Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - "All black people, leave the store now"

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

"All black people, leave the store now"
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:30 pm Post subject:

kabrams wrote:

I don't think Affirmative Action is a racist policy.

I know you don't. In your eyes nothing that benefits blacks is racist. Institute the exact same policy in a fashion designed to benefit caucasians, though, and you'd scream about it.

kabrams wrote:

Racially-motivated != racist. Seriously? Hahaha. A lot of people wanted to see a black man in office because maybe they thought it would change our country for the better, not because they hate white people.

This is exactly what I'm talking about kabrams. Black people vote for Obama in the primary at a rate of, what, 90%? And this is despite very little difference in his proposed policies compared to Clinton's, and instead of just admitting they did it because of the color of his skin, you try to justify it away. Strange, isn't it, that black people were so much more frequently of this "opinion" you propose than white people were, eh? It was racism, plain and simple. Not necessarily in the case of every black voter, but there was substantial racism going on here. And it's your racism that prevents you from seeing it.

kabrams wrote:

Seriously, your definition of racism seems to be "anything that has to do with race, ever"

Well, it's not, so stop misconstruing my position.

kabrams wrote:

And I don't think white people voting for McCain because they think the world isn't ready for a black man is inherently racist, either.

Well you're wrong, white people who would have supported Obama if only he had been white, but voted for McCain because Obama was black are racist. This might be a hypothetically non-racist justification for voting for Clinton over Obama (if you feel for whatever reason Obama couldn't win the primary due to his race and your sole goal is voting for the most electable Democreat), but not for voting for McCain over Obama when you otherwise support Obama's policies. I really feel your consideration of race-based issues is lacking in nuance, kabrams.

kabrams wrote:

Fox wrote:

And some other people have come to the same conclusion as me. None the less, I don't consider either fact of any importance; I'm not prone to basing my opinions on what other people think of them.

Actually, you're the only one who's called me racist on Dave's ESL that I can remember.

You have a bad memory then. I don't even particularly pay attention to what other people say to you, but I still remember Senior calling you racist and sexist in a thread recently (the abortion thread I think). Other people may or may not have, I don't know. Given you forgot him, though, your memory isn't something I'm going to be relying upon as evidence of anything.

In any case, I don't think the topic of your behavior bears further discussion. I know you disagree, and given you think things like blacks massively favoring a black candidate, policies like Affirmative Action, and so forth aren't racist, I simply don't care that you disagree. Whatever standards you use to judge what is or isn't racist, I can't say I find them very meaningful.

Last edited by Fox on Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:31 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

38 Special wrote:

I think it would, perhaps, be more accurate to say that the murder per capita rate increases when in regions with greater numbers of economic and cultural under-classes that self-identify as "other" based on an arbitrary quality such as race.

Improving the material conditions of any individual or group will assuredly improve their ethical standards. The problem is, this cannot be externally enforced. The onus is on individuals and groups to autonomously adopt decent and civilized values. The other problem is that, thanks to a long and labyrinthine series of government follies - redistribution, basically - it's difficult for blacks in the US and in other regions to make money via legitimate means.

Bucheon Bum wrote:

I believe the UK puts a dent in your theory. I'm going on my (sometimes inaccurate) memory, but blacks there have a lower crime rate than others. Or perhaps it was at the bottom income rung?

Off the top of my head, Moss Side (Manchester), Toxteth (Liverpool), Stoke Newington and Tottenham (London) and Blackbird Leys (Oxford) are all areas infamous for two things - having a lot of blacks and having a lot of crime.

A lot of crime does not equal a lot of homicides.

You'd best make a new thread if you want to discuss this and discuss it there. You might want to be careful how you title it, though.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Affirmative Action is not racist. Its merely a remedy to a past injustice.

Simply put, you're wrong. Affirmative Action not only doesn't remedy past injustice, it perpetuates it. Ensuring equal opportunity remedies injustice; promoting inequal opportunity tarnishes the image of people who succeed on their own merits, and unfairly benefits people who did not succeed on their own merits. It's a pure failure by any reasonable standard.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Inherent in Affirmative Action is its future obsolescence. Once the injustice is remedied, there will cease to be a need for Affirmative Action.

"There was racist injustice in the past, so let's engage in more racist injustice in the opposite direction until we get the feeling that we can stop." I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:30 pm Post subject:

Affirmative Action is outdated.

caniff

Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:33 pm Post subject:

Kabrams, I'm not saying I have a dog in this fight but you better enlist some help because Fox is kicking you all around the block. (wince)

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:39 pm Post subject:

Quote:

http://cbs3.com/local/Police.Respond.Thousands.2.1579054.html

Stories like this and other 'Flash Mobs' completely and utterly convince me that people under the age of 35 are not to be trusted and need to be beat senseless for no reason (saying this only half-jokingly). Seriously if we want to patch up racial barriers we need to get everyone over the age of 45 together in a flash mob and have them stomp down a flash mob of mixed-race flashmobbers and subway partiers.

I think one thing we tend to forget when it comes to racism is how many people were alive during Jim Crow and are still around today. We forget that things like this often occurred within communities and that the people (or children of) who were known bigots hold positions of power.

All this happened yesterday as far as history is concerned. I think in our tolerance rush and attempt to consider ourselves progressive we forget how recently this stuff happened. Just because we haven't experienced it first hand to the degree associated with the 1960s doesn't mean plenty of other people who are alive today have not.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:56 pm Post subject:

kabrams wrote:

Fox wrote:

Trespassing and causing a disturbance isn't what's being put on his record, so no, that's not what it's about kabrams.

Actually I don't want "intimidation bias" on his record. I do want harassment, trespassing and causing a disturbance on his record.

My thoughts != the police's thoughts.

So you want to remove one charge and then add two more. You're actually saying they aren't being hard enough on him. Wonderful. Beware, children of America, you may think a harmless prank is fine, but the NAACP will see you criminally charged with any triviality it can justify.

What's next, rocketscientist having harassment put on his criminal record because he made a racist comment on a forum? Come on.

kabrams wrote:

A criminal record that I would want expunged at 18. There have been multiple stories of children who fell through the system because they were not given records--I'm not talking about charging kids as adults, or trumping up charges. I'm talking about making notes so that a kid who has done something like this before doesn't get a pass.

You're still talking about this like it's some horrific crime instead of a joke. Who cares if he gets a pass? It's a bloody prank. When I was a kid I played with fireworks in public. The police told me to knock it off. I didn't get arrested. I didn't get a criminal record. The police just told me to knock it off, and gave me a talk about how I could hurt someone (and I could have; it was far more likely that me with fireworks would cause someone actual harm than that this kid would harm anyone with his silly words). Should they have put a mark on my criminal record over it? Of course not, that sort of nonsense should be reserved for genuine crime, not kids doing silly, stupid, trivial things.

Our criminal justice system is pressed enough as it is without having to deal with a kid who said something rude over a Wal-Mart loud speaker. The lesson this kid is going to learn is that excessively PC lunatics are monsters who will grossly over-react to trivialities and that he can't trust our police force and legal system to be reasonable. Is that what you want?

kabrams wrote:

Right, but you attribute those issues not to things like poverty--which shows a major increase in all the things you mentioned, but to the culture of those people who also happen to be poor.

Their culture is influenced by their poverty, I agree. They aren't going to magically stop being poor, so it's the culture that needs to change.

kabrams wrote:

And...you're surprised I have a problem with that?

I'm not surprised by anything you say or do. Anyone who attended university has at least some experience with people like you, kabrams. Hell, a lot of us could probably convincingly replace you based on our experiences with such individuals.

kabrams wrote:

As I've said before, there is dysfunction in the (overall? IDK) black culture, but there is also dysfunction in the trailer parks and Appalachia and Beverly Hills.

I agree. There's dysfunction in a lot of various cultures. And I'm happy to talk about any of them. And I do talk about them when they come up. It just so happens, though, that you freak out anytime the culture in question is black culture. On this forum alone I've taken issue with problems in Christian culture, Muslim culture, Jewish culture, conservative culture, liberal culture, Korean culture, middle class American culture, lower class white American culture, black culture, and feminist culture (and probably more I'm forgetting off the top of my head). Unsurprisingly, you don't freak out during most of those discussions, despite the fact that my tone is very similar during them. If I see an issue, I just fricking talk about it. I don't beat around the bush in a PC fashion. Live with it.

kabrams wrote:

Many kids from Appalachia engage in crime, drugs, don't graduate from school, get pregnant, etc. and there can be a lot of overt racism there . But I wouldn't say Appalachian culture encourages this or is ridiculous/hateful.

I would.

kabrams wrote:

I would say poverty exacerbates these problems and have for years and years.

If you want to try to reduce all the cultural problems any given group faces to simply a matter of poverty, I'm just going to shrug and say whatever, because that's ridiculously overly simplistic.

kabrams wrote:

Your "expression of those ideas" was to call black "culture" (my culture) ridiculous and hateful. There are almost 40 million black people in the US and yet somehow we all participate in a "hateful", "ridiculous" culture?

I would have thought after the discussions on this board about generalizations and how to best use them as an intellectual tool, we'd stop seeing bullshit like what you wrote in this quote here. But then again, we might not have talked about women or blacks specifically in those conversations, so you may not have noticed those threads.

In any case, to repeat: a generalization doesn't necessarily -- and indeed, almost never -- applies to all of the members of the group upon which the generalization is focused. It's a trend, one that results in things like black kids in Denver attacking white kids. It's not a universal, inescapable fact. Jewish culture trends strongly away from organ donation, but that doesn't mean there aren't Jewish organ donors. Christian culture has a fair amount of hatred towards homosexuality running rampant in it, but that doesn't mean there aren't gay Christians.

kabrams wrote:

You said your experience is mostly with "urban" black folk in Chicago and parts of the upper Midwest (if I remember correctly). How can you realistically claim to even know enough to make that statement?

If you want to make a claim that there are multiple vastly disparate black cultures in operation in America -- such that my experience with mid-Western blacks is wholly inapplicable to blacks in other regions of the country -- then make it. Last time the topic came up, though, I remember someone saying they had similar experiences from the South, so you're going to have a hard sell as far as I'm concerned.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:05 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

All this happened yesterday as far as history is concerned.

I'm not history, I'm a man, and as far as I'm concerned people need to quite frankly get over it. The Holocaust was just yesterday as far as history is concerned, but I've got no particular problem with Germany, because I'm not a whiny little girl.

Steelrails wrote:

Just because we haven't experienced it first hand to the degree associated with the 1960s doesn't mean plenty of other people who are alive today have not.

There's a statute of limitations on how long we can keep this pity fest going, and it's expired. If any of them experience genuine, harmful racism, I'm on their side. Beyond that, though, it's time for everyone to just let it go.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:05 pm Post subject:

[quote="Fox"]I'm not history, I'm a man, and as far as I'm concerned people need to quite frankly get over it. The Holocaust was just yesterday as far as history is concerned, but I've got no particular problem with Germany, because I'm not a whiny little girl.[quote]

I think that something that lasted for 300+ years as slavery and then another 100 years as Jim Crow and directly affected the lives of at least 60% of the black population of America and affected by one step removed the remaining 40% of the black population is not something that can just be 'got over'.

Judging by the number of folks that stare at black kids as they enter their store, are leery about having a black doctor, won't vote for a black politician, lock their doors when a black man crosses in front of them, kids that during their formative years have an apprehension towards dealing with minorities, etc. etc. things aren't 'over'.

Quote:

Maybe a start would be giving the 40 acres and a mule (or cash value thereof) that were initially pledged towards former slaves/their descendants.

But then again following treaties isn't exactly one group of Americans' strongest suit. See Native Americans or more recently the Geneva Convention

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:35 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

I think that something that lasted for 300+ years as slavery and then another 100 years as Jim Crow and directly affected the lives of at least 60% of the black population of America and affected by one step removed the remaining 40% of the black population is not something that can just be 'got over'.

Well, it is. If I can get over my people having been persecuted across the globe for millenia, blacks can get over their people having been persecuted for a few centuries. When I got teased in my hometown for my ethnicity, I shrugged it off, because I'm not a pathetic loser. Anyone else can do the same.

Steelrails wrote:

Judging by the number of folks that stare at black kids as they enter their store, are leery about having a black doctor, won't vote for a black politician, lock their doors when a black man crosses in front of them, kids that during their formative years have an apprehension towards dealing with minorities, etc. etc. things aren't 'over'.

And what number of folks is that? Are you basing this on data, or just on what you imagine is the case?

Further, how are you so certain that when it does occur, it's based on skin color? We all know that things like clothing and body language play a huge role in our initial impressions of people. I know my reaction to an individual -- be they black, white, asian, or so forth -- will be quite different based on these factors. If I see a black man in a suit and a white man dressed like a gang-banger, I'll feel far more comfortable with the black man. Dress like a lower-class gangster and you're going to get treated like one. There's nothing wrong about that.

Steelrails wrote:

Maybe a start would be giving the 40 acres and a mule (or cash value thereof) that were initially pledged towards former slaves/their descendants.

Anyone alive who was enslaved during their lifetime can have reparations. Anyone alive who was never enslaved, and further has a better standard of living in America than they would have had had their ancestors never been brought here can just shut the Hell up. Make no mistake, slavery is not justified by the fact that the descendants of slaves have a higher standard of living as a result of having been brought here, but at the same time, modern blacks are owed nothing by anyone. I for one don't want a single dime of my tax money going towards "reparations" for someone who has never been enslaved by any living American. It's time for this silly entitlement mentality to end.

Steelrails wrote:

But then again following treaties isn't exactly one group of Americans' strongest suit. See Native Americans or more recently the Geneva Convention

The last thing we need is our government handing out unearned wealth on the basis of racial background, regardless of the rationale. Geneva Convention violations, on the other hand, are regrettable.

Last edited by Fox on Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

kabrams

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:38 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

kabrams wrote:

I don't think Affirmative Action is a racist policy.

I know you don't. In your eyes nothing that benefits blacks is racist. Institute the exact same policy in a fashion designed to benefit caucasians, though, and you'd scream about it.

Actually, white male nurses benefit from Affirmative Action, and I support that wholeheartedly. I also support benefits granted them for being a minority in a profession that's overwhelmingly female.

If there's a place where one race is discriminated against for the color of their skin, their income level or gender, I'm all for trying to right that balance.

Fox wrote:

Up until the numbers came in, there were speculations that black people would NOT vote for Obama because he wasn't "black enough", because he had a foreign name, because he had a white mom, because they didn't want to get their hopes up, because they had an ally in the Clintons, etc. etc. But after the numbers came in and Obama began pressing hard for the black vote (and not simply expecting it), everyone assumed it was because he's "black like them."

What's interesting is that when Clinton was in the race, it was split, with Obama usually in the lead and Clinton not too far behind. The overwhelming support of Obama came after Clinton began her "hard-working white people" rhetoric that turned a lot of people off.

My entire family (minus me and my siblings, of course) was pro-Clinton, until she made those comments, and then they switched to Obama. (I come from a family where my grandparents are Republican, my parents are conservative democrats, and I'm obviously a liberal democrat, who supported Kucinich and then Obama after the primaries, lol).

One of the other major reasons for Obama's 90% turnout was because he actually increased African American registration, in some areas by tens of thousands of voters.

But the best thing about this is...88% of the black vote went to John Kerry in 2004. What's more, the black vote generally swings 80-90% democratic. Because...the vast majorit of black people are solid democrats.

Examples:

Obama: 90%
John Kerry: 88%
Al Gore: 90%
Bill Clinton: 84% and 83%
Jesse Jackson: 75% and 90%
JFK: 75%

Fox wrote:

Well you're wrong, white people who would have supported Obama if only he had been white, but voted for McCain because Obama was black are racist.

That's actually not what I said. Smile

Fox wrote:

This might be a hypothetically non-racist justification for voting for Clinton over Obama (if you feel for whatever reason Obama couldn't win the primary due to his race and your sole goal is voting for the most electable Democreat), but not for voting for McCain over Obama when you otherwise support Obama's policies. I really feel your consideration of race-based issues is lacking in nuance, kabrams.

All the rest of this is irrelevant. Smile

Fox wrote:

Senior called me racist? *rechecks* Crickey.

Fox wrote:

Yup. I want him to be charged with what he did: 1. harrassment, of the black customers (and everyone in the store at the time) 2. trespassing (obvious) and causing a disturbance (seriously, this also does not need to be explained).

How is it trivial to be targeted because of your race?

Fox wrote:

What does "played with fireworks in public" mean? You argument would hold water if you only lit off your fireworks next to black people or something. Seriously, this kid intentionally targeted a group of people because of their race...what aren't you understanding?

Fox wrote:

Our criminal justice system is pressed enough as it is without having to deal with a kid who said something rude over a Wal-Mart loud speaker. The lesson this kid is going to learn is that excessively PC lunatics are monsters who will grossly over-react to trivialities and that he can't trust our police force and legal system to be reasonable. Is that what you want?

What about the black people in the Walmart who might feel that a racist system once again protects one of its own, and they can no longer trust the police force or justice system to treat racial bigotry as a serious problem?

Why is it that no one is considering the black people in the store at all in this conversation? Do you know how humiliating that must've been? How many kids were in the store at that time? Do they not count, either?

I'm not saying it's a horrible crime. I'm saying you can't treat it like it was "just a trivial prank".

Fox wrote:

Their culture is influenced by their poverty, I agree. They aren't going to magically stop being poor, so it's the culture that needs to change.

This does not make sense.

Fox wrote:

I knew people like you before I was old enough to drive. Smile

Fox wrote:

Unsurprisingly, you don't freak out during most of those discussions, despite the fact that my tone is very similar during them. If I see an issue, I just fricking talk about it. I don't beat around the bush in a PC fashion. Live with it.

As I've said before, I only say something when the conversation becomes rabid with the type of crazy, off the wall comments represent by a large percentage of the posters here.

Look back at posts. Look at when my disposition turns "sour". Isn't it usually when someone says something completely racist or sexist (in my view)? There have been several "black themed" topics here, and I haven't "freaked out" on all of them. But whatever, I'm done trying to defend myself to someone who thinks targeting an entire culture of people is "being un-PC".

Yeahhhhh, okay. Very Happy

Fox wrote:

I would.

Why?

Fox wrote:

If you want to try to reduce all the cultural problems any given group faces to simply a matter of poverty, I'm just going to shrug and say whatever, because that's ridiculously overly simplistic.

Wow, I'm glad I used the word "exacerbates"! Otherwise, that would have been confusing.

Anyway, I'm running out of time to respond so I'll respond later to the rest of what you wrote.

Peace~!

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:59 pm Post subject:

kabrams wrote:

Actually, white male nurses benefit from Affirmative Action, and I support that wholeheartedly.

Their whiteness is incidental, the policy in question selects for them based on gender, not race. And yes, it's sexist for doing that.

kabrams wrote:

If there's a place where one race is discriminated against for the color of their skin, their income level or gender, I'm all for trying to right that balance.

Men aren't discriminated against when it comes to nursing. Most of us simply don't want to do it. This is exactly what I'm talking about: trying to get more men involved in nursing is trying to fix a non-existent problem. There's no unjust imbalance here, just simple, natural preference.

kabrams wrote:

I don't care what pundits speculated about, I care about the reality of the situation. And the reality of the situation is that blacks voted for Obama in an incredibly biased, lopsided fashion. You're still just trying to justify it away. Unsurprising, but hardly convincing.

kabrams wrote:

What's interesting is that when Clinton was in the race, it was split, with Obama usually in the lead and Clinton not too far behind. The overwhelming support of Obama came after Clinton began her "hard-working white people" rhetoric that turned a lot of people off.

I'm sure you believe that. Just more justification.

kabrams wrote:

But the best thing about this is...88% of the black vote went to John Kerry in 2004.[/b] What's more, the black vote generally swings 80-90% democratic. Because...the vast majorit of black people are solid democrats.

So what? I'm not talking about the general election, I'm talking about the primary between Clinton and Obama. In the general election, I can believe blacks would overwhelmingly vote Democrat no matter what. In the primary, they heavily favored Obama, and we all know the real reason why.

kabrams wrote:

That's actually not what I said. Smile

Then you didn't actually say anything salient to the discussion. Unsurprising.

kabrams wrote:

It's not trivial to be targetted because of your race... if what you're targetted with is, say, a bullet, or a fist, or a pink slip. If what you're being targetted with is a single annoying sentence from a 16 year old, on the other hand, I have a hard time imagining many things more trivial.

Again, the fact that you see this case and your response is, "Well, he actually needs to be charged with more crimes," is just pathetic.

kabrams wrote:

What does "played with fireworks in public" mean?

What do you think it means?

kabrams wrote:

You argument would hold water if you only lit off your fireworks next to black people or something. Seriously, this kid intentionally targeted a group of people because of their race...what aren't you understanding?

Oh, of course, how thoughtless of me. Lightning off fireworks in a public area in general is trivial, but if I light them only near black people, well, that's a serious matter. The point, kabrams, is that children often do stupid things when they're young, and the best response is simply to tell them to cut it out. My stupid thing was lighting off fireworks in public. This kid's stupid thing was a silly, South-Park-humor-style prank. Like me, he should have just been told to cut it out. Unfortunately, lunatics like yourself and the NAACP have substantial influence in our culture, so instead he got arrested for uttering a single sentence.

kabrams wrote:

Those people are stupid for wanting a boy to be arrested for speaking a single sentence and shouldn't be taken into consideration. I can't articulate how little respect I have for anyone who would think as you just described.

kabrams wrote:

Why is it that no one is considering the black people in the store at all in this conversation?

I'm considering them. I don't blame them for being angry at the boy. I'd rather they expressed their anger in the form of words directed at him than:

1) Blamed Wal-Mart (who was perhaps slightly negligent, but obviously didn't intend for this to happen).
2) Asserted he should be arrested.

If they're angry, fricking tell him to shut up. I can understand their anger. Guess what, sometimes I get angry too. That doesn't mean people should get arrested for making me angry.

kabrams wrote:

Do you know how humiliating that must've been? How many kids were in the store at that time? Do they not count, either?

They count, but their feelings don't warrant police protection. No one's feelings warrant police protection.

kabrams wrote:

I'm not saying it's a horrible crime. I'm saying you can't treat it like it was "just a trivial prank".

It was a trivial prank, and anyone who says otherwise is a whiny little baby (or pushing an agenda).

kabrams wrote:

Fox wrote:

Their culture is influenced by their poverty, I agree. They aren't going to magically stop being poor, so it's the culture that needs to change.

This does not make sense.

It does to me, but then again, I can read and think critically, so understanding things comes easily.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:05 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Affirmative Action is not racist. Its merely a remedy to a past injustice.

You can't ensure equal opportunity without addressing the underlying causes of existing inequality. Do you think African-Americans were on an equal footing just after Jim Crow ended? Do you think African-Americans are on an equal footing now?

I'm not arguing for or against Affirmative Action, I'm simply stating that its not a racist policy. I mean, its not a discriminatory policy, because even though it (b) may have disparate impact, (a) it is lacking discriminatory intent (see Washington v. Davis).

Fox wrote:

"There was racist injustice in the past, so let's engage in more racist injustice in the opposite direction until we get the feeling that we can stop." I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

Yes, its often ridiculous when you put words in other peoples' mouths, Fox. But it hasn't stopped you yet.

I personally don't like Affirmative Action as a human resources directive of the Federal gov't (I don't care what private companies do in this regard). But in terms of school admissions, I think Grutter v Bollinger got it dead right. Critical mass, but no quotas.

Quote:

The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use". O'Connor noted that sometime in the future, perhaps twenty-five years hence, racial affirmative action would no longer be necessary in order to promote diversity. It implied that affirmative action should not be allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be implemented.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:56 am Post subject:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

You can't ensure equal opportunity without addressing the underlying causes of existing inequality.

Yes you can, because of equality of opportunity and equality of result are different things.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Do you think African-Americans were on an equal footing just after Jim Crow ended? Do you think African-Americans are on an equal footing now?

Systematically, yes, especially now. A qualified African American if anything can more easily obtain any given position than an equally qualified caucasian. They certainly have no unique systematic impediments. Any failure of blacks to succeed in the current environment is ultimately owned by blacks. They have equality opportunity, but that doesn't ensure equality of results.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

I'm not arguing for or against Affirmative Action, I'm simply stating that its not a racist policy.

Okay, but you're still wrong, because it is. It may be racism in the opposite direction of previous racism, but it's still racism, and it's still unjust.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

I mean, its not a discriminatory policy, because even though it (b) may have disparate impact, (a) it is lacking discriminatory intent (see Washington v. Davis).

It is not lacking discriminatory intent. It has strong discriminatory intent; it discriminates in favor of blacks. Even if the discriminatory intent is based on the hope that present discrimination will result in future inequality, it still discriminates, and intentionally so.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:51 am Post subject:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

A lot of crime does not equal a lot of homicides.

I can't find any hard data on homicide. However, areas of British cities with large black populations closely resemble those in the US. The UK has extremely low homicide rates. If the UK was a US state, it would have the 4th lowest homicide rate in the union. Perhaps coincidentally, it also has a fairly similar black population expressed as a percentage (1-2%) to those other states with similarly low rates of homicide. Anecdotally, I grew up near one of the areas quoted above. It was, and remains, one of the most dangerous areas of the city, if not the country, and was infamous for shootings in the 1990s.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 7 of 9

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe