3/30 I don't necessarily have a problem with affirmative action,
but I think it's strange that some companies have affirmative
action programs AND claim not to discriminate based on race.
Affirmative action specifically discrimates in favor of certain
races for an allegedly good cause, but it still discriminates.
It seems like these companies should either say the have
affirmative action progromas or say they don't discriminate
based on race but not both. What do other people think? I
am missing something or do most corporations and universities
have contradictory policies?
\_ If a particular race maintains a percentage of the population
in general and a company tries to maintain that same representation
in its work force, is that discrimination, or just attempting to
keep the playing field equal?
\_ If society maintains an unfair playing field by not providing
funding towards lower income communities so we get a perminant
lower class since they have no opportunity for education and
thus no chance at a decently paying job, where would you try
and create equal footing for all? Give more money to schools
and social programs, have hiring preferences for unqualified
individuals or build prisions?
\_ Such companies can be sued (likely successfully) for discrimination.
\_ Welcome to New Thought as created and promoted by the whacky left.
It doesn't have to make sense, just make rich white people feel
better about themselves at the expense of others. It also keeps
the blacks from rioting too often.
\_ do you believe in AA based on income? or childhood
living conditions?
\_ I thought AA was a great thing. It helped me get over my
alcholism. There should be an anonymous club for every other
controlled substance.
\_ Only merit should differentiate people.
\_ how come white people with less merit before AA got the jobs?
\_ though I commiserate with the sentiment, I think this point
is, at best, specious without some kind of justification.
\_ I don't see any 'sentiment' here, just a racist remark.
\_ If you see a racist remark, then you see a sentiment.
Learn the language before you try to split hairs.
\_ I'm just saying that it's hard to call it an
egalitarian society if the system is in any way
biased against a significant portion of the
population.
\_ Of course it is. I am more biased against blacks
than whites because blacks robbed me and beat me up
a lot more often than whites. I am merely learning
from data. Would you rather I _wasn't_ biased against
them? And don't give me this 'they are products of
an unfavorable environment' shit. People have free
\_ Your views on war are somewhat naive. The idea in war is
to destroy your opponents will and ability to fight by any means
necessary. If a high body count lands you this goal, great.
Realistically, though, a high body count is very unlikely to
be sufficient. Look at Vietnam: the US killed something like
10 times as many people as it sustained in casualties. But
the NVA were still willing to fight, long after American
determination petered out due to POLITICAL and SOCIAL pressures.
\_ [vietnam crap deleted] oops. sorry.
will. They are not products of their environment.
Some just choose to be nasty.
\_ Yer walking home in the middle of the night and
you see a group of
(1) young black men in dark puffy jackets
\_ actually, you shouldn't feel ashamed about this
stereotype. I was in a hurry to see my
friend one saturday evening and pay him back the
money i owed him ($40). I passed a bunch of
young black men in dark puffy jackets, although my
first instinct was to hang back and let them
walk ahead. Anyhow, I pass them, I hear a bunch
respect. I made up my mind about
such people on a case by case basis.
But if forced to generalized about
of snickers behind me, didn't pay attention to it.
Anyhow...I get to the darkness of the bridge
at Moffitt Library, and suddenly hear rapid
footsteps behind me and I realize I am totally
fucked. Before I have a chance to turn around
these same fuckers that I passed, one of them
puts an armlock around my neck and demands
my money. and you know the rest...
what makes me angry is that they laughed when
they left, and i had to deal with a sore neck
from getting choked really hard and the
shitty task of canceling all my credit cards.
and of course the feeling of being violated..
i was already in a pissed off mood. and
this happened at 10:30 p.m., northside...
be especially careful during summer folks,
and pay attention to those stereotypes, they're
not entirely a bad thing....
(2) young, bald white men in torn leather jackets
and spiky hair
\_ How can you be bald and have spiky hair
at the same time? Sounds like a good
depiction of Cafe Berlin.
(3) computer geeks
I think it's safe to say that most white people
fear 1 > 2, and most black people fear 2 > 1.
I think the poster above is white.
\_ That's an extremely ego-centric and short sighted
view point that sounds much too focused on self-pity
to be real. Are you trolling?
\_ I am not trolling. I care about myself more
than about people who beat me up. I am sorry
if this is perceived as ego-centric.
-- original poster
\_ *sigh* Ever heard of objectivity? It's
kind of useful when devising laws that apply
to _everyone_ and not just your victimized
little self.
\_ I thought it was blacks who were bitching
about being 'victimized.' I am not bitching
I am just telling you why _I_ personally
discriminate against blacks.
\_ Two wrongs don't make a right? *shrug*
I still think I'm being trolled, but
whatever. You might want to learn
how to format your motd posts
correctly, though.
\_ It really isn't a troll. I have
worked with intelligent, successful
black people, whom I admire and
respect. I have made up my mind
about such people on a case by case
basis.
But if forced to generalize about
blacks as a whole, my view will be
negative, based on my past
experiences with blacks as a whole.
\_ You have experience with blacks as
a whole? Wow. How much time did
it take to meet all of them. Or
did you mean that you had
experience with a statistically
significant random subset of
blacks?
\_ I generalize data that I have.
If there is more data, I will
change my opinion, if the data
tells me to. If you don't
like my opinion argue with my
data.
\_ Actually, it sounds more real than troll to me.
It has a thread of logic.
\_ Were they right-handed or left-handed? Surely
you're more biased against righties or lefties as a
result, right?
\_ The aforementioned acts were committed by blacks
far more often than is warranted by the relative
percentage of blacks in the general population.
\_ actually, it's historically backed.
\_ What is historically backed? This 'sentiment' is not
even semantically valid. Less merit than who?
\_ Less merit than who?
\_ what about white only bathrooms?
\_ What about green-only trolls?
\_ <SARCASM>
It's not right to kill people, but in war the idea is to kill
as many people as possible. What do other people thing? Am
I missing something or does society have contradictory mores?
</SARCASM> (Markup was necessary to reduce further confusion.)
\_ [vietnam crap deleted] Oops. Missed the sarcasm. Sorry.
\_ Short answer: It's not federally-defined "discrimination" if
it's affirmative action. The word when used in HR policy has
the federal meaning.
\_ i.e. "Welcome to New Thought as created and promoted by the
whacky left. It doesn't have to make sense, just make rich
white people feel better about themselves at the expense
of others. It also keeps the blacks from rioting too
often."
\_ Notice that short answer was more fact than opinion based.
\_ Notice that the short answer obsequiously (or
perhaps conspiratorially) accepts that the government
can redefine english words in whatever way happens
to fit thier political agenda or best obscures
(contradicts) reality despite all/any reason.
\_ ^redefine^add a legal definition to
Please reflect on the relative benefit of AA in
the 1960s and whether AA is a successful policy
today, in 50 words or less.
\_ The benefit (or lack) of AA is irrelevant to
*my* criticism of the perversion of the
language. What is so damn hard about
actually saying/writing what is meant? That
society has a "legal definition" of a word
that is actually contradictory to the
original definition is an obvious sign of
intellectual/legal dishonosty and/or sloth.
\_ I agree. This is the point I was addressing
when I started the thread. Whether or not
AA is good is independant of the fact that
Equal Opportunity statements are contradictory
to AA. Does anyone have a response to this
abuse of language issue? I'm not trolling.
It's just that the AA policy and the
Equal Opprutnity statements which every
organization makes seem blatantly
contradictory. When something that seems
so obviously wrong is accepted without
question it makes me wonder if I'm missing
an important point. Therefore, I would like
to see a response or URL making the case
for the other side of the issue. Thanks.
\_ Please reflect on why it's okay for black
people to make jokes about black people
and white people, but not okay for white
people to joke about black people, in
50 words or less. |
http://csua.com/feed/