "why" this is the case.
I don't believe one chooses the conditions that are prerequisites to developing a mind that is inquisitive and has the qualities required for sustained, hard intellectual work, nor the culture into which one is born (and therefore not what role models will be available to us).
Which is why I believe it is the collective duty (and self-interest) of all members of society to help resorb inequalities.

reply


You can apply the same logic for professional sports where blacks tend to dominate, but there's no affirmative action for less represented races there.


There’s already plenty of affirmative action in sports.

reply

Examples. The NBA is disproportionately black, we certainly haven't seen it there.

reply

Actually the NBA is disproportionately white, but anyway, examples of AA in sports:

Paralympics
National Disability Sports Alliance
Title XI

reply

Actually the NBA is disproportionately white


I've never seen anyone talk so much nonsense in my life. Do you know how to debate without constantly spouting nonsense? The NBA is almost 75% black.

examples of AA in sports:

Paralympics
National Disability Sports Alliance
Title X


Are you purposefully acting obtuse? AA for black people and the creation of a separate Special Olympics for disabled people are not the same thing. Your arguments are laughable and nonsensical.

reply

The NBA actually only has 36% people of colour employed. They are fairly diverse, but they could do better.

are not the same thing


That’s literally what AA is. Do you not understand what the definition of it is? I can help you if you need.

Your arguments are laughable and nonsensical


Nice ad hominem.

reply

The NBA actually only has 36% people of colour employed.


The players buddy. 75% of the players are black. Try and keep up without hurting yourself.

That’s literally what AA is. Do you not understand what the definition of it is?


Again, you're acting obtuse (or you're possibly autistic), we're talking about affirmative action in relation to race.

Nice ad hominem.


Ok hypocrite.

reply

The players buddy. 75% of the players are black. Try and keep up without hurting yourself.

Learn to read cupcake. I said 36% employed by the NBA are people of colour. That makes the organization disproportionately white. The players being majority black has nothing to do with AA, which is why I ignored your poor comparison.
Again, you're acting obtuse (or you're possibly autistic), we're talking about affirmative action in relation to race.

AA involves more than just race. For some reason you're hung up about it though. Probably because your mind is blasted from drinking moonshine at tiki torch parties.
Ok hypocrite.

I would be, except you started slinging insults first and lost all privileges. The only hypocrite here is you.

reply

Learn to read cupcake. I said 36% employed by the NBA are people of colour. That makes the organization disproportionately white.


Learn how to research numbnuts, that's 36% of coaching and admin positions, this doesn't include the players themselves who are 75% black. Even when you try to debate in a dishonest manner you suck at it.

AA involves more than just race. For some reason you're hung up about it though.


It might just be because that was the subject of both the thread, and the movie this message board is dedicated to. Again, try and keep up without veering off into space because you can't debate the topic at hand.

I would be, except you started slinging insults first and lost all privileges.


You were the first one to sling insults in this thread douchenozzle, don't start crying when others treat you the same. Hypocrite.

reply

this doesn't include the players themselves who are 75% black.

Again, this has nothing to do with AA.
It might just be because that was the subject of both the thread

The subject of the thread is AA. Sports have AA. Just not for race, because it's not needed. You were corrected, so stop being so butthurt about it. End of discussion.
You were the first one to sling insults in this thread

I was perfectly civil with you until you decided to use weak ad hominems. You're the biggest hypocrite out of anyone here. Stop projecting.

reply

Again, this has nothing to do with AA.


LOL as I thought, failure to concede your 36% statistic is incorrect. You're not only a shitty debater, but a dishonest one too.

The subject of the thread is AA.


Oh you are hopelessly bad at this. The original post is unequivocally about race -

Besides all that "ni66er bullsh!t" talk I'd say Derek's dad made some good points. I mean why is it that the standards need to lowered in the workforce to cater to black people? Why does there need to be a certain ratio of equal race? You can't solve racism by forcing employers to hire black people just so it seems "fair". The man was right to say that if you score higher in tests it means you get the job and you're hired. And it's not a black/white issue. I've met plenty of smart black people (much smarter than me) who're completely motivated and able to take on any job.

You're veering off into the irrelevant topic of Paralympics because like I said, you don't know how to debate. You're embarrassing yourself at this point.

I was perfectly civil with you until you decided to use weak ad hominems.


You started the insults towards other users in this thread so don't act surprised when you get a dose of your medicine. Stop crying.

You have taken an absolute spanking here, I almost feel sorry for you. Let this be a lesson you little dweeb.

reply

failure to concede your 36% statistic is incorrect.

Except it's factually, objectively, unequivocally correct. But nice try. Do not pass go and collect 200.
The original post is unequivocally about race

The original post is about AA. You brought up AA in relation to sports, which is irrelevant in itself, but I helpfully informed you that sports already has it. You then threw a little tantrum for being proven wrong. Fun times.
You started the insults towards other users in this thread

Which user? The one that doesn't exist anymore? His post is over half a decade old and he's probably dead by now. No one cares except you.

I bet you are into getting spanked as well, you sick freak.

reply

Except it's factually, objectively, unequivocally correct.


Except you had no rebuttal at all to the following - Learn how to research numbnuts, that's 36% of coaching and admin positions, this doesn't include the players themselves who are 75% black. Even when you try to debate in a dishonest manner you suck at it.

It's frightening how bad you are at this.

The original post is about AA.


Repeating something like a brain-dead zombie doesn't make it anymore valid. The OP is unequivocally focusing on race. This movie unequivocally focuses on race. Your point about Paralympics is irrelevant. Accept it and move on.

Which user? The one that doesn't exist anymore?


You don't even know who you insulted you half-wit. Scroll up, it's on this page.

reply

Except you had no rebuttal

Except I did. You just suck at reading comprehension.
The OP is unequivocally focusing on race.

The OP was focusing on AA. You brought AA up about sports. I said sports already has AA. You're now throwing a little temper tantrum for being corrected. I will keep repeating this until we remove that blockage from your brain preventing information from getting through.
You don't even know who you insulted you half-wit

It's called a rhetorical question you absolute scholar. Which university do you teach at?

reply

Except I did.


Lol this is getting sad and pointless now. It's like arguing with a witless special needs student who thinks 1+1=3.

Everyone can scroll up and see your embarrassing attempts at debating. That is unless of course you edit your posts like the saddo you are. Good thing the quotes are there.

reply