Statement of discrimination

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What did I ever do to you, Mr. Fun? Just for that: "The Village People suck and Madonna lip synchs!"

Not to worry -- I editted my post where I made the mistake.

I read a post of yours, DinoDoc in another thread and immediately after that, went to read Cal's post.
I guess that is why I made the name mistake.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MrFun


No I do not.


The reason is because businesses and universities are agressively seeking out equally qualified minority group members over white men.

This is not reverse discrimination because businesses and universities still hire white men --- but, only when they have achieved the hiring or accepting of the number of minority group members that they seek.

They do not exclude every single white applicant in a business or university.

However you rationalize it, it doesnt change the fact that if you include everyone except one group in a "protected class", that group is being discriminated against. Whether you think its justified or not is another matter, but its still discrimination. Have a read of Goingonit's post for a good summary of this.

[Arrian]

Hmm... I don't consider myself a "whining, paranoid, white, straight male" but I do think that "affirmative action" is a form of racism ("reverse" racism is a stupid term, IMO). That being said, I understand the good intentions for which it was instituted. I just wish there was some other way to redress the imbalance of opportunity in society. Isn't the development of a society where race/ethnicity/religious preference/sexual orientation/whatever doesn't matter the goal? I think we need to ask the question: does affirmative action further that goal? Perhaps the answer is "yes" right now. Perhaps it isn't. But at some point, the answer must become "no." Otherwise, affirmative action isn't working. If it does work, it will remove the need for itself.

Anyway, I'm not somebody who goes through life with a chip on my shoulder because I think I'm being jipped out of opportunities by minorities. I grew up priveledged, so I have nothing to complain about. But one can still analyse something critically without being a "whiner" (as some in the CivIII general forum would be eager to tell you).

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Arrian-
I agree, and Im not whining, Im just pointing out that if they were honest they would call it a statement of discrimination, not nondiscrimination.

[Sarxis]

NYC TC's Statement of Nondiscrimination: most racist thing I've seen this week.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hmm... I don't consider myself a "whining, paranoid, white, straight male" but I do think that "affirmative action" is a form of racism ("reverse" racism is a stupid term, IMO). That being said, I understand the good intentions for which it was instituted. I just wish there was some other way to redress the imbalance of opportunity in society. Isn't the development of a society where race/ethnicity/religious preference/sexual orientation/whatever doesn't matter the goal? I think we need to ask the question: does affirmative action further that goal? Perhaps the answer is "yes" right now. Perhaps it isn't. But at some point, the answer must become "no." Otherwise, affirmative action isn't working. If it does work, it will remove the need for itself.

Anyway, I'm not somebody who goes through life with a chip on my shoulder because I think I'm being jipped out of opportunities by minorities. I grew up priveledged, so I have nothing to complain about. But one can still analyse something critically without being a "whiner" (as some in the CivIII general forum would be eager to tell you).

-Arrian

Critically analyzing??

I have seen some anti-AA people provide good arguments other than the one-liner, "reverse discrimination."
But too many others seem to want to distort affirmative action, and not see for what it really is -- a system to undo past discrimination against minority group members and creating equal opportunity.

[Chris 62]

Sorry MF, but I must disagree...

Originally posted by MrFun
The reason is because businesses and universities are agressively seeking out equally qualified minority group members over white men.

And that is NOT discrimination?
You are saying they will take anyone who isn't a white man, that sure sounds discriminatory.
It's also illeagal.

This is not reverse discrimination because businesses and universities still hire white men --- but, only when they have achieved the hiring or accepting of the number of minority group members that they seek.

As opposed to whom is best qualified for a postion?
That is indeed discrimination.

They do not exclude every single white applicant in a business or university.

Is the same distinction made for everyone in the protected group?
If not, it is discrinination.

You have created a cute buzz word lately with your "whining, paraonoid white, straight man", yet here you prove that Caligastia is correct.

You must abandon these buzz words, there is not a "straw man" argument, if in fact one group is favored over another, for ANY reason, it is indeed discrimination.

[MrFun]

Re: Sorry MF, but I must disagree...

Originally posted by Chris 62
And that is NOT discrimination?
You are saying they will take anyone who isn't a white man, that sure sounds discriminatory.
It's also illeagal.

As opposed to whom is best qualified for a postion?
That is indeed discrimination.

Is the same distinction made for everyone in the protected group?
If not, it is discrinination.

You have created a cute buzz word lately with your "whining, paraonoid white, straight man", yet here you prove that Caligastia is correct.

You must abandon these buzz words, there is not a "straw man" argument, if in fact one group is favored over another, for ANY reason, it is indeed discrimination.

But I do see it as a strawman argument because reverse discrimination one-liners distorts the real purpose of affirmative action -- creating equal opportunity and undoing past discrimination against minority group members.

And perhaps you're right -- I will stop using "whining, paranoid white, straight man."

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MrFun


No I do not.


The reason is because businesses and universities are agressively seeking out equally qualified minority group members over white men.

You are too funny Mrfun. You honestly think that selecting minorities over white men doesnt discriminate against white men. What you are basically saying is that discrimination against white men isnt discrimination.

This is not reverse discrimination because businesses and universities still hire white men --- but, only when they have achieved the hiring or accepting of the number of minority group members that they seek.

They do not exclude every single white applicant in a business or university.

So because whites are not always excluded its not discrimination? By that logic you could say that because blacks are not always excluded by racists, its not discrimination. But you wouldnt agree with that because according to you its only discrimination if its against non-whites.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by MrFun

Critically analyzing??

I have seen some anti-AA people provide good arguments other than the one-liner, "reverse discrimination."
But too many others seem to want to distort affirmative action, and not see for what it really is -- a system to undo past discrimination against minority group members and creating equal opportunity.

Err, yeah, critical analysis: does affirmative action help acheive the goal of creating a society where race/ethnicity/etc. do not matter? That's what I meant. And I think it's a valid question.

I understand full well that AA is designed to reverse the effects of past discrimination. I accept that it may have been (or still be) necessary, at least in some instances (colleges are a good example, particularly the more exclusive institutions). Fine, but call it what it is: it IS discrimination.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Re: Re: Sorry MF, but I must disagree...

Originally posted by MrFun
But I do see it as a strawman argument because reverse discrimination one-liners distorts the real purpose of affirmative action -- creating equal opportunity and undoing past discrimination against minority group members.

Do you know the meaning of "strawman"? A strawman is when someone argues against something that doesnt exist.

So either you are accusing me of lying in my first post about what is written in the NYC TC booklet, or you dont consider discrimination against white men to be discrimination. Which is it?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Caligastia


You are too funny Mrfun. You honestly think that selecting minorities over white men doesnt discriminate against white men. What you are basically saying is that discrimination against white men isnt discrimination.


So because whites are not always excluded its not discrimination? By that logic you could say that because blacks are not always excluded by racists, its not discrimination. But you wouldnt agree with that because according to you its only discrimination if its against non-whites.

As long as affirmative action is meant to create equality and undo past discrimination, I will believe that affirmative action is justified.


Unless you can find a way to convince all whites not to discriminate based on race and gender??


I will toss out that flawed logic that you pointed out.

[Monk]

As long as affirmative action is meant to create equality and undo past discrimination, I will believe that affirmative action is justified.

Would you be OK with tax reductions to blacks or women because of discrimination? I mean, where do you draw the line?

[Chris 62]

I'm not opposed to giving Black people and others a level playing field, but it seems like a bad idea to make it unfair to one group to redress past mistakes.

When I returned to college for my engineering degree, the student body was 80% minority (In TCI, a technical college in NYC), and many of them were getting heavy finacial help, I recall a black girl I knew, she was 19, married with a son, and the Government was paying her tution, paying for her books, as well as providing living expenses.
I had help through my military service, but I had to pay for books and didn't get any extra money (I had to work nights to make ends meet, my family never had money, and being Greek/English I was in no recognized minority for support), and it was very tough.
I knew another guy there, a fellow Greek, who was getting almost no government money, his family was saving every penny to get him through, and he needed to work in the waldorf as a waiter to make it.
We were white men, we had to work our way through school, but a lot of our friends and fellow classmates were black men who didn't have to work at all, the gov paid the whole thing, even paid them to attend essentially.

Does that sound fair?
Think about if we (the whites) got the payout and the black kids had to work to stay, wouldn't you say that is racist?
It is a double standard, and a dangerous one, totally unfair, and yet another reason why AA should be done away with.

All PEOPLE should be given the same support based on their ability to pay, not skin color.
As whites, we were told to work to stay, as blacks they were paid to stay.
That's not imaginary, nor whining, it's truth, and it simply isn't right.

[MrFun]

Re: Re: Re: Sorry MF, but I must disagree...

Originally posted by Caligastia


Do you know the meaning of "strawman"? A strawman is when someone argues against something that doesnt exist.

So either you are accusing me of lying in my first post about what is written in the NYC TC booklet, or you dont consider discrimination against white men to be discrimination. Which is it?

First off, using a strawman argument is not always deliberate -- it can result from a mistake rather than deliberate distortion.
I never really said that you're lying -- but distorting the purpose of affirmative action.


Secondly, affirmative action may be a form of discrimination, but in this case, this type of discrimination is justified.
But then, you will counter with "two wrongs do not make a right."

In that case, we should never have attacked the Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Violence is a terrible thing -- so two wrongs do not make a right.
If two wrongs do not make a right, we should just let terrorists walk all over us -- but we are not doing that, thank God.