MovieChat Forums > Dear White People (2014) Discussion > How should i feel about my african ameri...

How should i feel about my african american coworker paying less


to send his daughter to college than me.

we make the same amount of money (middle to upper middle class). when we were discussing sending both of our daughters to college in the next two years he indicated that he will wait to see which of the top tier schools offer her more money. This hit me like a ton of bricks because i know we make the same amount of money and we will not qualify for any need based aid. But he apparantly knows his daughter will be targeted with incentives to come to most schools. i can also tell it isn't merit based aid because my daughter is a top student, and ivy league schools don't give merit based aid in any case. (some non-ivy top schools do give merit such as duke)

are african american kids given higher tuition breaks (not counting private scholarships) even if their parents can pay?

if so, that is a pretty complicated ethical dilemma isn't it?

am i missing something?

reply

Look at it as incentive to find scholarships for your own daughter. Yes, there are probably a lot more scholarships aimed at minorities that are made more readily known, but that certainly doesn't mean there aren't scholarships out there for everyone. When I went to school, one of the scholarships I got was merit based for students in engineering. It was only $500 per year but enough of those can make a significant dent.

Also, I don't see this as any ethical dilemma. Everyone should use any advantage they can to get ahead. Why shouldn't you?

reply

It's not a question of scholarships. It's a question of direct aid from the institutions. I don't blame anyone really for getting whatever scholarship or aid they can. My beef is with the institutions that are charging less to equally qualified minorities of the same income level.

Actually I kind of regret posting the original post because the whole question of affirmative action is so complicated. I just got mad when I found out that somebody who I thought was the in the same boat as me was getting financial advantages because of his race. I suppose his daughter does face more obstacles in the world, but What is the point of giving them more money than me? It's not like they need incentive to go to college or have less ability to pay than I do.

reply

Yea it's called racism. You are penalized for being white.

reply

Yeah penalized similarly to getting a false start penalty on the 1 yard line on first down when your up by 30 at the 2 minute warning and the other team has no timeouts

reply

Actually It's tens of thousands of dollars. We are both well paid middle class people. And we make the same amount of money, so I don't see how it is easier for me to send my kids to,school than him.

A better analogy would be we are equally matched teams, but I have home field advantage so he only needs 6 yard for a first down and I need 10.

reply

Reparations 

"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."

reply

?????

reply

Quoting the movie, kind of. Just consider it compensation for all the sh!t your coworker's ancestors had to go through.

"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."

reply

Why should the coworker get financial for something that didn't happen to them?

reply

Sh!t is still happening, man. There are ways to keep people in chains without literally putting them in chains.

"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."

reply

I guess by that logic the Irish should be exempt from paying it and given it as well. While we're at it I guess all men should give women reparations. Black men no need to keep that money for yourself hand it over to your girlfriend.

See how stupid this logic is? Most white people in this country arent related to anyone who owned a slave, the whole notion of reparations is racist in itself by assuming someones skin color means they were related to a slave owner. I guess Africans never took slave ships into Europe and kidnapped countless people, or took over Spain and other Euro countries and retained rule for hundreds of years? Newsflash they did, before, during and after the Atlantic slave trade, everyone has done this to everyone, get over it.

reply

Yeah penalized similarly to getting a false start penalty on the 1 yard line on first down when your up by 30 at the 2 minute warning and the other team has no timeouts


Sounds to me like the referee just wants to give the other team at least a spark of a chance.

Oh and if most pro athletes are black, then of course bad calls will be called more on the black people. It's equally true that more MVP's in sports will be more awarded to black people for the same reason.

reply

Sounds to me like the referee just wants to give the other team at least a spark of a chance.

It is called favoritism, being unfair. And since it is based on race in this case - it is called racism.

Oh and if most pro athletes are black, then of course bad calls will be called more on the black people.

You have any studies or proof of this truth? Or is it just your perception, probably backed by some bit of confirmation bias when watching the NFL?

It's equally true that more MVP's in sports will be more awarded to black people for the same reason.

And no other reason could possibly be behind it?

reply

Oh and if most pro athletes are black, then of course bad calls will be called more on the black people.
You have any studies or proof of this truth? Or is it just your perception, probably backed by some bit of confirmation bias when watching the NFL?


You gotta be kidding me right? Even a 5 year old could figure this out. But if u still need help, let me paint you a picture.

You put 99 green marbles into a paper bag. You put 1 red marble in the same paper bag. Close your eyes and pick a marble out at random. MOST LIKELY the marble you choose WILL be green!

Just like black people in pro sports. If there are more black people, then most likely black people will commit more fouls and create "turn overs" because there are more black players.


Sounds to me like the referee just wants to give the other team at least a spark of a chance.
It is called favoritism, being unfair. And since it is based on race in this case - it is called racism.


But the guy said the other team was up by 30 points. That's a pretty big lead. So having a call in the other team's favor is just a tiny little weeny spark of hope.

reply

Wow you are right, I missed the words of context somehow, either because I skimmed to much or was too tired, honestly I don't care. The "If there are more black athletes" was missed, and I thought you were advocating that the referees were racist by flagging black people more than white people on a case by case basis. Which I asked you to show me the proof of. My bad.

But it still is confusing mainly because he wasn't referring to racist referees. He was talking about the oppression of blacks in general, in life throughout time - and equating that to a football game. Not bad referees. He was using this when he said the "up by 30 points" thing, as if our oppression the white man is up 30 points ahead of the black man and for them to have any success in this, they are allowed to be unfair. Which is absurd to me.

Because that isn't how the world works, and it is a way to break the system more. The blacks are no longer held back from positions by skin color anyway, they don't need it. The past crimes have no power over them, and thus the faulty logic of the comparison steps in.

reply

The blacks are no longer held back from positions by skin color anyway, they don't need it.


thats not really true. according to one major study, white names get 50% more callbacks than black names for the same exact resume. several other studies, including ones done outside of the usa (e.g., canada), consistently show white names with an advantage over every other race, even asians.

in california, after prop 209 banned affirmative action for public schools, white admission rates went down rather than up. asians took over the majority of admissions--but only in public schools; in california private schools, where race can still be factored, whites still dominate. and whites still dominate high level positions in california tech companies, despite asians going into stem majors at higher rates.

nepotism is also rampant, and perfectly legal. heck, ive gotten at least 2 jobs just by knowing the right person (yes, we were both white). generally, the overwhelming majority of instances where two people befriend one another, they share race in common. favoritism like this isnt racist per se, but it does lead to unfair discrimination thats more pronounced along racial lines.

reply

I can't help to notice your entire response to my 'blacks are not really held back from positions of power' being false never really helped prove anything that blacks were literally being held from positions of power. They literally can still get them. You only mentioned studies about biases in names, etc.

But that study doesn't prove anything about race. It proves people like to keep around names they can pronounce easier, at least instinctively. Which makes perfect sense. It also proves tendencies towards what you are familiar with, but not racial discrimination.

I have a feeling if someone had the stones to do the exact same study but with any other ethnicity, they would find the exact same results. Because that is part of the human psyche, and that is not easily changed. AA doesn't help fight that, that only makes things more unequal. You fight that with messages and education on these other cultures so those barriers of not being familiar with them, issues with those names, etc can go down.

And who cares about if white admission numbers go down after AA is dropped? You don't get it, even if 50% of all the white numbers disappeared, me being a white man would not care. You want to know why? Because at least it wouldn't be discriminating by race, which AA does. Some may argue whether or not it has quotas, lets people with less qualifications get in, but lets not argue over semantics here. At the very basic level, what AA essentially does it let employers look at race as a factor in their hiring, to benefit those 'oppressed' groups. It shouldn't be a factor at all. There is only one thing that should have a factor. Merit, and qualifications. That is it. Unless it is a family run business or something else special, then perhaps other factors. But in general, definitely not.

Nepotism is a problem in human nature (see above). Unless you think the After Earth movie that starred Jaden Smith was not nepotism, that people actually gave Jaden the job as the better actor for the job, and not because of his dad, Will? Money drives these things in actuality. And this has nothing to do with race, rather humanity, again. This is not some sort of thing about whites oppressing blacks.

And getting jobs simply because knowing the right person? What does this have to do with race at all? That was always true, and will always be true, with or without AA. By knowing the right person, I can get a job sooner than those of my same race, same sex, gender who go for the same job. Heck, I can even probably get the job sooner by knowing the right person even if that other person and position is usually filled by the opposite race, sex, etc. This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, at all.

reply

you dont get it. those names are easier for you to pronounce because youre mostly familiar with names of people in your same race. whether race is directly factored during decision making is irrelevant. when you do an analysis, the disparities along racial lines are glaring. this is disparate impact. if knowing the right person gets you jobs, and people generally know people of their same race, and most people in the country are white... that puts whites in the usa, in the aggregate, at a distinct advantage.

and aa does not "discriminat[e] by race." it discriminates based on demographic impact, and factors other traits besides race (e.g., sex, religious affiliation). these traits are incidental, and not the basis for discrimination; at any point, depending on current demographics, another race (including white), or sex, or religion would best contribute to diversity. historically black schools give preference to whites for this reason.

reply

you dont get it. those names are easier for you to pronounce because youre mostly familiar with names of people in your same race.

A fact I was rather implying, but perhaps I need to be more implicit with you next time. I got that more than easily. I pointed out though, that has none of this is holding back the black population though. These are soft biases, that exist for just about every population. And besides, does everyone want to learn how to pronounce every other cultures name that they might run into?

whether race is directly factored during decision making is irrelevant.

It is just about the only thing relevant when it comes to race in my book. If we are to ever be a fair society, we will need to stop making race a direct factor into hiring or enrolling. I vote for the meritocracy. Besides, in a meritocracy, those who do perform more on average, will make waves for themselves, which in turn will increase people to know about things relevant to that person or group.

if knowing the right person gets you jobs, and people generally know people of their same race, and most people in the country are white

You still don't get it. You can't force people to know people. It just happens. If it was 50/50 population split, this would still happen. The fact that most people in an average population pool of lets say, 95% white might have a white person mainly pool - doesn't matter at all. It is logical. To try to tip the scales is actually anti-democratic, and in general, unfair and stupid.

that puts whites in the usa, in the aggregate, at a distinct advantage.

This one here is a generalization of a problem that would actually make things worse. Excluding the point where people who know people will be proportionally represented in those regions where that culture is more prevalent because of population, thus leading to these effects - even being a problem as mentioned above, I still can't see how what you are saying here makes sense. What about the areas in the US that are white minority populations? There are actually large swaths of areas that are like this. And trying to make a blanket fix by your generalizing all white people in the entire USA is downright stupid. Because not every white person has those advantages. Many black or Latino people have those exact advantages over whites. Enough of these pockets of demographics like this exist to make these stupid generalizations simply not work.

and aa does not "discriminat[e] by race." it discriminates based on demographic impact, and factors other traits besides race (e.g., sex, religious affiliation).

The doublethink is strong with this one. You might want to read 1984 to see what I mean. You just admitted it discriminates on factors like sex, religion, affiliation, and demographics on a whole. I never ever said it didn't include those things, they are simply more problems with it that wasn't relevant to this discussion, and I have said many times I believe in the meritocracy, where any of those things would be stupid. Anyway, if you are discriminating based on those racial demographics, which they do - that by very definition is: discrimination based on race. Butter it up if you want to, but denying it outright is just cognitive dissonance. You can try to justify it by saying those types of race discriminations are a good thing, but they aren't. The very fact that it can add factors besides just "who is the best candidate for the job" in its very basic sense implies that peoples common reaction to saying it gives people who are under-qualified people a leg over those who have more qualifications. It is true. Because suddenly, they have other things they have to consider. This is a far worse crime than any of the return call bias studies (that didn't even exist that long ago, in a time where they had even less excuse to follow it), that seem to change depending on area, often change outright, and are not really solved by simply trying to throw more chances out to those people. Ultimately, it hurts the overall bottom line for the companies and employers, which in turn hurts the overall quality, which in turn hurts the overall area, which also effects even those minorities. Higher output is better here. Market forces.


Historically black schools give preference to whites for this reason.

One of several, but equally irrelevant.


Oh, and furthermore, in regards to AA, it hasn't even been proven to have really helped minorities in any way regardless. Many of the victories people attribute to it can actually attributed to other factors. From the very beginning. It just doesn't work.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/features/2014/the_liberal_failure_on_race/affirmative_action_it_s_time_for_liberals_to_admit_it_isn_t_working.html

reply

I vote for the meritocracy.


not really:

And getting jobs simply because knowing the right person? What does this have to do with race at all? That was always true, and will always be true


just because you spend a lot of time fighting "sjws" (particularly where blacks are concerned) doesnt mean youre a proponent of meritocracy. this is clear by your dismissive attitude toward nepotism above. also, you conveniently ignored one of my replies in this same thread where i cited the fact that 89% of kids who got into university of texas with lower qualifications than abigail fisher were white. youd only be focused on 11% of the problem there.

that, your hypocrisy, is real doublethink.

You just admitted it discriminates on factors like sex, religion, affiliation, and demographics on a whole.


factoring something doesnt make it the basis of discrimination, otherwise itd be racist just to distinguish white from black. as pointed out in the historically black schools example, if the basis of discrimination is race, then whether the school is already predominantly black would not deter the school from continuing to prioritize black admissions--but that doesnt happen. no race is inherently more diverse than another; their impact on diversity is relative. the traits mentioned are incidental.


Are you attributing those to all white people? Because you can't use these kind of generalizations and say "white people are advantaged" in these over broad terms.


its true, so by definition not fallacious...

reply

not really:

Why not? I want to live in the world where you are judged on your merit, not the color of your skin? I remember a certain black civil rights advocate in the day I deeply agree with saying something like that in the day... 😉

just because you spend a lot of time fighting "sjws" (particular where blacks are concerned) doesnt mean youre a proponent of meritocracy. this is clear by your dismissive attitude toward nepotism above.

This is where you are wrong here about me. I agree with Meritocracy, and I also see that nepotism exist, and largely is an issue to a small degree, save for the situations where it is something like a family business. But what you fail to understand is that issue is largely separated from the race, sex, religion based demographic enforcement policies, aka AA - and how they don't solve nepotism, and only make things worse. It is really racism and sexism wrapped up in a policy outwardly pushing for 'equality'. Nepotism, as you have defined it is simply promoting those you know. For one thing, often times, you do want to promote those you know. And that isn't that big of an issue to begin with, and not a tenth as bad as the racist AA. Besides, nepotism can often times be good. If I already knew this person, and knew exactly what I was getting, it is less risky than hiring an unknown, despite great credentials. I know this isn't always the case, but these are money politics that make sense.

factoring something doesnt make it the basis of discrimination, otherwise itd be racist just to distinguish white from black.

You are still clinging to double think here. Discrimination is just acting on things by what what they are by choice, in the case of lets say blacks and whites, human discrimination. No one can change their skin color, and is bad. Yes, these laws do discriminate, because they are putting race into a factor, even you just said that. That makes it a factor by which they use to judge a situation for action. Guess what that is, at the basic definition and logic sense? Discrimination.
So yes, factoring in race for who you are going to hire does in fact make you discriminating by race, even if it isn't the whole reason you hire a person. By wanting to hire more whites than blacks for instance, but focusing on other factors more (like job experience), you are discriminating against blacks. It is all very simple.
If it is a a factor, it is discriminatory. Period. Because that means you are treating them at different levels.


as pointed out in the historically black schools example, if the basis of discrimination is race, then whether the school is already predominantly black would not deter the school from continuing to prioritize black admissions--but that doesnt happen.

Again, this doesn't matter. Many white schools are prioritizing black students too, what does this matter? They are both discriminating. As mentioned before, this doesn't really advance your argument. In fact, come to think of it, it actually goes against it.
Everyone should get a fair shot, without their skin color being a factor. Regardless of demographics, who is the majority in that school for instance.
They should be judged by the content of their character. Individually. And if that character is not up to par, even if he is a white person trying to get into a good black school - that white person should be able to be denied based on that fact. Instead of being prioritized in there. Even if it is just slightly under the bar, now you are having two standards. And it is now lowering the peer quality for those black students who do go there.

no race is inherently more diverse than another; their impact on diversity is relative. the traits mentioned are incidental.

Agreed, they are no more inherently diverse from one another. I remember saying various things are HUMAN nature several times now. It is relative, that is exactly why I don't like blanket judgements. Policies like this are not individual based, merit based. Which is why they are terrible. And you just pretty much summed up why I feel that way.

its true, so by definition not fallacious...

Not true at all. Fallacious is just something containing a logical fallacy.
For instance, the one I was alluding to here was the red herring fallacy. Something irrelevant that is thrown into a conversation to advance a point, but actually has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. There are dozens of truths that can make things fallacious. The one that annoys me the most is the ad hominems (as you can see other posters on this board love to resort to it). But calling someone a liar and not to be trusted for instance is by itself fallacious. Because even a liar can be right about several things, which is why you want to judge what is said without factoring in the part about 'liar', but rather, is what this person says having any merit?

You don't seem to know the definition of fallacious. Because it was fallacious, as explained above. The fact that it is true is irrelevant.

reply

fishman61:
goerge12344:
not really:
Why not? I want to live in the world where you are judged on your merit...


notice the colon you quoted. looks like this:
http://lisaswritopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/colon-kevrocks-weebly-com.jpg

definition of colon: "a punctuation mark (:) indicating.
that a writer is introducing a quotation or a list of items.
that a writer is separating two clauses of which the second expands or illustrates the first."

right after the colon, i posted evidence to the contrary. you dont want to live in a world where youre judged on merit. youre a liar. and you--again-conveniently avoided the abigail fisher example i cited days ago, where 89% of lesser admitted students were white.

fishman61:
goerge12344:
its true, so by definition not fallacious...
Not true at all. Fallacious is just something containing a logical fallacy.


this is a falsifiable claim. lets see if its true...

definition of fallacious: "based on a mistaken belief."
definition of mistaken: "wrong in one's opinion or judgment."
definition of wrong: "not correct or true."

fishman61:
You don't seem to know the definition of fallacious. Because it was fallacious, as explained above. The fact that it is true is irrelevant.


oops.

reply

notice the colon you quoted. looks like this:
...
right after the colon, i posted evidence to the contrary.

No $%#& Sherlock. I think we all understand what a colon stands for. They are especially useful for listing things.

But did you also realize, you yourself separated the "not really:" by the rest for emphasis for the same reason I put my response to that primarily in the same emphasis?
I broke down my response to each segment accordingly. I first gave a lay down on why I would truthfully do so. Then I refuted the evidence.

You make it sound like I was in error, but the only thing this does is show that you yourself don't understand how I myself was doing things. In a manner that English agrees with. I may have even done the same thing even if you did put the "not really:" in the same area as the things it was attached to.


this is a falsifiable claim. lets see if its true...
definition of fallacious: "based on a mistaken belief."
definition of mistaken: "wrong in one's opinion or judgment."
definition of wrong: "not correct or true."

It wasn't falsified at all...
Nope, you aren't getting out of this one. I was dead accurate. You need to understand you gave a very narrow, incomplete definition, and then try to force it into the context of my words.

While technically true, that one definition you posted could use fallacious to define simply being wrong, I was using it as the term for including fallacy, which is where the term originated. Look at the first definition in the dictionary. It might surprise you. It isn't "based on a mistaken belief."

Bold where relevant.

Merriam Webster Definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacious
Full Definition of fallacious

1
: embodying a fallacy <a fallacious conclusion>

2
: tending to deceive or mislead : delusive


The Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fallacious

fallacious (fəˈleɪʃəs)
adj
1. (Logic) containing or involving a fallacy; illogical; erroneous
2. tending to mislead
3. delusive or disappointing: a fallacious hope.
falˈlaciously adv
falˈlaciousness

And it is illogical to try to use your own definition to someone using a word to describe you as fallacious in a specific context of the word. Heck, you should be able to simply break it down. Fallac(y) + icious. What are fallacies? Do they all have to be based on incorrect data, or can they also contain true data that is a fallacy? You may really have fun going through a list of fallacies online. It is something I think everyone should go through in each grade level in school after 6th grade. I think we would have much smarter people in general.

By you trying to fit your own definition to exactly what I was describing, and then saying I was incorrect, you also are committing yet another fallacy (twisting meanings of arguments to attack). Amusingly enough.

reply

89% of students admitted with lower performance than abigail fisher were white. youre clearly avoiding this fact on purpose, after i explicitly reminded you about it twice.

no, you didnt understand what the colon denoted--your response proved that well enough.

fishman61:
you yourself don't understand how I myself was doing things

fishman61:
gave a lay down


english is evidently not your first language. lol. you should really avoid semantics. youre having enough trouble as it is.

reply

89% of students admitted with lower performance than abigail fisher were white. youre clearly avoiding this fact on purpose, after i explicitly reminded you about it twice.

I am not avoiding the issue, and as I mentioned it before, I was pressing the issue of context.

If it is the UT Texas lawsuit specifically that you want to talk about, those stats are a bit misleading to begin with for her. This was not a case of discrimination on her being white that she failed to get into school with. She simply failed out on merit.

92 percent of freshman spots in the UT system were claimed by in-state high school students who graduated in the top 10 percent of their classes. That didn't include Fisher, who finished high school in Sugar Land with a 3.59 GPA and 1180 out of a max of 1600 on her SATs, according to court docs.

Fisher and the other remaining applicants were instead evaluated based on two scores: one for her grades and test scores, and the other based on a "personal achievement index," which ProPublica explains awarded points for two required essays, as well "leadership, activities, service and 'special circumstances.' Those included socioeconomic status of the student or the student's school, coming from a home with a single parent or one where English wasn't spoken. And race."

School officials say that this is where Fisher's mediocre grades and test scores really dinged her, Hannah-Jones writes: "[E]ven if Fisher received points for her race and every other personal achievement factor, the letter she received in the mail still would have said no."


So with that said, those who scored lower than her would have failed to, and those at her level or slightly above. She was out to benefit herself, not because of any fault of the university.

From this, we can say that I still have a full footing on my belief that a person should be should be turned down on merit, and accepted on those variables alone. What the racial breakdown was, with the 42 applicants with a lower score being white, while black, Hispanic got 5, 2 respectively is irrelevant. SCOTUS judge Scalia even said a number of interesting things about AA itself that I agree with, about how it discriminates against just about everyone.

It really needs to go. Pointing to a single case or group of them and saying "they help" or "helps even out those racial %" is really missing the point. We are not looking for equity. We are looking for equality. More specifically, the right for everyone to be judged fairly on there own, within reason. I mean within reason, as their is no way to legislate or enforce peoples preconceptions or mental judgements within reason. I feel like I have to add the within reason here to clarify points brought up before. Everyone does it, to just about everyone. You probably size up just about everyone who enters a room as well. Well this person sounds nice, etc. These things will often, beyond our scope of control affect our judgements. At a certain point, trying to force human instincts away by force actually becomes detrimental, and an exercise in stupidity. Teach people why these notions are wrong, and leave it up to self practice and awareness for the best, but not 100% perfect results.



english is evidently not your first language. lol. you should really avoid semantics. youre having enough trouble as it is.

I wasn't being semantic at all at first. I called one of your arguments fallacious when it was, at least how I use the word - and you insisted on proving that my statement was false because of semantics. In trying to avoid semantics, perhaps it is you who shouldn't accuse people of using English incorrectly if you feel you are not real competent in it; with it not being your first language at all. But anyway, I feel your pain.  I am trying to learn Spanish with hit and miss success lately. Understanding context of words I thought I knew like nada also being the words for swim seems to got me.

reply

Teach people why these notions are wrong, and leave it up to self practice and awareness for the best, but not 100% perfect results.


So, what in the meantime, of the huge 400-year long, government supported and sanctioned (see the racial origins of the GI Bill, FHA and welfare, for example), institutionalized SYSTEM of racial imbalance (in particular, regarding personal wealth and virtually all measurable quality of life statistics)? In the meantime, do "non-whites" simply pretend that those chasms don't exist, and instead, simply hope that after all these centuries, "whites have somehow suddenly and magically evolved into much more humanitarian types of individuals than they've historically shown themselves to be, throughout the absolute entirety of the past 400 years", according to your "highly scientific" theory? And if in some bizarro-world universe, your theory could work, what kind of additional time scale are the people at the very bottom of the racial totem pole looking at before this sudden and magical change of white hearts takes place? 20 more years? 50? Another 400, maybe? Because, no matter what time frame you pick, that quality of life gap will only get much larger for them in the meantime. Not to mention the constant institutional violence that has ALWAYS accompanied being at the bottom of the racial totem pole, that they will continue to suffer. If not this very stuff, exactly what do you in your twisted little mind think all the protesters are out in the streets protesting about, on a daily basis RIGHT NOW?

Once again, the cards you're trying your damndest to hide up your sleeve are accidentally showing. Because this theory of yours is a page straight from the original racial playbook of the 1960's. And all this highly unoriginal theory of yours actually says is that you want the current racial status quo to change as slowly as conceivably possible. "Don't force it!" "It'll gradually take care of itself!" The simple truth is, it has NEVER come even remotely close to "taking care of itself". And it NEVER will! Because it was never intended to. It was always strictly a means to "appease the hungry and huddled masses, and keep them just outside the gates" of "white" society. Not one ounce more. The real process of undoing what is now 400 years of systemic white racism has always required massive amounts of hugely sacrificial pressure and will. Against disproportionately HUGE amounts of both overt and covert violent pushback in the other direction. Always has, and always will. Because -- in theory, at least -- being white is a privilege. Saturated into every financial and power institution in American history. A privilege that people like you are not going to EVER let ANYBODY take away from you without a fight. Even if in cases like this it has to be a very covert fight. Full of endless disinformation and misdirection. But in no uncertain terms, the games of the past are no longer going to continue working. Nothing short of full and equal justice is going to appease so-called non-whites this time! And what makes this time-period fundamentally different? Demographics. 100 million strong, and counting! Both the historical records of all the previous deceptions and violences, and the sheer demographic numbers are working against people like you this time. It's not going to change, it already is changing. And to a very great degree, people like you are no longer in control of either the direction or the pace of that change. People like you just simply refuse to accept the reality of it. Because defining this as a "white" country and being "white" means absolutely everything to you. And you'll fight for it at any cost. In this particular case, just very thinly disguised as "fighting for equality, not equity" and "pointing out THEIR racism".

So I hope you have a better Plan B for covertly prolonging white hegemony, than "just let it slowly take care of itself". Because this theory you're proposing here is not going to continue working so well this time around. And those protesters you see on the news virtually every night...that's precisely why they're out there. Because they've heard the exact same type of misdirection for the last 60 years. And they're not buying it anymore.



No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

reply

So, what in the meantime, of the huge 400-year long, government supported and sanctioned (see the racial origins of the GI Bill, FHA and welfare, for example), institutionalized SYSTEM of racial imbalance

So you are saying there is still a sanctioned, systemic racist system today against black people? I hate to break it to you, that is simply not the case. It may have been true some 50-60 years ago, but you are essentially having to fit a square peg in a round hole to prove that now. So no, we are not having to deal with a system like that in the meantime.

In the meantime, do "non-whites" simply pretend that those chasms don't exist, and instead, simply hope that after all these centuries, "whites have somehow suddenly and magically evolved into much more humanitarian types of individuals than they've historically shown themselves to be, throughout the absolute entirety of the past 400 years", according to your "highly scientific" theory?

Magically evolved? No. These social balances have evolved over pain and bloodshed over centuries. Just like add a few more centuries to that and we have things like the catholic/reformation wars that were just as stupid and unjust. Unless you think that we haven't moved past that nonsense too? And in regards to me saying they were magically anything, or instantly anything. *CITATION NEEDED. You are blatantly misrepresenting my argument, essentially saying I am saying things that simply are not the case. Which is one of the reasons I always seem to fail to have a rational argument with you after some time.
Furthermore, most whites do not simply pretend racism doesn't exist. We aren't allowed to forget it with people like you around to tell us every moment we eat, sleep and breathe. Not to mention it is just COMMON SENSE. But just because it does, does not mean that there is a systemic problem.

what kind of additional time scale are the people at the very bottom of the racial totem pole looking at before this sudden and magical change of white hearts takes place? 20 more years? 50? Another 400, maybe? Because, no matter what time frame you pick, that quality of life gap will only get much larger for them in the meantime. Not to mention the constant institutional violence that has ALWAYS accompanied being at the bottom of the racial totem pole, that they will continue to suffer. If not this very stuff, exactly what do you in your twisted little mind think all the protesters are out in the streets protesting about, on a daily basis RIGHT NOW?

See above. Are you saying as a black person you have less civil rights than me anymore? Please, do go on. Are you still the lowest peg on a race based caste system anymore? If only this were true, I could compel you to shut up. But since that isn't the case... See how that logic works? All the social and governmental forces are on your side. The opposite of what you imagine it is.

Once again, the cards you're trying your damndest to hide up your sleeve are accidentally showing. Because this theory of yours is a page straight from the original racial playbook of the 1960's.

And there it is again, your rant about me being like a racist from the 1960's. I remember how this went just a few days ago, and your resort to ad hominems constantly when I attack that argument and defend my position. So, as I said before - I am not going to bother feeding it until you start resorting to more hard data or just in general, logical arguments. And how do you like to end some of your rants? Oh, bye bye now?

reply

So you are saying there is still a sanctioned, systemic racist system today against black people? I hate to break it to you, that is simply not the case. It may have been true some 50-60 years ago


Does that mean that you believe we have now achieved clear and undeniable, scientifically and statistically verifiable, "equal justice under the law"? And as a consequence, very much unlike in times past, blacks can now fully expect to have the same unbiased experiences, with both law enforcement and the courts, that whites have always known, anywhere in America? Because if your answer is no, in say 30% of cases, then LOGICALLY that means you MUST -- however begrudgingly -- admit that, that seemingly small amount would nonetheless be evidence that systemic racism does, in fact, STILL exists. But, make no mistake about it, if you do admit that, that makes your above statement (and virtually all your previous comments on this subject, as well) intentional lies. Because very much akin to pregnancy, there can be no equivocation in this matter. Either a woman is pregnant, or she is not. There is no such thing as "mostly not pregnant". And likewise, there is no "mostly not systemic racism". Because, after 400 years of virtual "hell on Earth" for people of color in this country, either it does or it doesn't still exist now. And, to take the pregnancy metaphor a step further, either the pregnancy tests are still continuing an unbroken trend of definite positives (for the last 400 years straight), or there have been a statistically impossible number of false positives in the last 50-60 years.

So which is it??? (And let's not play the whole "it might, kinda, maybe, possibly, sorta still exist, but it's not sanctioned or systemic" semantics game! Or any other politician sounding doublespeak, for that matter.) Stand the hell up for what you REALLY believe!


No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

reply

Does that mean that you believe we have now achieved clear and undeniable, scientifically and statistically verifiable, "equal justice under the law"?

Since you put "under the law", then I say, absolutely - YES!
Because under the law - they don't have to have separate wash rooms, different spots on the buses. They are not legally barred from any jobs now because of their race. Under the law, we have no issues anymore. We haven't in some time.
Go on, tell me one right, at least from a legal perspective that whites have that blacks don't have. Or one legal protection even. Which is what 'equal justice under the law' really is. Sure, you can claim that a case here or there could be bad, and there are some injustices. But that isn't a systemic problem anymore. The system is designed to punish that sort of thing. Not to mention now since it is equal, both sides can claim various things that have happened to say "well that is racial injustice". It goes no where. We have crushed Germany, and sacked Berlin in this fight already. We have all but set up the anti-nazi force, but perhaps need more work in that arena slightly.


And as a consequence, very much unlike in times past, blacks can now fully expect to have the same unbiased experiences, with both law enforcement and the courts, that whites have always known, anywhere in America?

Can: Every black person have that same claim that they were targets of prejudice and bias from law enforcement, etc?
Are you sure that there is no biases against white people anywhere in the US as well?


Because if your answer is no, in say 30% of cases, then LOGICALLY that means you MUST -- however begrudgingly -- admit that, that seemingly small amount would nonetheless be evidence that systemic racism does, in fact, STILL exists.

First, where is this 30% of cases coming from? What are you even arguing? You were talking about various things, like biased experiences and whites 'always known, anywhere in America?'. So 30% of what cases? Just cases with bias? How do you define bias here, do you mean any prejudgements at all?


Second, um, no. Systemic racism is not controlling this country anymore. Unfortunately, many of the very racist ideas in groups like SJWs are taking root, causing more racial divisions and problems...

But, make no mistake about it, if you do admit that, that makes your above statement (and virtually all your previous comments on this subject, as well) intentional lies. Because very much akin to pregnancy, there can be no equivocation in this matter.

Admit to what? That blacks are equal under the law, and there is no systemic government racism going on, spearheaded even by the government run by Obama?
That doesn't make me a liar at all.

Either a woman is pregnant, or she is not. There is no such thing as "mostly not pregnant".

Good point, perhaps I should use this line from time to time as things like this seem to come up. But here, it is irrelevant.


Because, after 400 years of virtual "hell on Earth" for people of color in this country, either it does or it doesn't still exist now. And, to take the pregnancy metaphor a step further, either the pregnancy tests are still continuing an unbroken trend of definite positives (for the last 400 years straight),

Um, the trend has definitely been going down in the last 400 years. Unless you think the black community hasn't advanced at all in the last 400 years, and they are living like slaves today... The cycle by that alone is breaking, and on life support. So I don't buy your 'unbroken trend of definitive positives' at all. It is not even close to unbroken.

So which is it??? (And let's not play the whole "it might, kinda, maybe, possibly, sorta still exist, but it's not sanctioned or systemic" semantics game! Or any other politician sounding doublespeak, for that matter.) Stand the hell up for what you REALLY believe!

I don't ever remember even indirectly inferring that systemic racism still exist. I remember saying biases exist, and I remember saying that racism in small pockets still exist. I never even came close to admitting that there is systemic racism that controls this country. Because it is simply not true. I don't play the semantic game. You want me to just be up front about everything I believe? I don't remember being untoward. See above for what I believe in this issue. No double speak, at least not coming from my side.

reply

under the law - they don't have to have separate wash rooms, different spots on the buses. They are not legally barred from any jobs now because of their race. Under the law, we have no issues anymore. We haven't in some time.


And yet, despite the fact that "under the law" it is now technically illegal for whites to continue discriminating on the basis of race in housing, employment, education, policing, banking, etc., as they've always done in the past, EVERY major city in America is, nonetheless, somehow still de facto segregated along the same historical racial lines anyway. (As is easily shown on color-coded demographic maps.) And even though this pattern is widespread throughout America biggest cities (and a strikingly close approximation of what segregation patterns have always looked like), it's, nonetheless, not systemic? And even though it's been shown in countless studies that blacks are both arrested more (for approx. equal drug use) and sentenced longer when convicted for equal drug crimes, it's not systemic? Or, police encounters resulting in statistically higher citation rates for blacks, it's not systemic? Or black children as young a 5 being consistently disciplined and expelled at much higher rates, it's not systemic? Or, average net worth being 22 times less for blacks than whites, but it's not systemic. Or, our current headlines involving environmental poisoning consistently happening in predominantly black areas, but it's not systemic? Or, white felons statistically having higher chances at jobs than black non-felons, but it's not systemic? Or minorities disproportionately being the targeted victims of the recent sub-prime lending scandal, but it's not systemic? Or, the percentage of America's prison population that is disproportionately black, but it's not systemic? Or, the relative percentage of blacks living below the poverty level, in the richest nation that has ever existed on Earth, but it's not systemic? And last, but not least, the largest cities in America (as in NY, LA, Chicago, etc.) consistently flirting with financial insolvency as a result of paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in death and injury settlements to the families of minorities that they've unjustly killed or very badly injured in discriminatory ways, but it's not systemic?

It's about "equal justice under the law". And any rational human would admit that these examples (and hundreds of others too) show that this is still not even close to the just system that ANOTHER Civil Rights Act supposedly guaranteed we were finally going to get in 1964! But the real truth is, it was never actually intended to work that way, in the first place. Because from it's very inception, the political construct known as white supremacy was designed to specifically benefit white, landowning, Protestant, males very intentionally at the expense of all others. And it's still doing a variation of that exact same thing 350 years later. And the seemingly neverending examples above continue to prove it. The system's not broken. It's still doing more or less exactly what it was originally designed to do in the 1600's. Keep white males perpetually at the top of the American social order, to the maximum extent possible, and for as long as conceivably possible. To continue pretending not to see the 400-year-old system still very much at work in the countless examples, like those above, is moral corruption of the highest order.

It is most definitely still systemic! Because most of the statutes for addressing discrimination and segregation, within the most recent Civil Rights Act, are simply being very carefully maneuvered around or quietly altered (like the Voting Rights Act, for example). But the 90-plus percent demographic majority that's been needed to sustain such immoral maneuvering, by sheer brute force, is dwindling rapidly. White racism and bigotry are far from dead (as primarily evidenced by the de facto segregation that still greatly exist throughout America). But it's actually the rapidly dwindling demographic numbers needed to sustain the corrupt underlying system that are, as you said it, on life support. (Does the phrase, "Take America Back", mean anything to you?) After that, it starts to get real interesting!



No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

reply

And yet, despite the fact that "under the law" it is now technically illegal for whites to continue discriminating on the basis of race in housing, employment, education, policing, banking, etc., as they've always done in the past, EVERY major city in America is,

Nothing technical about it. It is illegal. And you make it sound like every major city in America has always been racist against blacks "they have always done in the past". These are the sorts of absolutes that make things silly. Majority, or greater majority? Absolutely.

nonetheless, somehow still de facto segregated along the same historical racial lines anyway. (As is easily shown on color-coded demographic maps.)

You do realize what demographics are, right? And even countries with majority black populations in Africa, or ones where they are less than 1% (like China) have demographics right? And when making maps, color coding can be valuable... You want color coded religious maps? Wtf does this have to do with systemic racism? Are colors on a map racist to you? If you want to understand why many people don't like SJWs, this is one of the big reasons why. By making so many things racist, you are actually diluting the value of real racism. You know, the bad kind we need to stand against.


And even though this pattern is widespread throughout America biggest cities (and a strikingly close approximation of what segregation patterns have always looked like), it's, nonetheless, not systemic?

Segregation? Tell me, is any black person barred from moving to any city, or any district in any city - in any place in the United States? Heck, people move where they want. That is why whites are no longer the majority population in places like California. In case you didn't know. I don't think you understand what segregation is. Well, I suppose I am happy you at least stand against segregation. Many of the SJWs have been advocating for 'safe spaces' lately, and black only areas. The solution to racism, and the progression of enlightenment of the movement that had great leaders like MLK? Lets bring segregation back. Nope. I am happy we agree here.


And even though it's been shown in countless studies that blacks are both arrested more (for approx. equal drug use) and sentenced longer when convicted for equal drug crimes, it's not systemic? Or, police encounters resulting in statistically higher citation rates for blacks, it's not systemic? Or black children as young a 5 being consistently disciplined and expelled at much higher rates, it's not systemic?

You seem to attribute that exclusively to the white racist police officers arresting the black people more. So silly. Yet you don't take into consideration money, poverty, fatherless households, dropping out of school more - etc to higher crime rates. That effect blacks more often - leading to more arrest. I am not ignorant like some of the people who say well the blacks are naturally more criminal. No, they are a victim to their circumstances, because they need to address their cultural problems. Like, more families with fathers. You will see crime rates drop when the culture problem is fixed.
You seem to want to blame everything on some mythical 'systemic racism' though. Even though that would mean the majority of everyone is collectively racist, so as to actually have the power to make and enforce such a racist system. But then these people can't get their acts together for trivial stuff. Like voting for black leaders...

Most people aren't racist. Most of the people in power are not racist. The system brought on by them is actually against racism where it stands for the most part. So that actually destroys any notion of it being 'systemic racism'

Or, our current headlines involving environmental poisoning consistently happening in predominantly black areas, but it's not systemic?

Oh, you mean environmental problems that are caused by greed and avarice? You know, like the fracking that has gone in the mid west a bunch. You know, that many white communities are very upset with? Want me to give you a whole list? Again, not systemic racism. Let alone basic racism.


Or, average net worth being 22 times less for blacks than whites, but it's not systemic.

See above for answers. On top of facts above those from circumstances, wealth stored up (yet still not oppressing others or keeping them back), possible genetic differences (again, everyone should be individually judged, and this is not me being a Nazi - so cool it in advance. Even if you could prove some people were in fact having 100% retard genes, I don't support harming or exploiting all the retards. Only racist, bigoted, hateful morons do. All I do is acknowledge that people are different, and groups of people separated by nature probably have different genes on average. ). There are dozens of reasons for this really. So again, no racism I see here.

Or minorities disproportionately being the targeted victims of the recent sub-prime lending scandal, but it's not systemic

Again, it was a scandal lending out homes to those who couldn't afford it. Thus more poor people, and thus - as you mentioned before who has on average money to actually afford it? Gee... I wonder why the minorities were disproportionately targeted. By your logic. It must be racism! But a rational person, would see otherwise.

Or, the percentage of America's prison population that is disproportionately black, but it's not systemic?

See one of the responses above about the criminal activity. More or less the same thing. Not racism, again.

Or, the relative percentage of blacks living below the poverty level, in the richest nation that has ever existed on Earth, but it's not systemic

I get it, can we please stop going over the same points? Not racism, see above. By the same reasons of the "22 times more less".


And last, but not least, the largest cities in America (as in NY, LA, Chicago, etc.) consistently flirting with financial insolvency as a result of paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in death and injury settlements to the families of minorities that they've unjustly killed or very badly injured in discriminatory ways, but it's not systemic?

See above, but I always wanted to point out an interesting oddity you may not know. While you may see it as cops shooting black people more - it is actually statistically the opposite. Compared to how many arrest they have for black people, it is less. If just looking at the amount of arrest and likelihood of being shot by race, white people are more likely to die in the confrontation with the cops. But they don't tend to get into trouble with the police as much as the cops on average, so thus it gives you the impression that they do. A faulty impression. Just an odd fact I figured you may not know.


So I went through your entire paragraph, and have yet to see systemic racism. Just someone like you who is going to see anything that on the surface doesn't have equity, at least one where the minority is worse off - and cry racism.


It's about "equal justice under the law". And any rational human would admit that these examples (and hundreds of others too) show that this is still not even close to the just system that ANOTHER Civil Rights Act supposedly guaranteed we were finally going to get in 1964. But the real truth is, it was never actually intended to work that way, in the first place. Because from it's very inception, the political construct known as white supremacy was designed to specifically benefit white, landowning, Protestant, males very intentionally at the expense of all others. And it's still doing a variation of that exact same thing 350 years later.

You mean in 1964 when they actually did get equal rights under the law? Do you now want to argue for unequal rights supporting black people under the law now? On the fact that whites always oppress blacks, and we should all be held accountable by the actions of our ancestors - which we can never pay up to enough? Even the whites who just immigrated 10 years ago? Just to make up for the imbalances that other issues have created?

There are real problems that need to be addressed. But top down systemic racism is not the cause of them.
You realize a great number, if not perhaps majority of white people probably have ancestors who came after 350 years ago right? Is there every going to be a point in which issues in the past are ever moved passed? Or is it always the majority now to perpetually make itself right with the minority, because you know - what their fathers did to them. Ignorance.

And the seemingly neverending examples above continue to prove it. The system's not broken. It's still doing more or less exactly what it was originally designed to do in the 1600's. Keep white males perpetually at the top of the American social order, to the maximum extent possible, and for as long as conceivably possible. To continue pretending not to see the 400-year-old system still very much at work in the countless examples, like those above, is moral corruption of the highest order.

Except, it is readily available to anyone with eyes that the system of racism that existed all those years ago - simply does not exist. And no one is supporting it. There is no conspiracy to keep whites in power. I almost feel like I need to get my tin foil hat on about now...

It is most definitely still systemic! Because most of the statutes for addressing discrimination and segregation, within the most recent Civil Rights Act, are simply being very carefully maneuvered around or quietly altered (like the Voting Rights Act, for example).

And now I definitely need it. Those white people, who secretly move powers around in their conspiracy to oppress the minorities and rule the world... Is this even a falsifiable claim to you? Because when arguing against people who say the same things about the Illuminati for instance, those examples you give them that go against the narrative are just shills to deceive people. Just tell me this. Do you at least have a more specific group of white people who are supposedly involved in this conspiracy?

But the 90-plus percent demographic majority that's been needed to sustain such immoral maneuvering, by sheer brute force, is dwindling rapidly. White racism and bigotry are far from dead (as primarily evidenced by the de facto segregation that still greatly exist throughout America). But it's actually the rapidly dwindling demographic numbers needed to sustain the corrupt underlying system that are, as you said it, on life support. (Does the phrase, "Take America Back", mean anything to you?) After that, it starts to get real interesting!

You are right, white racism and bigotry are not dead. Racism in general, even black racism is far from dead. In fact, I fear both of them are growing leaps and bounds, because of racist nonsense the SJWs are spouting that keep adding racial tension to the mix. On things not involving race. But that doesn't mean it is the dominant view. It is but an afterthought of what it was 70 years+ ago.

The demographics have nothing to do with this though. Because I keep seeing racism in just about every race in America these days. It for sure isn't an exclusively white thing. So by having whites only having small families anymore, and thus losing much of the demographics - it isn't the cause for the reason of the fall of racism.



reply

This has become bizarrely fun, now that I see the types of questions that it takes to see the full width and breadth of the death-grip you have on your so-called whiteness. (IE., "Stop blaming everything wrong in America on white people!" NO! Stop believing you're white in the first place. And much more importantly, believing that whiteness is still a tangible thing of value that needs to be protected from all those animalistic and culturally uncivilized black and brown people, in the first place. As I've said before, you're not white, you're white, black, asian, neanderthal and a host of other things too.

Sorry, but while there are indeed minuscule amounts of statistically measurable biological differences between so-called races, historically, the construct we now know as race in America is nothing more than a continuing, artificial, social hierarchy, that was created in response to Bacon's Rebellion, by greedy, white, landowning, males to divide and conquer "others". In fact, tons of whites now have darker skin and curly hair. And tons of blacks, and latinos, and middle easterners too, now have fair skin and light hair. So, outward physical appearances are no longer a reliable predicter of almost anything related to a person's true genetic makeup anymore. It was arbitrarily created and systematized by colonial whites (leading DIRECTLY to chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and all the racial garbage that has come after), and continues to exists strictly to divide all "others" socially below whites. Or do you somehow believe that blacks who are now struggling to just barely survive below the poverty level, live in such racially segregated and sub-standard neighborhoods strictly by their own racist choice? Or, that the sordid, government-sanctioned, systematic, racial housing policies of the past (like redlining and the FHA loan program), now have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that segregation. Oh yeah...the blacks choosing to live below the poverty level needed to just ignore all that "old to-do" and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and fix their genetically-predisposed, violent and uncivilized culture, that they themselves have systematically destroyed (as a result of their genetically violent ways), from what it once was (ever since they were freed penniless and untrained from chattel slavery and systematic torture, and told "NOW, GO LIVE THE AMERICAN DREAM"). Yeah...that sounds pretty rational.

And yet the comedy continues. For starters, there is the hysterical twistedness, that somehow America would be a shining, gleaming, beautiful example of pure, nonviolent, meritocracy, for the world to envy, if only those damned SJW's didn't keep oppressing us poor, sweet, "compassionately conservative", innocent white people with their incessant and no-longer-relevant demands for equality (that the Supreme Court repeatedly says they've already had for over 60 years now). And that instead, it's THEIR intentionally discriminatory policies like affirmative action that now cause all the race problems in America since 1964. Because of the angry backlash at it's systemic injustice; and it's the intentional, white culture destroying, non-Western European-slanted, immigration quotas for the first time EVER in 1965, that are now at the real root of our racial problems in America; and also, THEIR clearly antiwhite-biased demands for no more poll taxes, or literacy tests, or fraud-preventing, voter ID's since 1965 (even though evidence of voter fraud has been significantly studied, and found to be statistically, virtually nonexistent), that is destroying the all-time greatest legal, and educational, and housing-wise, and financial, and pure "quality of life" meritocracy that the world has ever seen; and worst of all, that damned First Amendment guaranteed, civil disobedience crap, that they seem to revel in using almost endlessly for absolutely no valid reason (other that seemingly annoying white people), in order to bamboozle us all into not believing that the poor, noble, white race (despite whites somehow having an incredibly disproportionate share of American wealth and power, mind you) are, in fact, the real victims of the only systemic attacks that are now happening, due to THEIR wild-eyed, feral, black and brown, racist SJW's. So, while whites may have had "a few issues, occasionally in the very distant past", ever since 1964, the only systemic racism that continues to exist in America is being orchestrated by minorities. Oxymoron anyone?

Quite simply, white America ceased to be institutionally racist at exactly 12:01AM on July 2, 1964. And any other racism in America after that precise moment has either been incidental or systemically orchestrated by minorities and SJW's only!

Did I miss anything? Oh...I know...you probably have a few thoughts on those Jews too, right?!

"...like a bloody car wreck!!!"



No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

reply

no, you dont still have a "full footing." i had to press you multiple times before you even acknowledged that case, where the vast majority of people admitted un-meritocratically were white. a sincere interest in meritocracy and a refusal to acknowledge the bulk of the problem are irreconcilable. youre a hypocrite.

you probably dont agree with scalia as much as you think. the courts opinion in one of the abigail fisher cases (which scalia concurred with) reaffirmed that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” the only caveat they cited, which was established previously, is that race should only be used after exhausting other means to achieve diversity.

fishman61:
I called one of your arguments fallacious when it was


no, you didnt. you responded to a list of 3 statements of fact i posted--statements arent arguments. you should stick to learning one language at a time (i.e., english).

reply

no, you dont still have a "full footing." i had to press you multiple times before you even acknowledged that case,

I didn't realize you wanted me to address that specific case. I addressed your specific broad points, but I guess I need to be situationally specific. Sorry. But seriously, when did you press me to talk about that SCOTUS case? I never remember avoiding any issues with you.

where the vast majority of people admitted un-meritocratically were white.

So by bringing up another specific case where that is the opposite would prove, what exactly? That various institutions that may be under the umbrella of AA have different demographics, and those they enroll or decline are also in various numbers? It isn't even a higher institution in my book, and as mentioned several times - is totally irrelevant. The fact they were mostly white is irrelevant. Because that isn't the type of argument I have crafted. Not from the start. I have pretty much always been saying there shouldn't be ANY racial based preferences in hiring, and AA is inherently stupid and unfair. Because it allows people to look at races as a model for who they should hire. Again, I am not talking about positions like hiring a black guy to play MLK in a movie, or vise versa, or keeping an ethnically specific restaurant running; obviously there are some realistic exceptions.


a
sincere interest in meritocracy and a refusal to acknowledge the bulk of the problem are irreconcilable. youre a hypocrite.

See above. I have never ever backed down from my beliefs. I have even now, and have always been willing to throw any races under the bus, including my own if they can't get in by their own merit. And if I have ever said otherwise, *Citation needed.


you probably dont agree with scalia as much as you think. the courts opinion in one of the abigail fisher cases (which scalia concurred with) reaffirmed that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” the only caveat they cited, which was established previously, is that race should only be used after exhausting other means to achieve diversity.

Be that as it may, I was saying agreeing with quotes from him, or at least I am pretty sure it was him. One of the SCOTUS judges was pretty much quotes as saying that AA by itself discriminates, and the question being whether or not that was good in and of itself. I would have to dig the quote up again.

no, you didnt. you responded to a list of 3 statements of fact i posted--statements arent arguments. you should stick to learning one language at a time (i.e., english).

You can still craft statements together to make an argument that advances your position. I was drawing a conclusion based of that position. It was objectively fallacious. And I am doing incredibly well in English 1540, English lit at the moment thank you. Why would I want to dumb myself down and not try to learn another language, and be more diverse in the world? Even if I didn't understand my own language well enough - never tell someone not to learn something. Just tell him he needs to learn more English. The more a person pushes himself to learn everything really, the better overall he will become.

reply

you can review the thread to see where you avoided it by doing a ctrl+f search for abigail. i brought it up show that your focus on programs that help blacks is misplaced. university of texas had aa in place to help non-whites, and still 89% of students they admitted with lower qualifications than abigail were white. if you really cared about fairness, you wouldnt just pick on racial minorities who comprise a tiny fraction of those who benefit from un-meritocratic practices.

that my statements were fallacious is a patent falsehood--anyone can go back and see that, so im not going to bother educating you further on that. english 1540 probably doesnt cover the words youve had difficulty with in this thread. im telling you to focus on learning 1 language because english has proved challenging enough for you.

you remind me of these guys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnUv2fhFy5E

reply

Ah, I found it. But I couldn't help but notice, it was only once that you mentioned it first, 3 days ago. The other replies were responded to as needed.

And notice second that I didn't respond to the entire post. Meaning I didn't selectively avoid the issue and reply to your response in some other way.

So that means I simply didn't respond to it, and why may I not have done so?

Because I usually at this point in lengthy threads go to click "last post" and then scroll up to what I read before. Sorry, three days ago that wasn't the latest and it was lower down. I didn't see it. Sorry, but this doesn't mean I avoided anything. If it makes you feel better, I will now respond to it after this post. Either way, for you to say you pressed the issue so many times, and that being the only time I see fisher come up to something I didn't respond to is kind of dishonest. And the fact that you assume my intentions on things I didn't even do is even more amusing.

if you really cared about fairness, you wouldnt just pick on racial minorities who comprise a tiny fraction of those who benefit from un-meritocratic practices.

I don't. They happen to end up being the ones that draw the most conversations which I respond to. But that doesn't mean I don't stand up against things that are given to people they didn't earn on their own. I am a laissez-faire capitalist in economy, very libertarian in regards to governmental, social rights, sort of a 'true' liberal in that regard - with very high standards in personal responsibility, rather than group think. These people didn't earn it. You just assume I don't get upset about white people not earning things simply because you see me reacting here, on a topic that involves the minority.

I also find it amusing that now you even admit they were un-meritocratic practices. And also, by me saying a person should earn things, and not just be accepted by some racial standards - DOES NOT MEAN I am against other methods of raising their standards of living, their status. Upward mobility is a staple of things like my capitalistic ideas. It is something that should be aspired to, and everyone should be allowed to do so. There are plenty of things that can be done, but that doesn't mean lowering standards are the answer.

that my statements were fallacious is a patent falsehood

Ok fine, you want me to go back and dig out all the relevant quotes into backing up my definition, and my usage then fine.
First the OP you responded to:
What UTTER *beep* I'm so sick of hearing that people have advantages from being white.

Name one. No, actually, name two or three.

So we get to him wanting you to name one, two or three advantages that white people have over black people. Notice, he was saying white PEOPLE, not a white person. Something that they have that blacks simply don't (one of the reason these identity pockets are stupid).

You responded by saying:
white names get 50% more callbacks than black names for the same resume (study)
white kids are viewed as younger and less accountable than black kids (study)
black people are unfairly treated with more scrutiny by police than white people (doj report)

Yes, those are three separate statements. But they were used against his argument. A rebuttal, and an answer to the challenge. So by definition - they were your argument. Three statements meant to prove that (according to the OP) white people do have these advantages over black people.

With me so far? All contextually accurate?
Now my response was:
Are you attributing those to all white people? Because you can't use these kind of generalizations and say "white people are advantaged" in these over broad terms. Because it is fallacious.

Which is accurate. Because each one of your three things, used to say they are advantages white PEOPLE have over black people has to do with specific things like cultural biases like names - that in some areas of the US not so white actually work against them just as easily. Tribal nature of the human psyche. This isn't some advantage that the blacks simply don't have on a blanket statement. Your second one was also very subjective. Who is finding who more accountable, and where? Does this apply to white people have this X advantage over blacks in the blanket statement that you are trying to answer? Are you sure that there aren't blacks who are deemed not that responsible and some whites where they are very much more responsible at a young age? I can think of examples I know of personally that already say yes to both. The third one, 'under more scrutiny by the police'. Why, what are the circumstances. Where? Is this a stone cold fact that says whites simply have this advantage, as matter of fact over a black person. Are you sure no white people are under undue scrutiny by the police over a black person?

So in the end, these are specific things to specific groups of black and white people, in SOME cases (sometimes even the blacks have them), but not 'well he is white, so he at least has this advantage over black people, you know, because he is white' nonsense. Which is what the OP was mainly getting fed up with. I have had to respond to people who think like that time and time again on things like YT. And by you trying to say that yes, because of 1,2,3 whites have these advantages over black people, and applying them to the whole collective is a fallacy. It is part of a hasty generalization fallacy (you want me to look that up for you as well?) among a couple others.

Do you finally see that I was in fact using the correct language? Sheesh. Even if you end up supporting your arguments, your attacks on me using the English language properly fail, because I understood everything, and this is my viewpoint, and at least I can defend why I said what I did.

Even if you disagree with me, it only shows you lack something that many high level English classes tend to try to teach. Critical thinking, especially in regards to understanding the why of what other people have wrote. Perhaps someone else should take English more.

reply

I don't know of any college that gives minorities a cheaper rate for attending. A POC might receive a minority based scholarship at a predominately white school. Just like your daughter would receive if she went to a Historically Black College. They have to meet a quota as well.

reply

rack rate is the same, but aid offices certainly look at demographics when they offer packages to students. diversity is a goal of colleges and they achieve it through financial enticement. if you are a minority you should ask you aid office what program is available to you.

reply

College is such a burden for parents. Feel for you. My parents due to the income couldn't get any type of aid for me even at a historically black college. They had to pay my full tuition plus out-of-state fees. Too bad your daughter doesn't play a sport because she can walk on like I did with my college's tennis team. I received a full ride my junior and senior years.

reply

This is a pretty big cop out answer. It becomes an issue when someone receives special treatment because of their skin color. When you deny racism as acceptable it becomes a central tenant of your ethical being. If one person gets benefits because of their skin color, then all should get these benefits and if that can't happen, then no one gets the benefits. That's ethical.

reply

Does that only apply to race? What about scholarships aimed at women? Or ones sponsored by a certain corporation or special interest group? Those aren't available to everyone. So should there only be scholarships based on merit that are available to every student in the entire country.

reply

If you're asking my personal opinion, yes. That's the only way to actually be fair. To earn things based on your merits and abilities. That's where ethics comes into play.

reply

But unless there's some way for everyone to have the same starting points and exact same opportunities it will never be completely fair. So it will never be completely fair. There will always be those that have some advantage over others. How do you base merit if some people have more help, better education, or simply more money to throw at the problem?

reply

@RBA1778


Oh, get real-----people don't just get ahead on hard work and merit alone in this world---some get ahead further because they know people in certain positions, or they get into certain colleges because a relative or a parent is a major benefactor for it---that's how legacy preferences for white folks have always worked. Or already rich folks like trumpf, who's basically been living off his daddy's money since he was born, with his bankrupted-four-businesses-in-a-row a**. And the reality is, like little georgie said, white folks dominated literally even damn thing in this country when it came to getting all the best for themselves---in terms of jobs,money,housing,schools, education, everything---for nearly the first 300 years of this country's existence. Merit didn't have jack to do with it---it was the idealogy of white supremacy and the fact that white folks are the majority that allowed to dominate everything, not just because they were so hard-working and smarter than everyone else. So when some idiots claim that things like AA come at the expense of white folks, I call bull****----especially since AA's only been around for a little over 50 years and both black folks and women had to fight to make damn sure those anti-discrimination policies were actually followed, and that they stayed in place. So enough with the white-people-are-being disavanaged thing, because he's not even true.

reply

That's why I don't think schools should give racially based school scholarships; it should be based off of socioeconomic status. However, I don't think it's a huge thing to be outraged about in your situation because you may not even realize it, but your daughter already has a ton more social advantages from being White that your coworker's daughter does not have.
Actually, there are many schools, IVY league especially, that strive to protect their White student population by limiting the number of Asian students they accept. Harvard did this with the Jews 100 years ago and now many schools are doing this to Asians.

reply

Bingo.

reply

but your daughter already has a ton more social advantages from being White that your coworker's daughter does not have.


What UTTER *beep* I'm so sick of hearing that people have advantages from being white.

Name one. No, actually, name two or three.

I'm waiting.

reply

white names get 50% more callbacks than black names for the same resume (study)
white kids are viewed as younger and less accountable than black kids (study)
black people are unfairly treated with more scrutiny by police than white people (doj report)

thats 3.

reply

Are you attributing those to all white people? Because you can't use these kind of generalizations and say "white people are advantaged" in these over broad terms. Because it is fallacious. And many of those things you mentioned are simply brought on by factors that are simply biases of circumstance, not race based discriminations. Of the very same sort of how skinny people have more "privileges" compared to fat people. Statistically, it is just as true. But what does it really mean?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

@activista

thanks for replying. the movie is about all sorts of thing. In my mind a major subject addressed is clashes of context and miscommunication on college campuses. So when you ask why the hell i brought it up, my answer is that my situation is exactly the kind of issue the film wants to bring up. we may vary on opinion on the major theme of the movie, but this film is intentionally controversial. my opinion is the maker is trying to spark conversation, not just expose white people.

I would first like to clear the air about the difference between university direct tuition reductions to attract students and other scholarships either that may come from the university, come form other soucrces but administered by universities, and totally private scholarships. I mean only to discuss direct tuition reductions used by universities to attract students. i have no intention at all about talking about need based aid. this of course is ubiquitous and applies to all races. I appologize for any confusion and hope you can see this for what it is, an honest miscommunication on the part of myself and others.

You are correct that I am basing my post on my experience and not large scale objective data. But I still beleive that universities are giving direct tuition reduction to types of students they are looking for. they are very upfront with this fact. they are looking for diverse socioeconomic student bodies. all schools have differing aid and acceptance policies, however I have over the past year visited 10-15 universities with my daughter, and have discussed university admissions with dozens of people of many backrounds and skin colors. (btw is it okay if i say skin color instead of race?) in the end some things are clear. a). the large majority of top universities no longer give merit based aid at all. b). universities do entice people of demographics that are difficult to fill through direct financial incentives. they are totally upfront about this. this is not nonsense. i have a good friend that sent his daughter to university of texas. he flat out negotiated reduced tuition with them because his daughter is a dance major with a high gpa. While i don't know if it is directly through admissions or through the music department, it is well known that a bassoon player can get reduced tuition based on that.

so i hope that gives context so you can see why a rasonable person from my backround might have feelings about the particular situation i and my daughter was in. a person with the basically same means to pay for school is being asked to pay less because of her backround and skin color. that person was in no greater financial need.

my po0int is that any reasonable person of any race in my position could natuaraly feel the way i do. feelings are an intersting thing. how should we address feelings?

reply

There is hard data that black students have to do less to get in. Affirmative action tells them they can make race a factor, so it is.

Did you know there is a huge difference in the average SAT scores for instance, for someone to get into college as a white person, to lets say a black person? Also, Asians, etc. The very concept of AA is racist, and yes, they do play favorites when one actually has a better academic record. Do you want me to go look this up again like I did a couple months back, and give you sources? Or you could look yourself.

reply

@fishman61

Oh,really? Where is this "hard data" you claim exists? Why haven't you posted any links to it? Because you have no proof it exists, and you know it. Once again, funny how you conveniently overlook "legacy preferences", which is basically affirmative action for white people, and which has been going on a hell of a lot longer (a couple of hundred years,in fact) than any AA for black folks (which was only implemented barely 50 years due to counteract the racism which allowed qualified black workers to be passed over for white workers---that's why it was needed in the first place.)

reply

I did in fact post links to it several other places.

But since you just want to try to make yourself to be so pompous and mock me for it, here you go. By the way, when you behave like that - it mainly shows who you are, and not so much myself.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171 - this is a compilation of test scores from the government source.

If you want a blog that goes on and talks about much of these facts, and shows and demonstrates more numbers you may want to check this out.

http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2013/10/black-suits-gowns-skin-sat-scores-by.html

How about some news articles about them, and their impact?
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/27/study-finds-race-growing-explanatory-factor-sat-scores-california - This one even talks about college admissions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/10/10/the-serious-problem-with-the-2014-sat-scores/

Yes, blacks are scoring lower.
And it is effecting how they are getting into college.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html

Blacks can score up to 230 points lower on tests and get into the same colleges that a white or Asian person did. On average, they need less qualifications to get into school. What a surprise /s.

Heck, there was even a recent lawsuit against Harvard because the bias against students who are Asians, who have the highest scores, getting rejected more often and having other minorities get in with less scores. Here is a source, link you can check into the lawsuit. Yes, the suit actually does exist, I didn't make it up.
Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/asian-american-organizations-seek-federal-probe-of-harvard-admission-policies-1431719348

I almost want to laugh. Usually when I argue this to more educated people who agree with affirmative action policies, they will admit the score gap is there. But they will then use the excuse 'but they are poor' or 'oppressed black minorities' so 'of course they will score lower'. This excuse doesn't hold much merit to me, but that isn't the purpose of my argument to drag this response to be even longer.

My purpose is to laugh at you for laughing at me for having imaginary hard data about sat scores and blacks having lower ones. I guess it wasn't so imaginary after all, was it?

Thus, my point still stands.

reply

Oh,really? Where is this "hard data" you claim exists? Why haven't you posted any links to it? Because you have no proof it exists, and you know it.
So he gave the "hard data" and you slunk off without a word. Probably to see if you could get your foot removed from your mouth.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

There is hard data that black students have to do less to get in.


not really. the abigail fisher case is a good example: 42 white students were admitted to university of texas with lower qualifications than hers, whereas only 5 non-white students could say the same. i.e., 89% of the people in that case who "[did] less to get in" were white.

reply

So your response to my post, showing the average scores of those across the ENTIRE NATION, according to government sources, is to cite one university, the University of Texas no less 😕, to show that I am wrong? I am sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. The Abigail Fisher trial data is waay out of context in this right here.

reply

am i missing something?


An inability to understand Affirmative Action, to make up a good story (fake story is fake) about your "plight" and to stop crying like a child about how life just isn't fair.

reply

True story and your relpy i dont think was helpful I'll reply if you want to have a disscussion. My feelings are pretty mormal given the context of what happened.

If you really think the story is fake id prefer if you dont reply. What would be the point? Strange that you are so sure a story that happens every day is fake.

here is the thing inwill try one more time. You have to put yourself in my shoes, and
I will put myself on yours. When a coworker asserts to me that his kid will pay less than mine because of race it feels weird. I am pretty sure you would feel the same way. I am trying to hsve a drank discussion not make judgements or put anybody down.

If you dont beleice in my good faith than go ahead and flame away. I will have done my best.

reply

But I do understand AA. I have done quiet a bit of work on it. In fact, if you don't want to believe me, look at me quoting a black supreme court judge on the same issue below who agrees with me. At least listen to him. AA DOES discriminate. And my point of view, is the excuse SJWs use "it is fair, to balance out the pro-white systems everywhere" - I would like to point out a true meritocracy doesn't consider existential reasons like race or sex at all. Just real measures of quality and merit. The OP was in no way talking out his @$$. This is a real issue.

Just to get started, I know this is just a dictionary definition, but:
Affirmative Action: an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.
Wikipedia on AA itself:
is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.

Just wanted to get the term AA out of the way in a historical context, before getting on to the US law, and what the issues are about. And why it was called such.

Now, Article VII of AA in US law states that you can discriminate in favor of minorities.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor­ management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

So essentially this says, just make sure those who you discriminate toward can do the job, having the "bona fide occupational qualification reasonably." However, this does not ensure that the most qualified person gets the job. Which an employer should be allowed to go for... I mean, wouldn't you want the best you can get?

Going on in the law:
(2) In exercising its powers under this subchapter, the Commission shall carry out educational and outreach activities (including dissemination of information in languages other than English) targeted to-

(A) individuals who historically have been victims of employment discrimination and have not been equitably served by the Commission; and

(B) individuals on whose behalf the Commission has authority to enforce any other law prohibiting employment discrimination, concerning rights and obligations under this subchapter or such law, as the case may be.

A bit dubious. Does this mean Irish white Americans? You know that period of time, where "no Irish need apply"?
Furthermore, these seem to all be used exclusively to favor the minority in almost all cases now. To save some time, I recommend you go through the entire law if you want.

Looking at some of the SCOTUS cases about it.
But what Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the only current black Justice, opposes affirmative action. He believes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race, such as race-based affirmative action or preferential treatment. He also believes it creates "a cult of victimization" and implies blacks require "special treatment in order to succeed". Thomas also cites his own experiences of affirmative action programs as a reason for his criticism.
Is probably more enlightening.

Yes, there seems to be a pro bias in favor of hiring black people. For that matter, universities.

Take a look here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cahn/whats-behind-asian-discri_b_7498760.html
Or http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/asian-american/article-admission.aspx
Or http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

There are many studies that have proven blacks on average need almost 140 SAT points less than whites on average to get into colleges, even at the highest levels like Harvard. http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-harvard-discrimination/

This is all under the guise of increasing diversity in populations. And as such, people praise it because of Affirmative Action giving back to all the harmed communities over time. And in fact, when taking out SAT scores all together, and other qualifiers (you know, you don't have to be more qualified after all, we will just get anyone), of course people will praise the increase of minorities in the school. http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/08/pf/college/sat-college-diversity/

But they fail to understand, in some cases whites are getting in LESS than their national % of the population/majority averages. So yes, it is actually against the average white student, unfairly.


AA is a broken system, and it allows this kind of discrimination, under the guise of "fairness"

reply

black college grads have the highest student loan debt of any race. and its worst at public schools. surprisingly, for profit schools are where there is equality in that respect. so yes, youre missing something.

reply

Well, isn't this the logical conclusion? What makes student loans happen? A person doesn't have enough money to go to college - so they get a loan. Especially when they want to get into a certain college.

Again, what the monetary demographics of various races? Who has the most money to send kids off to college usually? What are the effects of the races with things like the most fatherless families? There are plenty of factors that directly lead to that number. And it isn't at all surprising. In fact, lowering standards where less wealthy, lower scoring (averages here, not absolutes) get into richer schools will only increase more student loans, and ultimately more debt. Guess what AA is known for doing?

reply

if lowering standards increased student debt, then white people would be most likely to have high levels of student loan debt. they arent. the overwhelming majority of people admitted with "lower[ed] standards" are white. in the case i already told you about, whites made up 89% of people admitted with lower qualifications than abigail fisher.

reply

OP I assume you're from the US. Sadly, you guys focus on race too much but don't worry, if you're a white guy in SE Asia you get discriminated against because you're white. we deal with it, pay more for everything but don't cry about it like pussies. Everyone's racist. The US just has the white guilt version of it. SE Asia doesn't give a *beep* what anyone thinks. Hence why the discrimination they display here would be ludicrous in Australia or the US. But it is a shame the US still hase a massive race problem. It's so *beep* ing stupid.

reply

[deleted]