• Black man shoots 3 white girls for their white privilege.
    280 replies, posted
-This page king was so terrible I'm going to snip it-
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39440129]It might work in that situation and the majority that are similar, but it still poses a potential risk of a "privileged" person missing out on a job opportunity because a company or school has already filled their quota for "privileged" people, even if they are tons more qualified than anyone else of any other category.[/QUOTE] That small risk is outweighed by the larger risk of a good 'unprivileged' person getting the job. There are no perfect solutions - only better ones. [quote]Also i hopped into this thread but it's pretty obvious that it's just quickly devolving into people ardently supporting their viewpoints closing out others. This isn't going to be constructive at all so if you excuse me gentlemen, i have a friday night to waste playing guildwars and posting on internet forums. Good luck to any of you who are staying, i bid you fine gentlemen adieu.[/quote] Stick the flounce.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;39440183]That small risk is outweighed by the larger risk of a good 'unprivileged' person getting the job. There are no perfect solutions - only better ones. Stick the flounce.[/QUOTE] But i want to waste my life on things that don't matter :( also i'm not leaving out of anger or being called out. Neither happened to me.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39440092]I don't see how that excludes anyone of Japanese decent? [/QUOTE] I'm a brit, does "attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal" regarding Japanese people apply in my country? Well not really, does that mean I can't be racist to Japanese people living here?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39440106]The quotas just force equality where equality should already exist but doesn't Like if a company is 95% white when the demographics of the people they hire from are 60% white, there's absolutely no explanation for that other than the company going out of their way to only hire whites[/QUOTE] To be honest it depends on the company. While I agree that this is true for a lot of companies, let's say it's a company that requires certain qualities, certain education. Are you saying they can't select from a pool of candidates the best ones? There is a chance that the non-white candidates just didn't cut in trough. Then there's also other factors to consider. Why is it that only some minorities have these huge issues. Asian minorities are generally doing fairly well for themselves even though they were disproportionately disnefranchised, had a huge clout of distrust about them from ww2 and overall were in a very bad situation. On top of that very often you have situation where white people are essentially lumped into one coherent group regardless of nationality, education level or if they actually live in the US or not. [QUOTE=Zeke129;39439884] Maybe it's why having an ethnic-sounding name makes you less likely to get a job with equal qualifications, why the vast majority of CEOs and politicians are white, why merit-based scholarships are awarded to whites more often than they would be if they were truly awarded on merit, and why blacks are disproportionately charged with crimes That's the equality[/QUOTE] Considering that merit based scholarships are generally applied by percentages that's sort of false. It's most often by your percentile in the year. And usually something like the top 10% gets it. If you argued that whites potentially get better gradings just because they are white that would of course be a different matter.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39440097]That's a common misconception. Free blacks did infact do well for themselves. Some even owned their own businesses.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/Northern_Racism_and_the_New_York_City_Draft_Riots_of_1863_PF.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39439884]merit-based scholarships are awarded to whites more often than they would be if they were truly awarded on merit[/QUOTE] What? Do you have a source on this? Are sports scholarships not counted?
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39440166]And actually, the "Ghetto" is a word that refers to the isolated places that jews were forced to live in in Germany. The word "Slum" came from "Slum tenement" which was very poorly maintained housing that was built around factories in cities during the 1890s and 1900s during the boom of the industrial revolution, and people of all races lived there because if you worked for the factory, you couldn't afford to live anywhere else.[/QUOTE] ghetto means any racially segregated and impovershed neighborhood. [editline]1st February 2013[/editline] the origin is based on nazi policy but the definition is expanded.
[QUOTE=RobbL;39440202]I'm a brit, does "attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal" regarding Japanese people apply in my country? Well not really, does that mean I can't be racist to Japanese people living here?[/QUOTE] I'm sure your laws and society in general benefit white people thus it's possible, but the UK as a whole is a lot less racist from what I know. I'm not well versed in this and I'm sure Zeke or someone will answer you.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39440106]The quotas just force equality where equality should already exist but doesn't Like if a company is 95% white when the demographics of the people they hire from are 60% white, there's absolutely no explanation for that other than the company going out of their way to only hire whites[/QUOTE] So there is no statistical possible way that just a bunch of people don't want to work in the industry of the company that happen to be black? It has to be malice related not just a roll of the dice of people's personality?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39440228][URL]http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/Northern_Racism_and_the_New_York_City_Draft_Riots_of_1863_PF.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] Do you know what the term "Free black" means? It refers to former slaves that were freed under the civil war amendments. The civil war wasn't over until 1865. The document you've given to me is talking about riots in 1863, before the civil war was over, before slaverly was outlawed. Infact, with the ruling of Dred V. Scott, slaves weren't citizens, and could never be free. But that was also before the civil war amendments.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39440247]I'm sure your laws and society in general benefit white people thus it's possible, but the UK as a whole is a lot less racist from what I know. I'm not well versed in this and I'm sure Zeke or someone will answer you.[/QUOTE] Out of curiosity - could you list some modern legislation that's directly beneficial to the racial group of whites? Or to make it easier modern legislation that's negative to a nonwhite population inside of the UK. That does not seperate by nationality. (Aka british citizens have these rights, EU citizens these and non-eu citizens these)
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39440247]I'm sure your laws and society in general benefit white people thus it's possible, but the UK as a whole is a lot less racist from what I know. I'm not well versed in this and I'm sure Zeke or someone will answer you.[/QUOTE] erm
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39440264]Do you know what the term "Free black" means? It refers to former slaves that were freed under the civil war amendments. The civil war wasn't over until 1865. The document you've given to me is talking about riots in 1863, before the civil war was over, before slaverly was outlawed. Infact, with the ruling of Dred V. Scott, slaves weren't citizens, and could never be free. But that was also before the civil war amendments.[/QUOTE] You realize before the Civil War ended blacks (even free ones) were of the lowest social class and not even technically citizens, right they couldn't even vote
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;39440303]You realize before the Civil War ended blacks (even free ones) were of the lowest social class and not even technically citizens, right they couldn't even vote[/QUOTE] duh. Did you not read my post. Do you not know what the civil war amendments are?
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;39440236]What? Do you have a source on this? Are sports scholarships not counted?[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/12/study-shows-minorities-less-likely-to-win-grants-scholarships/]Yeah I got a source[/url] [quote]Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population.[/quote]
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39440209]To be honest it depends on the company. While I agree that this is true for a lot of companies, let's say it's a company that requires certain qualities, certain education. Are you saying they can't select from a pool of candidates the best ones? There is a chance that the non-white candidates just didn't cut in trough. Then there's also other factors to consider. Why is it that only some minorities have these huge issues. Asian minorities are generally doing fairly well for themselves even though they were disproportionately disnefranchised, had a huge clout of distrust about them from ww2 and overall were in a very bad situation. On top of that very often you have situation where white people are essentially lumped into one coherent group regardless of nationality, education level or if they actually live in the US or not. Considering that merit based scholarships are generally applied by percentages that's sort of false. It's most often by your percentile in the year. And usually something like the top 10% gets it. If you argued that whites potentially get better gradings just because they are white that would of course be a different matter.[/QUOTE] Those minorities, (now possibly majorities) come from nations with a very bad GDP and in general, an economy that doesn't have a strong, legitimate front. Asian people, however, came from nations with strong economies that are primarily composed of legitimate enterprises. Asians, among others, who migrated here voluntarily obviously had the resources to do so, some of the poorer nationalities either came here involuntarily or came here to escape poverty and possibly migrated illegally. The fact that there are many more Black Americans and Latino Americans are in prison and are generally in a worse economic shape than Caucasians and other, better off, ethnicities is more of a socioeconomic issue left over from the olden times than it is because, "the privileged people" are purposefully keeping them down.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39440317]duh. Did you not read my post. Do you not know what the civil war amendments are?[/QUOTE] Segregation in the US didn't end until the 1950s, and even then people were so vehemently against it some schools were closed and others needed militias brought in to escort the black students into the schools
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;39440340]Segregation in the US didn't end until the 1950s, and even then people were so vehemently against it some schools were closed and others needed militias brought in to escort the black students into the schools[/QUOTE] Okay but what does this have to do with the definition of free blacks. Further more, where did I say that the civil war amendments created social equality?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39440326][URL="http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/12/study-shows-minorities-less-likely-to-win-grants-scholarships/"]Yeah I got a source[/URL][/QUOTE] That doesn't say that they get those scholarships without merit. It just says that they are generally the ones who are able reach the requirements more. Your claim was that they were getting those scholarships without reaching for those requirements. [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39440333]Those minorities, (now possibly majorities) come from nations with a very bad GDP and in general, an economy that doesn't have a strong, legitimate front. Asian people, however, came from nations with strong economies that are primarily composed of legitimate enterprises. Asians, among others, who migrated here voluntarily obviously had the resources to do so, some of the poorer nationalities either came here involuntarily or came here to escape poverty and possibly migrated illegally.[/QUOTE] So what about the formation of fairly huge ghettos in most major US cities. Or the fact that a lot of white immigrants came from countries with incredibly low GDP - the irish, italians, russians and others. Or chinese and vietnamese which came from poor nations.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39440264]Do you know what the term "Free black" means? It refers to former slaves that were freed under the civil war amendments. The civil war wasn't over until 1865. The document you've given to me is talking about riots in 1863, before the civil war was over, before slaverly was outlawed. Infact, with the ruling of Dred V. Scott, slaves weren't citizens, and could never be free. But that was also before the civil war amendments.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.digitalhistory2.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit11_3.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.katzenhausbooks.com/blog/2011/06/17/Civil-War-Myth-The-North-was-Not-Racist.aspx[/url] [url]http://www.remybumppofieldguide.org/?p=1090[/url] [editline]1st February 2013[/editline] "The first several rounds of elections in Philadelphia following the Civil War serve as a case study in Northern resistance to the principles of egalitarianism. From 1867 to 1870, Democrats steadily gained control of the state, running on an anti-black platform. Then, on Election Day, 1871, when prominent black citizen Octavius Catto left the Institute for Colored Youth for the poles, he was shot three times by Frank Kelly, the associate of Democratic politician William McMullen. Two other black men were also shot that day."
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39440292]Out of curiosity - could you list some modern legislation that's directly beneficial to the racial group of whites? Or to make it easier modern legislation that's negative to a nonwhite population inside of the UK. That does not seperate by nationality. (Aka british citizens have these rights, EU citizens these and non-eu citizens these)[/QUOTE] Pretty easy in the US, just look at anything Arizona does... [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070[/url] Like I said, I know nothing about UKs laws and I don't claim to. I'm off to play Guild Wars, too.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39440391]Pretty easy in the US, just look at anything Arizona does... [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070[/url] Like I said, I know nothing about UKs laws and I don't claim to. I'm off to play Guild Wars, too.[/QUOTE] The legislature itself is not racist. You need to seperate between two issues essentially. a) the wording of the legislature b) the impact of the legislature due to the current situation. Imagine if most illegal immigrants were british. Typical round faces, typical accents and what not. You'd receive racial profiling as well.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39440381][URL]http://www.digitalhistory2.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit11_3.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] The civil war amendments didn't end segregation, nor did I claim they did. [QUOTE=yawmwen;39440381][URL]http://www.katzenhausbooks.com/blog/2011/06/17/Civil-War-Myth-The-North-was-Not-Racist.aspx[/URL][/QUOTE] I never said that the north didn't house racists, but I'd like to see a source that proves that New York seceeded, and wasn't re-admitted until 1946. [QUOTE]he allowed the southern states—once again part of the Union and therefore subject to the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation—to pass so-called “Black Codes,”[/QUOTE] Black codes were state laws and (sometimes) part of souther states' constitutions. While Lincoln's predecessor was a southern sympathiser, its not like he just "gave" seceeded states re-admission.
it may or may not have, but it definitely did have a ceremony and vote to "rejoin" the union. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Line,_New_York#History[/url] there are several places like that, place that were never fully incoporated into the union for one reason or another and joined later.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39440472]it may or may not have, but it definitely did have a ceremony and vote to "rejoin" the union. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Line,_New_York#History[/URL] there are several places like that, place that were never fully incoporated into the union for one reason or another and joined later.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Because Town Line was never an incorporated municipal entity in the first place and had no well-defined boundaries, the resolution had no legal effect; neither the Confederacy nor U.S. ever formally recognized the action.[/QUOTE] Either way, perhaps one county claimed to have seceeded, but the state as a whole did not.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39439884]Imagine a soccer pitch One team is white and has a normal sized net One team is black and has a net 3x the normal size Affirmative action is making the black team's net the normal size[/QUOTE] no it's not it's absurd doublespeak - AA doesn't level the playing field, it tips it in favor of certain groups
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39440505]Either way, perhaps one county claimed to have seceeded, but the state as a whole did not.[/QUOTE] that's what it said in the article. it was badly worded but it still said that "town line, new york" wasn't readmitted until 1946.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39440527]that's what it said in the article. it was badly worded but it still said that "town line, new york" wasn't readmitted until 1946.[/QUOTE] The population in 2010 wasn't even 3,000 people. I'm guessing it was under 1,000 when they "seceeded".
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39440366]That doesn't say that they get those scholarships without merit. It just says that they are generally the ones who are able reach the requirements more. Your claim was that they were getting those scholarships without reaching for those requirements. So what about the formation of fairly huge ghettos in most major US cities. Or the fact that a lot of white immigrants came from countries with incredibly low GDP - the irish, italians, russians and others. Or chinese and vietnamese which came from poor nations.[/QUOTE] You have a point. According to census data they (whites and Asians) all made for a majority compared to Black people and Latino people back then, and they still had to deal with racism. It'd be backwards for me to just say, "they didn't get lucky", same as if I said, "everyone was just more racist to them". So maybe it is still a socioeconomic issue more than it is racism today, but those economic problems are perpetuated by outdated education and opportunity systems? I guess my entire argument is that it isn't the merit or qualification system for schools and workplaces that needs to be fixed but rather the entire economic state of non-white or Asian persons, or just poor and uneducated people in general.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.