[QUOTE=TAU!;48097611]So trying to improve career/educational situations for people who don't have as good of a chance as the majority, or are more likely to end up being worse off than the majority, is racist? It caters to a specific group yes, in order to benefit them, while not simultaneously putting them above others.
How so? Go ahead and explain.[/QUOTE]
Not if those programs select their beneficiaries based on criteria that are relevant to the problem you're trying to solve. If you want to eradicate generational poverty by giving poor children access to quality education you do so for all children who are too poor to afford it. Only doing so for black children or minorities is arbitrary and discriminating based on race, a.k.a. [b]racism[/b].
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;48097634]That is why nowadays I do feel it should be based on factors besides race. Especially because according to some sources quite a few universities in fact have over-representation of blacks & hispanics, and under-representation of whites & asians. However, at the time these programs were created blacks had it very rough as a result of society, so I can't quite say it was terrible at the time.[/QUOTE]
But to select beneficiaries based on race is retarded in the first place. Not all black people were poor and not all white people were rich, so through affirmative action for black people the government enforced racial discrimination, when they could have simply helped people based on their income. (Which, mind you, would have also helped the poor black people who were meant to be helped in the first place.
Americans really are terrible at making socialist policies, it seems.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48097659]Not if those programs select their beneficiaries based on criteria that are relevant to the problem you're trying to solve. If you want to eradicate generational poverty by giving poor children access to quality education you do so for all children who are too poor to afford it. Only doing so for black children or minorities is arbitrary and discriminating based on race, a.k.a. [b]racism[/b].
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
But to select beneficiaries based on race is retarded in the first place. Not all black people were poor and not all white people were rich, so through affirmative action for black people the government enforced racial discrimination, when they could have simply helped people based on their income. (Which, mind you, would have also helped the poor black people who were meant to be helped in the first place.
Americans really are terrible at making socialist policies, it seems.[/QUOTE]
Well, on the plus side. The idea of affirmative action based on race has been taking a lot of fire for quite some time, eventually it will probably go away.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48097658]Person of color is extremely racist. Its basically a politically correct "colored folk". It encourages a whites v them mentality and some idea of whites being different.[/quote]
Person of color falls under a completely different connotation, and is nothing at all like "colored". It only encourages a "whites vs them" mentality if you choose to remain narrow-minded and not look further into it., whether you're white, non-white, or whatever ethnic group you're part of.
[quote]Dedicating a certain number of spots for a certain race leaves less spots for other races. You're discriminating against them.[/quote]
True, it's unfair, which is why diversity quotas are bad.
[quote]The problem is that poor people have less opportunities. That should bet he problem dealt with. Rich black people hardly have any trouble getting into higher education or higher positions.[/QUOTE]
Okay, smart.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;48097724]Well, on the plus side. The idea of affirmative action based on race has been taking a lot of fire for quite some time, eventually it will probably go away.[/QUOTE]
Well about time I guess.
Has there been initiatives that were brought up to end employment discrimination, though?
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;48097724]Well, on the plus side. The idea of affirmative action based on race has been taking a lot of fire for quite some time, eventually it will probably go away.[/QUOTE]
Affirmative action only gets flak because people try to twist it into something bad, when it actually never has been. The people who usually complain about it are the ones with the mindset that if it isn't around to benefit them, then it's a detriment altogether. It has never been used to go against a specific race, or undermine an individual or group based on their ethnicity/race. It'll only "go away" when oppression and racism go away, which I doubt ever will happen. Sure, it may target a specific group to benefit, but there will always be opportunities around for various people regardless of their background. Less well off people may not always be able to grab onto these opportunities, but more schools and career fields have been trying harder to be more inclusive, or at least more widely available for them.
[QUOTE=TAU!;48097733]
True, it's unfair, which is why diversity quotas are bad.
Okay, smart.[/QUOTE]
This is what I've been saying since the beginning...
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=TAU!;48097741]Affirmative action only gets flak because people try to twist it into something bad, when it actually never has been. It has never been used to go against a specific race, or undermine an individual or group based on their ethnicity/race. It'll only "go away" when oppression and racism go away, which I doubt ever will happen.[/QUOTE]
What, you're flip flopping again? Are you bipolar or something?
[QUOTE=_Axel;48097738]Well about time I guess.
Has there been initiatives that were brought up to end employment discrimination, though?[/QUOTE]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano[/URL] comes to mind, regarding the promotion of firefighters. There are probably a few others, but I can't come up with any. Typically when the topic comes up it's talking about education.
The achievements of some minorities will not be undervalued by less well off people having the standard lowered. Why? Because you can read all of this
[url]https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/[/url]
[url]https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator6_24.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/11/07/majority-minority-student-population-catching-up-to-colleges[/url]
Sure, there are some [url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-enrolling-in-college-but-lag-in-bachelors-degrees/]bumps[/url] and [url=http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-college-enrollment-but-not-in-graduation/]snags[/url] along the way, but there will continue to be room for improvement.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48097756]This is what I've been saying since the beginning...
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
What, you're flip flopping again? Are you bipolar or something?[/QUOTE]
You're having a lot of fun insulting me. I hope you're enjoying yourself.
You can reread the post you quoted, which I edited.
[QUOTE=TAU!;48097836]
You're having a lot of fun insulting me. I hope you're enjoying yourself.
You can reread the post you quoted, which I edited.[/QUOTE]
What happened to understanding Rangergxi's point? You're not making sense.
Out of the blue you finally get that AA is racist and then you just go back to being your regular self?
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
I mean, you think that diversity quotas are bad but you still support AA which is basically the same thing?
[QUOTE=_Axel;48097888]What happened to understanding Rangergxi's point? You're not making sense.
Out of the blue you finally get that AA is racist and then you just go back to being your regular self?
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
I mean, you think that diversity quotas are bad but you still support AA which is basically the same thing?[/QUOTE]
Diversity quotas are bad, they are forced and abrasive. They are a way for institutions to keep good PR with people, rather than allowing people to have an equal footing in getting into a job or school through merit. Programs that actually help people get into a career field or school/university, are good.
A diversity quota is not affirmative action.
Opposing hatecrime statutes is no different than opposing statutes for depraved indifference, criminal negligence, or manslaughter. Motive is always a factor, no matter what.
people going into detail about points in my post: yes. I knew that. Was putting it into simple terms.if I had misled you into thinking I didn't know; I apologize for my poor English. I was originally Australian.
I picked sociology as an A-Level.
The marxists are always correct. But the 'New right' has great counter arguments at times. Functionalism is the lesser theory.
On victim blaming; I think It's ok to blame the woman for her rape. I mean, she wouldn't have been raped if she wore plate armour, went to social gatherings in a shark cage, never drank, was armed everywhere she went, and had surgically attached antlers to the interior of her vagina. Obviously if those conditions aren't met you're free to go ahead.
lmao pics is overrated :smile:
[QUOTE=FullofCunts;48098136]lmao pics is overrated :smile:[/QUOTE]
I thought its reputation was as low as it gets
[QUOTE=The Jack;48098127]I picked sociology as an A-Level.
The marxists are always correct. Functionalism is the lesser theory. [/QUOTE]
man is your sociology class 50 years behind everyone else? both of those things died way back in the 60s
I don't think affirmative action should be action taken when minorities are applying for college or a job, because that's a bit too late. I think instead actions should be taken to equalise wealth inequalities among schools and other educational facilities, so that no child is disadvantaged from the start - where it really counts. At least from what I've seen, current forms of affirmative action DO help minorities who may be disadvantaged when it comes to college and job applications, however, I don't like it because nothing is really being done to ensure that minorities stay in school and get a quality education early on, producing a disproportionate amount of early dropouts and individuals with a lower education, as favoritism in college and job applications can't really help you if you couldn't get a quality high school education or whatever because the school itself was too shit.
[QUOTE=TAU!;48097956]Diversity quotas are bad, they are forced and abrasive. They are a way for institutions to keep good PR with people, rather than allowing people to have an equal footing in getting into a job or school through merit. Programs that actually help people get into a career field or school/university, are good.
A diversity quota is not affirmative action.[/QUOTE]
How do you not get it? By lowering standards for arbitrary demographics you're not allowing people to have an equal footing in getting into a school through merit because that means you're taking spots away from some of those who would get them through merit normally and attribute them to people who wouldn't get them otherwise. That's as "forced and abrasive" as diversity quotas. In fact, that's exactly the same thing. You're lowering the standards for minorities so that a certain amount of them can enter the school.
Halo: ODST is [I]the[/I] best Halo.
[QUOTE='KING]THT[WRATH;48100893']Halo: ODST is [I]the[/I] best Halo.[/QUOTE]
Christ, now there's a post fitting the thread title
Age of Empires 3 was good.
Okay, well, the campaign was shit in my opinion because it shifted from historical events to the fictional antics of some family trying to stop some cult. Age of Empires 2's campaigns weren't 100% historical (I seriously doubt Frederick Barbarossa went on a quest to find all the relics of Holy Roman Empire and snatch them for himself) but they were fun enough.
The new TF2 update is really cool and might get me back into the game.
[QUOTE=Fapplejack;48101294]The new TF2 update is really cool and might get me back into the game.[/QUOTE]
The painted guns look fucking gross but the stat changes seem really noice.
[QUOTE=Luxuria;48094385]piercings that go anywhere except your ears generally look dumb as shit though
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
and even then people get those awful ear stretchers[/QUOTE]
Hey now!
Guys with stretched ears can be oh so attractive! But then again, thats the style i like. I'm into the heavy music and everything.
Not talking about massive ones the size of drinking mugs, they are just stupid, but small ones like 10mm or less.
(conveniently i have 8mm)
Marmite is delicious
[QUOTE=overpain;48097023]Shit man, I didn't write it clear enough. They don't want to, but they higher chances with that. Both parties are at fault.
And I was specifically talking about clubs and house parties, where majority woman and man go to get laid.
And what's the reason for woman to wear sexual clothing in the freetime? It doesn't get them respect, it doesn't make them look good. It just screams : I am easy.
Yes, man shouldn't rape. But girls shouldn't higher their chances and feminists are not right by saying that men should learn not to rape.
And most of the times modern rape anyways is when girl sleeps with a boy and next morning she regrets it, so she just calls it that way. And I don't see how it is rape then, man was just as intoxicated as the girl was at the act of the deed. My girlfriend works as lawyer and she tells me similar stories often.[/QUOTE]
I'm scared
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
Someone hold me
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;48101937]Marmite is delicious[/QUOTE]
Vegemite is superior in every aspect.
I think Tom Cruise is actually a really quite guy.
[QUOTE='KING]THT[WRATH;48103848']I think Tom Cruise is actually a really quite guy.[/QUOTE]
He does looks pretty guy I'd give you that :v:
[QUOTE=ProtoMob;48101289]Age of Empires 3 was good.
Okay, well, the campaign was shit in my opinion because it shifted from historical events to the fictional antics of some family trying to stop some cult. Age of Empires 2's campaigns weren't 100% historical (I seriously doubt Frederick Barbarossa went on a quest to find all the relics of Holy Roman Empire and snatch them for himself) but they were fun enough.[/QUOTE]
In my opinion AoE3 is like Doom 3. It was fine on its own, the problem was the expectations that came with the title. I actually enjoyed AoE3 myself but it just didn't feel like an AoE game to me at all.
[QUOTE='KING]THT[WRATH;48100893']Halo: ODST is [I]the[/I] best Halo.[/QUOTE]
While I'm not sure about it being the best Halo game period, it's was so different and refreshing when it was released. It has my favorite campaign in the series, though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.