You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to OGame.org. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Treize Khushrenada

Unregistered

61

Sunday, January 8th 2012, 11:19pm

This will be one of the few times that I openly come out against DD, but frankly, I disagree and I lay that blame on the fact that you are unfamiliar with racism in the US sense.

I think the degree of detail I've had to delve into has taken away from the original point that I had made. Look, affirmative action will always be necessary as long as there is an institutionalized bias against African Americans in America. I've more than proven that this bias does in fact exist. It existed BEFORE affirmative action, and it persists now. Basically, the point I got from you DD is that affirmative action should be done away with because it gives racist people a reason to be racist? They were already racist......... :rolleyes: Without affirmative action the black situation would be much worse. Black enrollment in universities would be lower, you'd have less educated blacks, it'd be even harder for them to get jobs and the already skyrocketing black unemployment rate would be that much higher fueling the ever ongoing cycle of crime and imprisonment for black males. And this libertarian argument is complete bull :censored:, people like Ron and Rand Paul argue against things like the civil rights act of the 1960s on much the same grounds. "Gee why force integration on businesses when we can let the free market weed out racist business practices?" Why? Because the free market doesn't work that way. A great example of that is Chic-Fil-A here in America. It's a southern based chicken fast food chain, it's extremely good, they're founded by conservative christians, they have given over 9 million dollars to anti-gay groups, have they lost business because of that? No, although multiple campaigns have tried. Let's pretend the civil rights act never passed, and chic-fil-a was segregated. Do you honestly think that white Americans who loved their fast food would honestly stop going to chic-fil-a in protest? Some might, but it wouldn't be enough to actively bring about change within the company. And it'd never happen in the south. This whole libertarian idea that somehow we can trust the majority of people to do the morally right thing is just wrong. That's why civil rights should never be put up to a vote, whether it's black rights, gay rights, womens rights, etc. And historically speaking, I'm right. There isn't a society on the face of this planet that hasn't tried to democratically take rights away from a minority group. Some have been successful most haven't. And really DD, libertarinism doesn't suit you. It's a naive political position to take and if you ask me it's lazy. Government is necessary in most instances and to think otherwise if just foolish. And relying on the free market is just insanity.

The second point I want to make is the fact that affirmative action is not greater than the institutionalized racism of blacks in America. While it may increase the numbers of blacks hired or the number of blacks that get into school, its positives don't even make a dent in the negatives that still occur in America, nor does it put a large enough number of blacks and minorities on equal footing with white Americans. So I really don't get why people are complaining about affirmative action other than the fact that media and conservative echo chambers have struck a chord with enough racially naive Americans to make them think they're actually getting the short end of the stick. Look, if you're white, male, and heterosexual, you've got it the best out of anyone. The only people holding you back are the wall street robber barons that might fear you taking their job someday, not "evil" college admissions boards that are selecting minorities over whites (ooooo scary stuff right?). I mean hell, look at how uninformed the one poster was claiming there was no white racism towards blacks. That is the problem we face in America, and affirmative action isn't creating it. That attitude persisted even before slavery ended, this fear that somehow the blacks would rise up and enslave the white men.

So I ask you DD, what's your solution to this problem (in America not the UK)? You can't get rid of affirmative action while racism still exists, so what do you do? Would you really argue for getting rid of it? How long would you wait before you did something else? Would you wait until black enrollment in schools was 0.0001%? Because that's exactly what would happen when you factor in race, resources at home, etc.


And I still challenge any of you to give me a verified example of a white student being DENIED a job or enrollment in school because they were beat out by a less qualified minority. You people operate under the assumption this is a common occurrence even though (as far as schools go this is illegal) the supreme court said setting hard quotas for schools was illegal.

Dark dude

Threads Are Yummy

Posts: 4,996

Date of registration: Jul 21st 2005

Location: Arriving somewhere but not here.

Occupation: Programmer.

  • Send private message

62

Monday, January 9th 2012, 2:27am

This will be one of the few times that I openly come out against DD, but frankly, I disagree and I lay that blame on the fact that you are unfamiliar with racism in the US sense.

Strictly speaking, I'm more educated on racism in the US than UK lol. I decided to do World History for 4 years, focusing on issues within America in the 19th and 20th Centuries, and the Soviet Union in the 20th Century, as opposed to UK History (I figured it'd be much easier to learn this as I live here). I have learned that racism in America took the form of dejeur and defacto, and can detail every single step of the rise of MLK and later the rise of Malcom X, and so on and so fourth. Contrary to this, I would say that affirmative action has a stronger chance of being successful in the UK than the US due to its more statist nature...

Quoted

I think the degree of detail I've had to delve into has taken away from the original point that I had made. Look, affirmative action will always be necessary as long as there is an institutionalized bias against African Americans in America. I've more than proven that this bias does in fact exist. A great example of that is Chic-Fil-A here in America. It's a southern based chicken fast food chain, it's extremely good, they're founded by conservative christians, they have given over 9 million dollars to anti-gay groups, have they lost business because of that? No, although multiple campaigns have tried. Let's pretend the civil rights act never passed, and chic-fil-a was segregated. Do you honestly think that white Americans who loved their fast food would honestly stop going to chic-fil-a in protest? Some might, but it wouldn't be enough to actively bring about change within the company. And it'd never happen in the south. This whole libertarian idea that somehow we can trust the majority of people to do the morally right thing is just wrong. That's why civil rights should never be put up to a vote, whether it's black rights, gay rights, womens rights, etc. And historically speaking, I'm right. There isn't a society on the face of this planet that hasn't tried to democratically take rights away from a minority group. Some have been successful most haven't. And really DD, libertarinism doesn't suit you. It's a naive political position to take and if you ask me it's lazy. Government is necessary in most instances and to think otherwise if just foolish. And relying on the free market is just insanity.

I think you missed my point lol. I was arguing on a socially libertarian basis here rather than an economically libertarian basis, for starters. But still, I guess I'll break this down:

Quoted

It existed BEFORE affirmative action, and it persists now. Basically, the point I got from you DD is that affirmative action should be done away with because it gives racist people a reason to be racist? They were already racist......... :rolleyes:

Yes, they were. Now you've legitimized their view point. Congratulations.


Quoted

Without affirmative action the black situation would be much worse. Black enrollment in universities would be lower, you'd have less educated blacks, it'd be even harder for them to get jobs and the already skyrocketing black unemployment rate would be that much higher fueling the ever ongoing cycle of crime and imprisonment for black males. And this libertarian argument is complete bull :censored:, people like Ron and Rand Paul argue against things like the civil rights act of the 1960s on much the same grounds. "Gee why force integration on businesses when we can let the free market weed out racist business practices?" Why? Because the free market doesn't work that way.

I think their opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in particular is dramatically unfounded and is a gun-wound to their hind-quarters, given that it did little to establish affirmative action policies, and instead sought primarily to end the Jim Crowe Laws in its entirety.

But to the point, I'm getting the feeling you missed this:

Quoted

If you truly think that black people deserve equality in potential because they're socially disadvantaged, why not just say "We need more help for the poor"? Why say "We need to give institutional help based on skin colour"?



Quoted

That's why civil rights should never be put up to a vote, whether it's black rights, gay rights, womens rights, etc. And historically speaking, I'm right.

Really? Seriously, sir? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that the most democratic countries established these rights first? If we compare, for example, the Democracy Index 2011, with the LGBT Rights Around The World page, there is a very strong corrolation between the democratic freedom of a country and its number of ticks in the latter page.

Quoted

There isn't a society on the face of this planet that hasn't tried to democratically take rights away from a minority group. Some have been successful most haven't

Oh, I'm not denying tyranny by the majority can occur. It's why we have representative democracy. I'd sooner argue that anarchism provides a better means than dictatorship to any problems in democracy, as this complete neutering of the majority's ability to coerce minorities is perpetual, whereas a dictatorship can change stance on a whim (for example, Yugoslavia going from a bastion of socialism to a corrupt statist hell hole in one seat change). If we'd put Obama as dictator, many problems may have been solved better, but this isn't to say that the next in line isn't Vozhd Santorum, with his plans of fierce social conservatism.

Quoted

The second point I want to make is the fact that affirmative action is not greater than the institutionalized racism of blacks in America. While it may increase the numbers of blacks hired or the number of blacks that get into school, its positives don't even make a dent in the negatives that still occur in America, nor does it put a large enough number of blacks and minorities on equal footing with white Americans. So I really don't get why people are complaining about affirmative action other than the fact that media and conservative echo chambers have struck a chord with enough racially naive Americans to make them think they're actually getting the short end of the stick.

Well you roughly fall straight into an implied point I made. There is no spectrum here. It is not zero-sum. By raising discrimination in the other direction, you don't magically vanish it, you just... simply add more discrimination.

Quoted

Look, if you're white, male, and heterosexual, you've got it the best out of anyone.

I'm glad to see you've only got me once on this so far, and you haven't even touched on the one area I actually am actively discriminated against for! ;)

Quoted

I mean hell, look at how uninformed the one poster was claiming there was no white racism towards blacks. That is the problem we face in America, and affirmative action isn't creating it. That attitude persisted even before slavery ended, this fear that somehow the blacks would rise up and enslave the white men.

Yes, he's uninformed. So inform him. I'm not against state education and progressive balancing, add it to the curriculum. I have to teach members of your own country about their own racial history, your primary education system sucks. Raise funding of schooling in poorer areas at the expense of the wealthier areas, give student grants progressively based on parental income at the expense of the typical grants offered to the wealthy. This is needed, not just as a better alternative to quotas and race-based policies, but as a strategy America desperately needs to grow as an intellectual competitor with Europe. Progressive social welfare beats affirmative action, always.

Quoted

So I ask you DD, what's your solution to this problem (in America not the UK)? You can't get rid of affirmative action while racism still exists, so what do you do? Would you really argue for getting rid of it? How long would you wait before you did something else? Would you wait until black enrollment in schools was 0.0001%? Because that's exactly what would happen when you factor in race, resources at home, etc.

I would argue exactly as I've argued above. The state needs to stop its own racism. First and foremost, far more damage is perpetuated by social policy than economic policy. The War on Abortion, the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, these disproportionately affect blacks more than whites and must be ended effective immediately. Secondly, as it winds back public spending, it should seek to end it in affluent areas before impoverished areas. Thirdly, it must have a complete overhaul of its social safety net to something much less corrupted by corporate influence and much more helpful and effective. Fourthly, it must pursue economic liberalization, primarily by completely abolishing minimum wage, which, by forcing the present generation of uneducated African-Americans to remain unemployed by making it illegal to hire them at their productive value, is actively harmful in its implementation.

Thank Fofo for teh sig <3

Quoted from "Brhn -- Engine of Capitalism"

Talking to you is like sex for my brain.

XBishopX

Unregistered

63

Monday, January 9th 2012, 3:22am

Quoted



And I still challenge any of you to give me a verified example of a
white student being DENIED a job or enrollment in school because they
were beat out by a less qualified minority. You people operate under the
assumption this is a common occurrence even though (as far as schools
go this is illegal) the supreme court said setting hard quotas for
schools was illegal.
This absolutely happens all the time. Its called diversity and inclusion and its a common practice in any business. when you get into the real world you will see. And it will piss you off. You will be showing your boss how to do his job. What do you think when this happens it gets posted on a web page or placed in a file saying " uneducated minority who got a white guys job" ...Hard evidence? Ill let you get the evidence when you grow up and see what its like in the real world. You can make a stat out of it and show it to people


Quoted

Jrock
Unfortunatly your personal life experiences, as well as anyone in this
threads, is rather irrelevant. None of us has enough experience and
perspective to state hard facts about these sort of things.
personal life experience is irrelevant? Thats just silly. And yes I have plenty ..more than enough lifes experience to make an educated statement on the matter. Personal experience is about the only thing you can really go by. One day you will be able to make your own.

Quoted

Your age is also irrelevant. Just because you've spent 20, 30 or 40
years seeing something not happen. Doesn't mean you can say it doesn't
happen elsewhere. However, Trieze has evidence from multiple sources
confirming the points he made.
Age doesnt mean anything unless in those years you have been in the streets where actual racism happens. Unless in those years your eyes have seen what happens in the world-outside of politics and school walls. outside of papers and your bullshit stats. If you havent been in these places..well you really cant say much except to believe what someone else is telling you. You believe em because its made in a stat. do yourself a favor go out there and see for yourself.

Treize Khushrenada

Unregistered

64

Monday, January 9th 2012, 3:54pm

This will be one of the few times that I openly come out against DD, but frankly, I disagree and I lay that blame on the fact that you are unfamiliar with racism in the US sense.

Strictly speaking, I'm more educated on racism in the US than UK lol. I decided to do World History for 4 years, focusing on issues within America in the 19th and 20th Centuries, and the Soviet Union in the 20th Century, as opposed to UK History (I figured it'd be much easier to learn this as I live here). I have learned that racism in America took the form of dejeur and defacto, and can detail every single step of the rise of MLK and later the rise of Malcom X, and so on and so fourth. Contrary to this, I would say that affirmative action has a stronger chance of being successful in the UK than the US due to its more statist nature...


As much as I don't want to, I would argue that the brand of racism in America can't be studied, you gotta live it. Just like I will never understand the UK and this supposed gingerphobia or the particular strain of islamophobia in the UK (which is quite different from islamophobia in the US).

Quoted

Quoted

I think the degree of detail I've had to delve into has taken away from the original point that I had made. Look, affirmative action will always be necessary as long as there is an institutionalized bias against African Americans in America. I've more than proven that this bias does in fact exist. A great example of that is Chic-Fil-A here in America. It's a southern based chicken fast food chain, it's extremely good, they're founded by conservative christians, they have given over 9 million dollars to anti-gay groups, have they lost business because of that? No, although multiple campaigns have tried. Let's pretend the civil rights act never passed, and chic-fil-a was segregated. Do you honestly think that white Americans who loved their fast food would honestly stop going to chic-fil-a in protest? Some might, but it wouldn't be enough to actively bring about change within the company. And it'd never happen in the south. This whole libertarian idea that somehow we can trust the majority of people to do the morally right thing is just wrong. That's why civil rights should never be put up to a vote, whether it's black rights, gay rights, womens rights, etc. And historically speaking, I'm right. There isn't a society on the face of this planet that hasn't tried to democratically take rights away from a minority group. Some have been successful most haven't. And really DD, libertarinism doesn't suit you. It's a naive political position to take and if you ask me it's lazy. Government is necessary in most instances and to think otherwise if just foolish. And relying on the free market is just insanity.

I think you missed my point lol. I was arguing on a socially libertarian basis here rather than an economically libertarian basis, for starters. But still, I guess I'll break this down:


The point is the same whether from the social or fiscal point of view, the point being that government can never intervene for the good, that there should be no rules and that it will somehow work itself out. A great analogy to all of this would be food aid to Africa. We give them food aid because they're poor and starving, yet at the same time, giving them that aid hurts the local farmers and economy and just creates a dependence on aid, but what do you do? You can cut off the aid, but by that point, people depend on it. In the process of trying to heal them socially, many are going to die of hunger. That is essentially the story for affirmative action in America right now.

Quoted


Quoted

It existed BEFORE affirmative action, and it persists now. Basically, the point I got from you DD is that affirmative action should be done away with because it gives racist people a reason to be racist? They were already racist......... :rolleyes:

Yes, they were. Now you've legitimized their view point. Congratulations.


This is why you don't get racism here, in their minds, racism will always be legitimate, if it weren't affirmative action, it'd be integration. I'm from the deep south, I hear the nasty things said under people's breaths and I know why they say it. And trust me, affirmative action isn't what has them all riled up, it's minorities in general.

Quoted

Quoted

Without affirmative action the black situation would be much worse. Black enrollment in universities would be lower, you'd have less educated blacks, it'd be even harder for them to get jobs and the already skyrocketing black unemployment rate would be that much higher fueling the ever ongoing cycle of crime and imprisonment for black males. And this libertarian argument is complete bull :censored:, people like Ron and Rand Paul argue against things like the civil rights act of the 1960s on much the same grounds. "Gee why force integration on businesses when we can let the free market weed out racist business practices?" Why? Because the free market doesn't work that way.

I think their opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in particular is dramatically unfounded and is a gun-wound to their hind-quarters, given that it did little to establish affirmative action policies, and instead sought primarily to end the Jim Crowe Laws in its entirety.

But to the point, I'm getting the feeling you missed this:

Quoted

If you truly think that black people deserve equality in potential because they're socially disadvantaged, why not just say "We need more help for the poor"? Why say "We need to give institutional help based on skin colour"?



A black man will always be disadvantaged compared to a white man of equal worth. Hence making assistance solely based on economics wont work because despite the fact that Latoya and Brittany are on the same economic level, Brittany will always be called back for that second interview while Latoya most likely wouldn't. If this weren't the case, I'd agree with what you're arguing. Hell, I made that point several times, but my country has a long way to go culturally before it can handle that conceptually.

Quoted


Quoted

That's why civil rights should never be put up to a vote, whether it's black rights, gay rights, womens rights, etc. And historically speaking, I'm right.

Really? Seriously, sir? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that the most democratic countries established these rights first? If we compare, for example, the Democracy Index 2011, with the LGBT Rights Around The World page, there is a very strong corrolation between the democratic freedom of a country and its number of ticks in the latter page.


Yeah, they do have to be established, but how are they established? Do you really think it was proper for women to only gain the right to vote in the early 1900's? Shouldn't they have been voting all along? And the issue of women's sufferage was voted on multiple times, it just kept failing, hence my point.

Quoted


Quoted

There isn't a society on the face of this planet that hasn't tried to democratically take rights away from a minority group. Some have been successful most haven't

Oh, I'm not denying tyranny by the majority can occur. It's why we have representative democracy. I'd sooner argue that anarchism provides a better means than dictatorship to any problems in democracy, as this complete neutering of the majority's ability to coerce minorities is perpetual, whereas a dictatorship can change stance on a whim (for example, Yugoslavia going from a bastion of socialism to a corrupt statist hell hole in one seat change). If we'd put Obama as dictator, many problems may have been solved better, but this isn't to say that the next in line isn't Vozhd Santorum, with his plans of fierce social conservatism.


Dictator or not, the general populace is usually easily coerced into voting against people's rights, especially during economic downturns or wartime. And to be frank, it benefits republicans to keep racism smoldering in America. It let's them argue about black crime, black family structure, illegal immigration and hispanics, etc etc etc.

Quoted

Quoted

The second point I want to make is the fact that affirmative action is not greater than the institutionalized racism of blacks in America. While it may increase the numbers of blacks hired or the number of blacks that get into school, its positives don't even make a dent in the negatives that still occur in America, nor does it put a large enough number of blacks and minorities on equal footing with white Americans. So I really don't get why people are complaining about affirmative action other than the fact that media and conservative echo chambers have struck a chord with enough racially naive Americans to make them think they're actually getting the short end of the stick.

Well you roughly fall straight into an implied point I made. There is no spectrum here. It is not zero-sum. By raising discrimination in the other direction, you don't magically vanish it, you just... simply add more discrimination.


And the point you miss is there is a strong force behind racism here in America, and without something pushing against it, it would creep back in. I mean hell, in some states interracial marriage is coming up for debate again, not to mention the slew of politicians talking about the civil rights act as if it's unconstitutional and that it should be repealed. Affirmative action barely keeps in place the progress that we've already made because one thing I've learned about American politics is that a lot of politicians just work to undo things that other politicians spent careers building.

Quoted

Quoted

Look, if you're white, male, and heterosexual, you've got it the best out of anyone.

I'm glad to see you've only got me once on this so far, and you haven't even touched on the one area I actually am actively discriminated against for! ;)


Affirmative action benefits women in America as well ;)

Quoted

Quoted

I mean hell, look at how uninformed the one poster was claiming there was no white racism towards blacks. That is the problem we face in America, and affirmative action isn't creating it. That attitude persisted even before slavery ended, this fear that somehow the blacks would rise up and enslave the white men.

Yes, he's uninformed. So inform him. I'm not against state education and progressive balancing, add it to the curriculum. I have to teach members of your own country about their own racial history, your primary education system sucks. Raise funding of schooling in poorer areas at the expense of the wealthier areas, give student grants progressively based on parental income at the expense of the typical grants offered to the wealthy. This is needed, not just as a better alternative to quotas and race-based policies, but as a strategy America desperately needs to grow as an intellectual competitor with Europe. Progressive social welfare beats affirmative action, always.


I don't disagree, but you should be well aware this won't be happening anytime soon in America, it's impossible to get any sort of reform done.

Quoted

Quoted

So I ask you DD, what's your solution to this problem (in America not the UK)? You can't get rid of affirmative action while racism still exists, so what do you do? Would you really argue for getting rid of it? How long would you wait before you did something else? Would you wait until black enrollment in schools was 0.0001%? Because that's exactly what would happen when you factor in race, resources at home, etc.

I would argue exactly as I've argued above. The state needs to stop its own racism. First and foremost, far more damage is perpetuated by social policy than economic policy. The War on Abortion, the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, these disproportionately affect blacks more than whites and must be ended effective immediately. Secondly, as it winds back public spending, it should seek to end it in affluent areas before impoverished areas. Thirdly, it must have a complete overhaul of its social safety net to something much less corrupted by corporate influence and much more helpful and effective. Fourthly, it must pursue economic liberalization, primarily by completely abolishing minimum wage, which, by forcing the present generation of uneducated African-Americans to remain unemployed by making it illegal to hire them at their productive value, is actively harmful in its implementation.
[/quote]

I do wish I could live in your fantasy world, but yeah, none of that will ever happen. As I said before, there is a certain benefit to a particular party to play the race card at certain times. Nothing infuriates Americans more than thinking about a 'lazy minority' mooching off the social welfare system, and yeah, it keeps white voters roiled up and angry. But my point being, as of right now, something has to be in place, and unless you're a minority that stands to lose everything, it's not really fair for you to argue that we take away their only equalizer.

Quoted




This absolutely happens all the time. Its called diversity and inclusion and its a common practice in any business. when you get into the real world you will see. And it will piss you off. You will be showing your boss how to do his job. What do you think when this happens it gets posted on a web page or placed in a file saying " uneducated minority who got a white guys job" ...Hard evidence? Ill let you get the evidence when you grow up and see what its like in the real world. You can make a stat out of it and show it to people


Prove it. This isn't the state your opinion board.

Let's look at an example, a job is hiring ten employees, they plan to hire 7 white people and three minorities, and half of the total have to be women. 80 white men apply for the job and 25 minorities. Who caused those other 70 white men to be beat out for the job? The other white men they were competing against? The minorities? The women? Maybe instead of focusing on those evil minorities you should be focusing on the fact that 73 of those men weren't qualified enough to beat out the other 7, but the fact is, white people still get hired more quickly than minorities, hence they high rate of black unemployment. And as I've said before, none of us sit on these boards making the decision of who to hire, we really can't speak to why someone isn't hired over someone else, but you can sure pretend if you want. And the real world? I've worked in the real world and I've never seen an instance of a black person getting hired or admitted over someone more qualified.

Quoted

personal life experience is irrelevant? Thats just silly. And yes I have plenty ..more than enough lifes experience to make an educated statement on the matter. Personal experience is about the only thing you can really go by. One day you will be able to make your own.


Yeah, they are or else I could claim anything and you really wouldn't be in a position to question me. It effectively insulates my argument from attack, hence why anecdotal evidence is always inappropriate in a debate.

Quoted


Age doesnt mean anything unless in those years you have been in the streets where actual racism happens. Unless in those years your eyes have seen what happens in the world-outside of politics and school walls. outside of papers and your bullshit stats. If you havent been in these places..well you really cant say much except to believe what someone else is telling you. You believe em because its made in a stat. do yourself a favor go out there and see for yourself.


But you see, thats exactly what I did, I brushed off the views of the racist area where I grew up and reserved my judgement til I met actual minorities, I became close with them, I heard their stores, saw their struggles, and yeah, I became better educated. And why are the stats "bullshit" as you called them? Because they don't agree with you? I mean seriously, if you're one of those people that just ignores stats, facts, and figures, then you should just leave the debate now before you get warned for trolling. (It's in the rules for this section) No matter what anyone posts disagree with you, you can sit there and cry foul and blame the evidence they present as being faulty, while we're supposed to expect yours to be accurate. This is a debate, if you want to participate, then play by the rules, otherwise take your OPINIONS elsewhere.

Quiffmiester

I'm one of the big boys now :D

  • "Quiffmiester" started this thread

Posts: 810

Date of registration: May 19th 2009

Occupation: Profesional student

  • Send private message

65

Monday, January 9th 2012, 8:40pm

Livened up again :)

First, a point of mis-interpretation to address:

Quoted

It's an extremely touchy subject here in America. I must assume you are talking about the word "Nigger" (and yes I will use the full word for purposes of the discussion moderators as it's important to distinguish.


No, the censored word was not "Nigger" (calling someone a "White Nigger" makes no sense...). And for the record I do not use the word "Nigger" nor do I condone its use by anyone else. The censored word in question was the c-word, i.e. a swearword for female genitalia. A non-racist swear word (arguably a sexist one - another discussion), which was subsequently judged to be a racial insult based on its use with a racial descriptive.

Quoted

I want to start off by drawing the distinction between racism in the UK and racism in the US. As Quiffmiester already pointed out, despite the fact the UK was highly involved in the slave trade, the use of slavery wasn't nearly as prominent in the UK as it was in the US. Because of the lack of slave culture in the UK, the treatment of blacks id wildly different in the UK. Most Brits associate "blacks" with Africans, immigrants who have come directly from Africa to live in Europe. In the US this isn't the case. Blacks in the US are Americans and frankly don't resemble their ancestors from Africa at all. Most Brits who are racist approach the issue through immigration, not about race specifically. In the US, it's completely about the color of the man's skin.


I don't think I ever made the claim that the "use of slavery wasn't nearly as prominent in the UK as it was in the US". It is interesting that you have chosen to draw the distinction (correctly so IMO) between racism in the UK and in the US, because I think there is also a parallel between freedom of speech in these two countries which is highlighted by the original case. Had the John Terry incident happened on (for example) a US soccer pitch, I doubt John Terry would be involved in a police investigation afterwards. So as far as the original debate question is concerned, I don't think US racism is relevant. However as my initial "question" was regarding the relevance of racism irrespective of nationality, I shall delve head-first into the mental asylum that is the US.

Quoted

My point being Quiffmiester, is that racism is indeed alive and well in the US right now. I've given plenty of evidence to support this so now the burden is on you to provide factual proof to me and others that this is indeed not the case. I look forward to seeing what you dig up in your next post.


Up to that point in your post, I believe you provided a lot of evidence linking black people to drugs arrests, and black people to low economic status, yet you did not present any data linking disproportionate drug arrests directly to black people. That was the point I contested, because in amongst the mountain of statistics you flung around there was nothing in there to devalue the argument that economic status related directly to drug arrests. Your subsequent reply, however, has addressed this issue. Specifically, I am interested in the statistics for Georgia you linked to which showed the disparity of arrests compared with white arrests. Generally, the "disparity" is 5:1 black:white, based on the state population. I get the impression that you would then cite this as an example of institutionalised racism, which it is not for reasons debated previously. The institutionalised racism aspect can be seen by accounting for the economic variation - you state that in Georgia, 15% of whites are classified as living in "poverty", whilst 36% of the Black population lie in the same economic category (and 44% Hispanic). Taking this into account, one would expect the "disparity" rate to be approximately 2.5:1 black:white based on my hypothesis that the arrest rate is linked to poverty rather than race. As the disparity is double that (5:1), I accept that this is a potential indicator of institutionalised racism in the US, specifically directed at people who describe their ethnicity as "black". I wish to highlight however, that the disparity rate for Hispanics in fact falls nicely into the expected economic range of 3:1 (% of the hispanic community designated poor in Georgia is 44%, approx. three times that for the baseline, white case), so your statistics are hinting at quite a specific form of racism - not just against people with "foreign" names or different colour skin.

I use the word "potential", because as with any use of statistics there may be other variables not being considered which could account for the observed pattern. The one which sprang to mind for me was the idea that black people were more likely to deal drugs, hence the rationale for a more focused police presence in black areas. I came across this (youth stats, may not scale linearly up to adults):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871399/

Quoted

It is argued that Black youths' experience of low social status and reduced socioeconomic opportunities creates pressure that motivates participation in criminal activity (13, 15–17).


The above quote acknowledges the idea that current racism present in US society means black people are viewed as being "of lower social status", which I reckon is racist. So I am more inclined to agree with your stance that racism is still relevant in US society, however I am not convinced that whatever social discrimination exists against black people should be tackled with "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination". I'll address that later.

I can't remember what I was going to say about some of the education statistics you pulled up, but here's a quote from one of them:

Quoted

The fact remains, however, that the Africans' income levels, high though they may seem, do not correspond to their academic achievements. As the most highly educated community in the nation, they should occupy many more top-level professional and managerial positions. There are several reasons for this situation. Degrees earned overseas are sometimes not readily transferable, so the immigrants must enroll in school once more, while holding low-wage jobs to pay for their schooling. "It is at times degrading when you come here and find that all the education you have from home does not mean anything here. It is a shock. We had to start over from nothing," sums up a Sudanese social worker in Philadelphia.

Others, though possessing outstanding qualifications, cannot find adequate employment because of their status as undocumented aliens. Finally, Africans must confront the same problems as other people of color - racism and job discrimination that result in lower incomes, employment in positions for which they are overqualified, and the lack of adequate promotion.


The above quote near the end of an article you linked to appears (IMO) to provide a well-rounded approach to the statistics which you presented in a manner to suit your own means, i.e. institutionalised racism keeps black immigrants out of jobs despite their education. In none of your posts have you shown any acknowledgement or even attempted to address an idea contrary to your own stance, that in fact there are other factors working within society which lead to discriminatory statistics that you attribute directly to racism.

Quoted

Yes, Obama got elected but something you foreigners need to understand about US society, Barak Obama is not Black. He's not White either, but he still represents an 'Other' here in the United States.

Doesn't matter. Racism is the discrimination of someone based on the colour of their skin, not just the discrimination against "black" people.

Quoted

This will be one of the few times that I openly come out against DD

This will be one of the few times that I openly come out alongside DD... lol :P But:

Quoted

This does demonstrate why affirmative action is a very counterproductive policy, however. When we start viewing things as statistics and figures, we do not break racism. We can tell what a true end to racism would look like: very similar to the end of gingerphobia or atheophobia in history - an abandonment of seeing these people as groups, and seeing it as irrelevant features in individuals. An end to racism certainly would not look like enforced social equality.

I'd argue affirmative action has ultimately worsened the situation, as now American whites may point to the state legislation giving, for example, college grants to blacks, and see this as anti-individualist and intrinsically racist, and they wouldn't be wrong. This is the worst part, giving the racists some tangible facts to support the idea that if whites aren't oppressing blacks, blacks will oppress whites. Thomas Sowell, one of the most renowned African-American libertarians, argues that racism is much better defeated by individual example and reduction of the state, than demanding tolerance be enforced beneath an iron-fist, for much the same reason.

Hence, even though I find it utterly hilarious when conservatives try to pass the puck away and claim "liberals are closet racists", I do think a ghost of a point is perhaps unintentionally made here, namely that when you insist on referring to people as groups and not individuals, you only serve to perpetuate the racism by further ingraining the idea that additional attributes are bound by the division. If you truly think that black people deserve equality in potential because they're socially disadvantaged, why not just say "We need more help for the poor"? Why say "We need to give institutional help based on skin colour"? This is completely the wrong way to go about it, and a further hundred years of damage will continue to be done thanks to the failure of affirmative action policies.

Whilst I am now more inclined to side with the stance that the police in the US collectively harbour some form of racist agenda, I agree with the above that the issue of affirmative action which focuses on race is an incredibly bad idea.

Quoted

As much as I don't want to, I would argue that the brand of racism in America can't be studied, you gotta live it.

Then what use are all those statistics you've pulled up? I'd argue that people side with what they are familiar with, and if you've seen people being racist you'll think it's everywhere, whilst if you have no experience of that you'll probably think it doesn't exist. That argument could in fact be applied as a cause of racial resentment you may have witnessed - if the only "minority" family in the town are jobless and gain a rep for dabbling in minor criminal behaviour, there'd be more chance that other "non-minority" residents would extrapolate their behaviour to be representative of their entire race (Stupid? Yes. Does it happen? Probably).

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

It existed BEFORE affirmative action, and it persists now. Basically, the point I got from you DD is that affirmative action should be done away with because it gives racist people a reason to be racist? They were already racist.........


Yes, they were. Now you've legitimized their view point. Congratulations.


This is why you don't get racism here, in their minds, racism will always be legitimate, if it weren't affirmative action, it'd be integration. I'm from the deep south, I hear the nasty things said under people's breaths and I know why they say it. And trust me, affirmative action isn't what has them all riled up, it's minorities in general.

Not legitimising it to the racists - legitimising it to people who are nominally "non-racist" but then see the state supporting racially discriminatory behaviour and feel discriminated themselves.


Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Look, if you're white, male, and heterosexual, you've got it the best out of anyone.


I'm glad to see you've only got me once on this so far, and you haven't even touched on the one area I actually am actively discriminated against for!


Affirmative action benefits women in America as well


Lol.

Is there any affirmative action for Atheists? I believe that was what was being referred to, as you'd covered gender already.

People are going to be discriminated against whatever is done. I believe that institutions should be checked to ensure they aren't actively discriminating against any particular "group" of people, but I don't think that groups of people should be given help based on ethnicity/country of origin/beliefs etc etc. Financial aid to the poor in an attempt to reduce economic inequality - yes. Telling a company they must take 30% of their new recruits from "black" families - no. Checking to ensure that a company with a 30/70 black/white applicant range doesn't consistently get a 100% white intake - yes, provided applicant suitability is considered.

I still think that a lot of racial feelings can be traced back to poverty, and that by tackling poverty and ignoring race barriers more people will have a more equal opportunity to obtain wealth. Currently, the fact that over 30% of the "Black" community are identified as poor may explain some of the "low-class citizen" perception placed on them by the rest of US society, rather than the idea that this is entirely and directly due to the fact that their skin is a different colour. If policies aimed at targeting poverty were introduced, they would proportionally help the black community more than the white community, without any need to actively draw any racial boundaries.

Apologies for the waffle.




Basic HoFs: 12
AHoF: 1
Moons given: 0
Moons received: 99999999999999999
I is wewl n00bish innit. But then, who needs m4d ski11z when you can DDC your way through the universe!

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Quiffmiester" (Jan 9th 2012, 8:54pm)


Treize Khushrenada

Unregistered

66

Monday, January 9th 2012, 9:59pm

Livened up again :)

First, a point of mis-interpretation to address:

Quoted

It's an extremely touchy subject here in America. I must assume you are talking about the word "Nigger" (and yes I will use the full word for purposes of the discussion moderators as it's important to distinguish.


No, the censored word was not "Nigger" (calling someone a "White Nigger" makes no sense...). And for the record I do not use the word "Nigger" nor do I condone its use by anyone else. The censored word in question was the c-word, i.e. a swearword for female genitalia. A non-racist swear word (arguably a sexist one - another discussion), which was subsequently judged to be a racial insult based on its use with a racial descriptive.


It was hard to tell, my point was still valid, just irrelevant to the point you were making.

Quoted

Quoted

I want to start off by drawing the distinction between racism in the UK and racism in the US. As Quiffmiester already pointed out, despite the fact the UK was highly involved in the slave trade, the use of slavery wasn't nearly as prominent in the UK as it was in the US. Because of the lack of slave culture in the UK, the treatment of blacks id wildly different in the UK. Most Brits associate "blacks" with Africans, immigrants who have come directly from Africa to live in Europe. In the US this isn't the case. Blacks in the US are Americans and frankly don't resemble their ancestors from Africa at all. Most Brits who are racist approach the issue through immigration, not about race specifically. In the US, it's completely about the color of the man's skin.


I don't think I ever made the claim that the "use of slavery wasn't nearly as prominent in the UK as it was in the US". It is interesting that you have chosen to draw the distinction (correctly so IMO) between racism in the UK and in the US, because I think there is also a parallel between freedom of speech in these two countries which is highlighted by the original case. Had the John Terry incident happened on (for example) a US soccer pitch, I doubt John Terry would be involved in a police investigation afterwards. So as far as the original debate question is concerned, I don't think US racism is relevant. However as my initial "question" was regarding the relevance of racism irrespective of nationality, I shall delve head-first into the mental asylum that is the US.


Well I'd still argue that racism is worse in America than it is in the UK just because the UK has taken more stringent steps to combat racism. And you did make the point about slavery in the UK when you made the distinction in the UK running the slave trade but not really using them (which by all counts slaves were used for agriculture and the UK doesn't have the farm land for there to be an adequate demand for slaves)

Quoted

Quoted

My point being Quiffmiester, is that racism is indeed alive and well in the US right now. I've given plenty of evidence to support this so now the burden is on you to provide factual proof to me and others that this is indeed not the case. I look forward to seeing what you dig up in your next post.


Up to that point in your post, I believe you provided a lot of evidence linking black people to drugs arrests, and black people to low economic status, yet you did not present any data linking disproportionate drug arrests directly to black people. That was the point I contested, because in amongst the mountain of statistics you flung around there was nothing in there to devalue the argument that economic status related directly to drug arrests. Your subsequent reply, however, has addressed this issue. Specifically, I am interested in the statistics for Georgia you linked to which showed the disparity of arrests compared with white arrests. Generally, the "disparity" is 5:1 black:white, based on the state population. I get the impression that you would then cite this as an example of institutionalised racism, which it is not for reasons debated previously. The institutionalised racism aspect can be seen by accounting for the economic variation - you state that in Georgia, 15% of whites are classified as living in "poverty", whilst 36% of the Black population lie in the same economic category (and 44% Hispanic). Taking this into account, one would expect the "disparity" rate to be approximately 2.5:1 black:white based on my hypothesis that the arrest rate is linked to poverty rather than race. As the disparity is double that (5:1), I accept that this is a potential indicator of institutionalised racism in the US, specifically directed at people who describe their ethnicity as "black". I wish to highlight however, that the disparity rate for Hispanics in fact falls nicely into the expected economic range of 3:1 (% of the hispanic community designated poor in Georgia is 44%, approx. three times that for the baseline, white case), so your statistics are hinting at quite a specific form of racism - not just against people with "foreign" names or different colour skin.


I did address that very point, you seem to have missed it though:

Quoted

The increased rate of black imprisonment is a direct and foreseeable consequence of harsher sentencing
policies, particularly for violent crimes, and of the national “war on drugs.” Although the black proportion of
arrestees for violent crimes has remained relatively stable over the past two decades, blacks nonetheless continue
to constitute a disproportionately large percentage of those arrested for violent crimes (43 percent in 1996); their
incarceration rate in part reflects the longer sentences imposed for those crimes. But drug control policies that
have led to the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of tens of thousands of African Americans represent the most
dramatic change in factors contributing to their disproportionate rate of incarceration. Although drug use and selling
cuts across all racial, socio-economic and geographic lines, law enforcement strategies have targeted street-level
drug dealers and users from low-income, predominantly minority, urban areas. As a result, the arrest rates per
100,000 for drug offenses are six times higher for blacks than for whites. Although the black proportion of all
drug users is generally in the range of 13 to 15 percent, blacks constitute 36 percent of arrests for drug
possession.
Under harsh drug sentencing policies, convictions for drug offenses have led to predictable
skyrocketing in the numbers of blacks in prison. In 1985 there were 16,600 blacks in state prisons for drug
offenses; by 1995 the number had reached 134,000. Between 1990 and 1996, 82 percent of the increase in the
number of black federal inmates was due to drug offenses.


I high lighted it for you. And you made my point for me about Georgia. Yes, Hispanics are more likely to be impoverished than Blacks, yet Blacks still account for the majority of the drug arrests. Why? If what you were arguing were true, then Hispanics would have the highest arrest rate, Blacks would be second, and then Whites, but Blacks are first, then Hispanics, then Whites. Explain that to me if there isn't something going on here like the fact Blacks are being disproportionately targeted.


Quoted

I use the word "potential", because as with any use of statistics there may be other variables not being considered which could account for the observed pattern. The one which sprang to mind for me was the idea that black people were more likely to deal drugs, hence the rationale for a more focused police presence in black areas. I came across this (youth stats, may not scale linearly up to adults):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871399/

Quoted

It is argued that Black youths' experience of low social status and reduced socioeconomic opportunities creates pressure that motivates participation in criminal activity (13, 15–17).


The above quote acknowledges the idea that current racism present in US society means black people are viewed as being "of lower social status", which I reckon is racist. So I am more inclined to agree with your stance that racism is still relevant in US society, however I am not convinced that whatever social discrimination exists against black people should be tackled with "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination". I'll address that later.


This quote is like the bridge to nowhere, it makes no valid point nor does it seem to have a purpose other than for you to simply state that there is a correlation between economic status and drug use, which I never said there wasn't, my point was that it doesn't explain the disproportionate number of blacks arrested for drug use compared to the nominal percentage of blacks that use drugs. And as I already pointed out previously, affirmative action is not positive discrimination, that is merely a term, like reverse racism, that was coined to give negative connotations to the affirmative action policy. Again, I challenge you to give me examples where someone more qualified was passed over for a position by a less qualified minority, until you do, you can't claim positive discrimination or any sort of discrimination. I mean, the key point here is that despite affirmative action in the US, minorities are STILL discriminated against in the work force (black unemployment 16.7% white unemployment 8.5% durrrrrrrr).

Quoted



I can't remember what I was going to say about some of the education statistics you pulled up, but here's a quote from one of them:

Quoted

The fact remains, however, that the Africans' income levels, high though they may seem, do not correspond to their academic achievements. As the most highly educated community in the nation, they should occupy many more top-level professional and managerial positions. There are several reasons for this situation. Degrees earned overseas are sometimes not readily transferable, so the immigrants must enroll in school once more, while holding low-wage jobs to pay for their schooling. "It is at times degrading when you come here and find that all the education you have from home does not mean anything here. It is a shock. We had to start over from nothing," sums up a Sudanese social worker in Philadelphia.

Others, though possessing outstanding qualifications, cannot find adequate employment because of their status as undocumented aliens. Finally, Africans must confront the same problems as other people of color - racism and job discrimination that result in lower incomes, employment in positions for which they are overqualified, and the lack of adequate promotion.


The above quote near the end of an article you linked to appears (IMO) to provide a well-rounded approach to the statistics which you presented in a manner to suit your own means, i.e. institutionalised racism keeps black immigrants out of jobs despite their education. In none of your posts have you shown any acknowledgement or even attempted to address an idea contrary to your own stance, that in fact there are other factors working within society which lead to discriminatory statistics that you attribute directly to racism.


Lol this is a debate, why should I do your job for you? I have taken my position and I'm defending it, it is not required of me to play devil's advocate. And of course I presented the statistics in a manner to suit my point, but when the statistics taken on face value say the very thing that I'm arguing, I fail to see the point you're getting at. That somehow because I'm right that I'm suddenly wrong? Sorry dude, but that's not how this works. And if you want to challenge the stats I put out there and claim that I'm biasing them, then prove it, don't merely state conjecture. Thanks.


Quoted


Quoted

Yes, Obama got elected but something you foreigners need to understand about US society, Barak Obama is not Black. He's not White either, but he still represents an 'Other' here in the United States.

Doesn't matter. Racism is the discrimination of someone based on the colour of their skin, not just the discrimination against "black" people.


This shows how little you know about US culture. Mulattos are treated better (IE less racism) than blacks for the simple fact that mulattos are part white. On the converse side, mulattos also receive racism from black communities because of the perceived notion that mulattos are treated better for having lighter color skin. Obama was not black. He was more white than anything.

Quoted


Quoted

This will be one of the few times that I openly come out against DD

This will be one of the few times that I openly come out alongside DD... lol :P But:

Quoted

This does demonstrate why affirmative action is a very counterproductive policy, however. When we start viewing things as statistics and figures, we do not break racism. We can tell what a true end to racism would look like: very similar to the end of gingerphobia or atheophobia in history - an abandonment of seeing these people as groups, and seeing it as irrelevant features in individuals. An end to racism certainly would not look like enforced social equality.

I'd argue affirmative action has ultimately worsened the situation, as now American whites may point to the state legislation giving, for example, college grants to blacks, and see this as anti-individualist and intrinsically racist, and they wouldn't be wrong. This is the worst part, giving the racists some tangible facts to support the idea that if whites aren't oppressing blacks, blacks will oppress whites. Thomas Sowell, one of the most renowned African-American libertarians, argues that racism is much better defeated by individual example and reduction of the state, than demanding tolerance be enforced beneath an iron-fist, for much the same reason.

Hence, even though I find it utterly hilarious when conservatives try to pass the puck away and claim "liberals are closet racists", I do think a ghost of a point is perhaps unintentionally made here, namely that when you insist on referring to people as groups and not individuals, you only serve to perpetuate the racism by further ingraining the idea that additional attributes are bound by the division. If you truly think that black people deserve equality in potential because they're socially disadvantaged, why not just say "We need more help for the poor"? Why say "We need to give institutional help based on skin colour"? This is completely the wrong way to go about it, and a further hundred years of damage will continue to be done thanks to the failure of affirmative action policies.

Whilst I am now more inclined to side with the stance that the police in the US collectively harbour some form of racist agenda, I agree with the above that the issue of affirmative action which focuses on race is an incredibly bad idea.


See, I don't even go that far with my thought, in my view, police suffer from the misconception that blacks are more likely to use and sell drugs, which is false, and there fore they set up their stings in poverty stricken minority areas, and yes, the fact they do that in the urban environment does yield them more minority arrests. Where the truly racist tinge comes in is during vehicular stops and searches, it's been well documented that black men are stopped more commonly and searched then white men, but again, I don't think it's an issue where a cop is conciously sitting in his car thinking of how he's gonna bust some "darkie" today, hence the fact the racism is institutionalized.

Quoted

Quoted

As much as I don't want to, I would argue that the brand of racism in America can't be studied, you gotta live it.

Then what use are all those statistics you've pulled up? I'd argue that people side with what they are familiar with, and if you've seen people being racist you'll think it's everywhere, whilst if you have no experience of that you'll probably think it doesn't exist. That argument could in fact be applied as a cause of racial resentment you may have witnessed - if the only "minority" family in the town are jobless and gain a rep for dabbling in minor criminal behaviour, there'd be more chance that other "non-minority" residents would extrapolate their behaviour to be representative of their entire race (Stupid? Yes. Does it happen? Probably).

I concede that was a poor argument on my part and I apologize, it was early. But I do still hold that as someone in the UK, you can't understand our brand of racism without coming here to study it.

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

It existed BEFORE affirmative action, and it persists now. Basically, the point I got from you DD is that affirmative action should be done away with because it gives racist people a reason to be racist? They were already racist.........


Yes, they were. Now you've legitimized their view point. Congratulations.


I'd rather give them something to whine about rather than to be purposefully fulfilling their agenda by keeping blacks down again because affirmative action was too "bothersome" for them.

Quoted

This is why you don't get racism here, in their minds, racism will always be legitimate, if it weren't affirmative action, it'd be integration. I'm from the deep south, I hear the nasty things said under people's breaths and I know why they say it. And trust me, affirmative action isn't what has them all riled up, it's minorities in general.

Not legitimising it to the racists - legitimising it to people who are nominally "non-racist" but then see the state supporting racially discriminatory behaviour and feel discriminated themselves.


A white man in American can't claim discrimination, perceived or otherwise.


Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Look, if you're white, male, and heterosexual, you've got it the best out of anyone.


I'm glad to see you've only got me once on this so far, and you haven't even touched on the one area I actually am actively discriminated against for!


Affirmative action benefits women in America as well


Lol.

Is there any affirmative action for Atheists? I believe that was what was being referred to, as you'd covered gender already.


Actually yeah, the same law that started affirmative action also set it up so you couldn't be fired for your religious beliefs.

Quoted

People are going to be discriminated against whatever is done. I believe that institutions should be checked to ensure they aren't actively discriminating against any particular "group" of people, but I don't think that groups of people should be given help based on ethnicity/country of origin/beliefs etc etc. Financial aid to the poor in an attempt to reduce economic inequality - yes. Telling a company they must take 30% of their new recruits from "black" families - no. Checking to ensure that a company with a 30/70 black/white applicant range doesn't consistently get a 100% white intake - yes, provided applicant suitability is considered.


Again, I can't really speak as to how the laws are in the UK, but in the US, affirmative action does not do the things you said that it does. Schools and Universities can't set hard quotas for enrollment, but they are compelled to set goals to make their admissions as diverse as possible. Businesses can set hard quotas for hiring, but it's not mandated by the laws on the books, effectively leaving out the points you said you disagreed with, so what's the problem?

Quoted

I still think that a lot of racial feelings can be traced back to poverty, and that by tackling poverty and ignoring race barriers more people will have a more equal opportunity to obtain wealth. Currently, the fact that over 30% of the "Black" community are identified as poor may explain some of the "low-class citizen" perception placed on them by the rest of US society. If policies aimed at targeting poverty were introduced, they would proportionally help the black community more than the white community, without any need to actively draw any racial boundaries.


Wealth and economic status certainly need to be addressed, but this is one of those chicken/egg conundrums, are blacks discriminated against because they're poor, or are they poor cus they're discrimniated against? I'd suggest the latter since they started out as slaves.

KeVLaR

Berzerk

Posts: 1,384

Date of registration: Jun 6th 2011

Location: Oscar Mike

Occupation: I'm just a poor boy and nobody loves me.

  • Send private message

67

Tuesday, January 10th 2012, 8:05am

im gonna be perfectly honest i barely read your responses because frankly i am a very slow reader and do not have 6 hours to spare.

i did read most of the first post and i will add that racism is still alive.

i grew up in a city, called Philadelphia Pennsylvania, where it was densely populated by colored people alike, black, red, yellow, green, anything... not being offensive.
i mean my best friends were asian black and puerto rican.

i recently moved to upstate Arkansas and let me tell you its bad. in terms of racism. i have read several achived newspaper articles about how someone (colored of course) moved in and shot himself in the back of the head twice.

i remember 1 specific article said that a cuban family moved in minded their own buisness and there hourse cought on fire, and they were found naked in the barn. they were charged with arson, public indecency and something else. it was later found out that the LAW was responsible for this. you see the cops in my county are the most crooked cops i have ever seen in my life. no black man ever steps foot here. not 1 single 1 lives here for a reason. in fact the last one i saw in my county was hanging off a bridge. that was terrifying.

so if you think racism is dead, you are wrong. when i lived in philly all was well in the world but now i know. racism is bad and its in the wrong places. the people who run our city are racist and thats wrong.

Sig by Plumagedlizard

~ Ogame.us - Ex Mod ~ Ogame.org - Ex Mod ~
~ Ogame.no - Ex Mod/GO ~ Kingsage.us - Ex Smod ~
FINALLY FREE

Quiffmiester

I'm one of the big boys now :D

  • "Quiffmiester" started this thread

Posts: 810

Date of registration: May 19th 2009

Occupation: Profesional student

  • Send private message

68

Tuesday, January 10th 2012, 3:03pm

Quoted

If you want to blame someone for slavery, blame the British for bringing it here in the first place.

I believe we have formally apologised for the slave trade (thus admitting responsibility - obv. not atoning for it lol), although interestingly slavery was only made illegal in the UK in 2010. The slave TRADE was abolished in the 19th century, but it was not illegal to own a 'slave' before 2010 because the term 'slave' never existed under British law. I first heard about this on QI (a UK tv show) but here's a linky-poo-poo to somewhere with more linky-poo-poos.


Quoted

Well I'd still argue that racism is worse in America than it is in the UK just because the UK has taken more stringent steps to combat racism. And you did make the point about slavery in the UK when you made the distinction in the UK running the slave trade but not really using them (which by all counts slaves were used for agriculture and the UK doesn't have the farm land for there to be an adequate demand for slaves)


I disagree that I made a distinction between running and using slaves. I merely pointed out that the British apologised for their part in the slave trade, but ironically didn't make it illegal to own a slave until 2010. No-where was that meant to say "the UK didn't really use slaves", so once again I did not make the point you claim I did. Please re-read my first post and quote the part where I said, unequivocally, that "British people didn't really use slaves, they just traded them".

Quoted

I did address that very point, you seem to have missed it though:
…..
I high lighted it for you. And you made my point for me about Georgia. Yes, Hispanics are more likely to be impoverished than Blacks, yet Blacks still account for the majority of the drug arrests. Why? If what you were arguing were true, then Hispanics would have the highest arrest rate, Blacks would be second, and then Whites, but Blacks are first, then Hispanics, then Whites. Explain that to me if there isn't something going on here like the fact Blacks are being disproportionately targeted.


I did indeed miss that point, or rather I think I read it but didn't initially comprehend what it was getting at. Regarding the link between economic status and drugs arrests, I think what I am arguing holds true for all races besides Blacks, and I the reason I made your point for you about Georgia was because I agree with what you had shown for there - there are a disproportionate number of drug convictions for Black minorities, by about 2:1 compared to everyone else when economic status is taken into account.

Quoted

Lol this is a debate, why should I do your job for you? I have taken my position and I'm defending it, it is not required of me to play devil's advocate. And of course I presented the statistics in a manner to suit my point, but when the statistics taken on face value say the very thing that I'm arguing, I fail to see the point you're getting at. That somehow because I'm right that I'm suddenly wrong? Sorry dude, but that's not how this works. And if you want to challenge the stats I put out there and claim that I'm biasing them, then prove it, don't merely state conjecture. Thanks.


R.E. presenting stats in a manner to suit your own end returns me to something I forgot to address before, whilst demonstrating why a balanced argument is ALWAYS stronger than just "picking sides to Duh, win":

Quoted

Quoted

Off on a tangent: misusing statistics is a crime that should be punishable by death. Here are two examples:
Quoted
Percent of Anglers by Race
White 92%
Other 2%
Black 5%
Asian 1%

Meaningless.

If 99% of the population being sampled are white, then there are disproportionately fewer white people than the others who are anglers. Whilst I accept that the sampled population (e.g. town, state, country etc) may be less than 92% white as a whole (even in Alabama…?) the statistics have been presented in a retarded way either unintentionally or (worse) deliberately with an agenda. Why is the second worse you say?



Firstly, I listed those numbers directly from a Government agencies own report. If you find it flawed, then fracking email the US government, but to be honest, I doubt you're smarter than they are (at least I hope that's the case). As far as your point, the non-Hispanic white population in 2008 was 66%. A far cry from the paltry 92% you accused the study of taking advantage of. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTT…rmat=&-_lang=en
And it's so easy to criticize the data of someone else when you're not providing your own to be criticized...........


First, I have not and will not start to criticise the statistics or sources you find, nor was what I initially said in the quote aimed at doing that. I was making the point that misuse of statistics is bad, and can potentially damage your point. Your counter-claim has highlighted why it is important to be unbiased with statistics in order to have a much stronger debating position if nothing else. You have used population statistics for the whole of the US to claim that Alabama was only 2/3rds white. The relevant statistics you were looking for are this:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01000.html

Had you presented this statistic alongside your initial quote, I would not have been able to cast ANY doubt on your stance at all. Personally I am surprised that Alabama is only 68% white (I thought it would be much higher), and whilst is it perfectly reasonable to assume that the % of anglers by race stat didn't mirror the population stats, the key word is ASSUME. You made that assumption and were picked up on it, when you could have presented the statistics correctly straight out and saved yourself a bit of hassle.

The point I am getting at is it is much better to be critical of your own stance than just present the things which agree with whatever it is you happen to believe at that moment, irrespective of the extent to which you may or may not be correct.

To show you still hadn't got what I was getting at, let's address the "but when the statistics taken on face value say the very thing that I'm arguing, I fail to see the point you're getting at" part. This (I think) is the crux of my beef. You have generally taken stats at face value and, as a result, have applied them to make claims which overreach what you are suggesting. For example, you had initially claimed that police were "targeting minority areas", yet your statistics actually show that the police are "targeting black areas". The brown/yellow/pink/green areas are not being unduly targeted when economic considerations are made - something you could have addressed but didn't because you saw some stats which supported your claim and left it at that.

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted


Yes, Obama got elected but something you foreigners need to understand about US society, Barak Obama is not Black. He's not White either, but he still represents an 'Other' here in the United States.


Doesn't matter. Racism is the discrimination of someone based on the colour of their skin, not just the discrimination against "black" people.



This shows how little you know about US culture. Mulattos are treated better (IE less racism) than blacks for the simple fact that mulattos are part white. On the converse side, mulattos also receive racism from black communities because of the perceived notion that mulattos are treated better for having lighter color skin. Obama was not black. He was more white than anything.

And? If he isn't black, it doesn't mean racist people will vote for him unless they are just harbour racist feelings towards black people but all other creeds are acceptable to them. Whilst the example of Obama doesn't address a potentially large feeling of animosity towards 'Black' people as you have distinguished them to be, it is another counter-claim to the concept of helping all minority groups based on the colour of their skin.

Quoted

A white man in American can't claim discrimination, perceived or otherwise.

What a ridiculous statement. Anyone can claim discrimination for any number of reasons which may or may not be linked to race. In fact:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html

Quoted

Allan Bakke, a white male, had been rejected two years in a row by a medical school that had accepted less qualified minority applicants-the school had a separate admissions policy for minorities and reserved 16 out of 100 places for minority students.


So a white man DID claim discrimination successfully, albeit in the 1970s, which led to the amendment of the affirmative action laws. Which brings me onto:

Quoted

Again, I can't really speak as to how the laws are in the UK, but in the US, affirmative action does not do the things you said that it does. Schools and Universities can't set hard quotas for enrollment, but they are compelled to set goals to make their admissions as diverse as possible. Businesses can set hard quotas for hiring, but it's not mandated by the laws on the books, effectively leaving out the points you said you disagreed with, so what's the problem?


Sorry, I failed to expand on my overly-simplistic example.

The concept of an institution having race-related goals is what I am against. Race should not be a factor in deciding who gets which places or jobs, BUT to ensure it isn't a factor statistics of applicants should be recorded and checked. You have said businesses can set hard quotas but they aren't mandated to - so what happens if they fail to meet those quotas? Can they set their quotas at 100% white intake? If not, why not? Furthermore, whilst you have provided a lot of statistics showing how the police discriminate against black people (not hispanic, chinese or "other" though), there is no reason to believe that black people are being discriminated against when it comes to employment or education. You have provided statistics which show that black unemployment is twice that for whites, but conveniently this tallies with my belief that economic background is more of a barrier for entry than race when you consider the stat you presented which puts black poverty rate at double that for white people (33%black c/w 16%white).

My point is that quotas for race applied by any institution give out a negative impression which does not aid racial divides in society, because it merely leads to the spread of race-based resentment. The previous source I quoted referenced a court-case in 2003, taken out against the university of Michigan. The university was ruled in favour by the court (with some adjustments), however I believe the very fact that there WAS a court case (2 in fact) shows there is a strong feeling of resentment out there. Whether that is justified or not is immaterial - it exists. Affirmative action does not help racial divides in society. As further evidence, look back over this thread. You don't believe any white person has a right to complain about discrimination, but that doesn't solve the issue of people feeling as though they are being discriminated against.

Bringing things a little closer to the UK with this:

Quoted

See, I don't even go that far with my thought, in my view, police suffer from the misconception that blacks are more likely to use and sell drugs, which is false, and there fore they set up their stings in poverty stricken minority areas, and yes, the fact they do that in the urban environment does yield them more minority arrests. Where the truly racist tinge comes in is during vehicular stops and searches, it's been well documented that black men are stopped more commonly and searched then white men, but again, I don't think it's an issue where a cop is conciously sitting in his car thinking of how he's gonna bust some "darkie" today, hence the fact the racism is institutionalized.


The UK has "stop and search" laws too. Here is a table:


Note the statistics include population data too to form a comparative basis. So the police appear to harbour the same racial feelings here as they do in the US, according to these statistics. Yet I don't believe the police are institutionally racist in the UK… maybe that's not massively rational of me.

Miscellaneous points:

Quoted

Actually yeah, the same law that started affirmative action also set it up so you couldn't be fired for your religious beliefs.

But do companies set quotas for the number of Atheists they aim to hire? That law in the UK is covered under "unfair dismissal" and is distinct from the concept of what we call "positive discrimination" but what people in the US appear to call "affirmative action".

Quoted

Quoted

The above quote acknowledges the idea that current racism present in US society means black people are viewed as being "of lower social status", which I reckon is racist. So I am more inclined to agree with your stance that racism is still relevant in US society, however I am not convinced that whatever social discrimination exists against black people should be tackled with "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination". I'll address that later.



This quote is like the bridge to nowhere, it makes no valid point nor does it seem to have a purpose other than for you to simply state that there is a correlation between economic status and drug use, which I never said there wasn't, my point was that it doesn't explain the disproportionate number of blacks arrested for drug use compared to the nominal percentage of blacks that use drugs.


You apparently didn't read what I said about the quote. I highlighted the part that DIDN'T link economic status to drug use, i.e. the low social status part. This somewhat supports your stance that black people are discriminated against in US society, or at least that there is a perception of that. It wasn't meant to be a bridge to anywhere, merely a bridge from my counter-hypothesis that proportionally more black people DEAL drugs (which they may do - about 50% more black youths do (proportionally) according to the link I provided).

Also (I've made this point before):

Quoted

I mean, the key point here is that despite affirmative action in the US, minorities are STILL discriminated against in the work force (black unemployment 16.7% white unemployment 8.5% durrrrrrrr).

That tallies PERFECTLY with some previous statistics on percentages of poor people by race. The black unemployment rate is double the white unemployment rate because there are twice the proportion of black people classified as poor, working jobs which in a recession will be the first to go. That is not a rationale for affirmative action based on race - it is a rationale for helping the poor irrespective of skin colour!




Basic HoFs: 12
AHoF: 1
Moons given: 0
Moons received: 99999999999999999
I is wewl n00bish innit. But then, who needs m4d ski11z when you can DDC your way through the universe!

Treize Khushrenada

Unregistered

69

Tuesday, January 10th 2012, 7:03pm

Quoted

If you want to blame someone for slavery, blame the British for bringing it here in the first place.

I believe we have formally apologised for the slave trade (thus admitting responsibility - obv. not atoning for it lol), although interestingly slavery was only made illegal in the UK in 2010. The slave TRADE was abolished in the 19th century, but it was not illegal to own a 'slave' before 2010 because the term 'slave' never existed under British law. I first heard about this on QI (a UK tv show) but here's a linky-poo-poo to somewhere with more linky-poo-poos.


Quoted

Well I'd still argue that racism is worse in America than it is in the UK just because the UK has taken more stringent steps to combat racism. And you did make the point about slavery in the UK when you made the distinction in the UK running the slave trade but not really using them (which by all counts slaves were used for agriculture and the UK doesn't have the farm land for there to be an adequate demand for slaves)


I disagree that I made a distinction between running and using slaves. I merely pointed out that the British apologised for their part in the slave trade, but ironically didn't make it illegal to own a slave until 2010. No-where was that meant to say "the UK didn't really use slaves", so once again I did not make the point you claim I did. Please re-read my first post and quote the part where I said, unequivocally, that "British people didn't really use slaves, they just traded them".

Semantics as well as irrelevant.

Quoted

Quoted

I did address that very point, you seem to have missed it though:
…..
I high lighted it for you. And you made my point for me about Georgia. Yes, Hispanics are more likely to be impoverished than Blacks, yet Blacks still account for the majority of the drug arrests. Why? If what you were arguing were true, then Hispanics would have the highest arrest rate, Blacks would be second, and then Whites, but Blacks are first, then Hispanics, then Whites. Explain that to me if there isn't something going on here like the fact Blacks are being disproportionately targeted.


I did indeed miss that point, or rather I think I read it but didn't initially comprehend what it was getting at. Regarding the link between economic status and drugs arrests, I think what I am arguing holds true for all races besides Blacks, and I the reason I made your point for you about Georgia was because I agree with what you had shown for there - there are a disproportionate number of drug convictions for Black minorities, by about 2:1 compared to everyone else when economic status is taken into account.

No, that’s exactly the point, for white’s mainly, drug arrests correlate well to socio-economic status, it starts to skew when you involve Hispanics and other ethnicities, but Blacks are consistently the outlier, which furthers my point, their arrest rate is higher due to institutionalized racism, and you seem to focus on Georgia, this is true in every state.

Quoted

Quoted

Lol this is a debate, why should I do your job for you? I have taken my position and I'm defending it, it is not required of me to play devil's advocate. And of course I presented the statistics in a manner to suit my point, but when the statistics taken on face value say the very thing that I'm arguing, I fail to see the point you're getting at. That somehow because I'm right that I'm suddenly wrong? Sorry dude, but that's not how this works. And if you want to challenge the stats I put out there and claim that I'm biasing them, then prove it, don't merely state conjecture. Thanks.


R.E. presenting stats in a manner to suit your own end returns me to something I forgot to address before, whilst demonstrating why a balanced argument is ALWAYS stronger than just "picking sides to Duh, win":


I’m not arguing my point because I want to win, I’m arguing it because I find your position morally bankrupt.

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Off on a tangent: misusing statistics is a crime that should be punishable by death. Here are two examples:
Quoted
Percent of Anglers by Race
White 92%
Other 2%
Black 5%
Asian 1%

Meaningless.

If 99% of the population being sampled are white, then there are disproportionately fewer white people than the others who are anglers. Whilst I accept that the sampled population (e.g. town, state, country etc) may be less than 92% white as a whole (even in Alabama…?) the statistics have been presented in a retarded way either unintentionally or (worse) deliberately with an agenda. Why is the second worse you say?



Firstly, I listed those numbers directly from a Government agencies own report. If you find it flawed, then fracking email the US government, but to be honest, I doubt you're smarter than they are (at least I hope that's the case). As far as your point, the non-Hispanic white population in 2008 was 66%. A far cry from the paltry 92% you accused the study of taking advantage of. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTT…rmat=&-_lang=en
And it's so easy to criticize the data of someone else when you're not providing your own to be criticized...........


First, I have not and will not start to criticise the statistics or sources you find, nor was what I initially said in the quote aimed at doing that. I was making the point that misuse of statistics is bad, and can potentially damage your point. Your counter-claim has highlighted why it is important to be unbiased with statistics in order to have a much stronger debating position if nothing else. You have used population statistics for the whole of the US to claim that Alabama was only 2/3rds white. The relevant statistics you were looking for are this:

Look, there’s a problem if I have to go back and hold your hand to lead you through the previous posts. I’d suggest you give the whole thread a read through once more and then get back to me.

Quoted

You obviously don't live in the country. Out in the sticks, everyone fishes or hunts, i.e. not just white people. Try living in the country for a while before you assume that all rednecks are white.

I was never trying to argue that Alabama was 2/3rds white, I had made the point that some of the new voter ID laws were racist because they allowed things like hunting and fishing licenses to be used as acceptable forms of Government ID for voting, but wouldn’t let people use things like Social Security cards or documentation that proved residence at an address. The point I was making was that white people were more likely to hunt or fish than minorities, hence the racist tinge in those laws. The previous poster challenged that with the above quote, and I provided my statistics as merely an aside to prove that yes, indeed, mostly only white people hunt and fish. If you’re going to oppose me so vigorously, at least know what you’re opposing me on.

Quoted

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01000.html

Had you presented this statistic alongside your initial quote, I would not have been able to cast ANY doubt on your stance at all. Personally I am surprised that Alabama is only 68% white (I thought it would be much higher), and whilst is it perfectly reasonable to assume that the % of anglers by race stat didn't mirror the population stats, the key word is ASSUME. You made that assumption and were picked up on it, when you could have presented the statistics correctly straight out and saved yourself a bit of hassle.

Again, irrelevant, you didn’t understand the point I was making or why.

Quoted

The point I am getting at is it is much better to be critical of your own stance than just present the things which agree with whatever it is you happen to believe at that moment, irrespective of the extent to which you may or may not be correct.

I argue because I think I’m right, I’m not doing it for fun. As I said before, I find the position against affirmative action to be morally bankrupt and if you were a minority in America, I don’t think you’d be arguing against affirmative action, but I’ll get to that a little later.

Quoted

To show you still hadn't got what I was getting at, let's address the "but when the statistics taken on face value say the very thing that I'm arguing, I fail to see the point you're getting at" part. This (I think) is the crux of my beef. You have generally taken stats at face value and, as a result, have applied them to make claims which overreach what you are suggesting. For example, you had initially claimed that police were "targeting minority areas", yet your statistics actually show that the police are "targeting black areas". The brown/yellow/pink/green areas are not being unduly targeted when economic considerations are made - something you could have addressed but didn't because you saw some stats which supported your claim and left it at that.

So it’s wrong because the stats agree with my point. Do you think I just thought these things up before this thread ever came about? Do you really think I haven’t seen said statistics before or seen similar statistics over the years? Personally, I find what you’re insinuating to be offensive, but that’s just me. As to your point though, I don’t see how you can’t get this: Police target urban minority areas, they primarily arrest blacks despite the fact there are other races in the same areas, institutionalized racism……..the point I was making from the very start. *sigh*

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted


Yes, Obama got elected but something you foreigners need to understand about US society, Barak Obama is not Black. He's not White either, but he still represents an 'Other' here in the United States.


Doesn't matter. Racism is the discrimination of someone based on the colour of their skin, not just the discrimination against "black" people.



This shows how little you know about US culture. Mulattos are treated better (IE less racism) than blacks for the simple fact that mulattos are part white. On the converse side, mulattos also receive racism from black communities because of the perceived notion that mulattos are treated better for having lighter color skin. Obama was not black. He was more white than anything.

And? If he isn't black, it doesn't mean racist people will vote for him unless they are just harbour racist feelings towards black people but all other creeds are acceptable to them. Whilst the example of Obama doesn't address a potentially large feeling of animosity towards 'Black' people as you have distinguished them to be, it is another counter-claim to the concept of helping all minority groups based on the colour of their skin.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html
Obama didn’t get the white vote. 55% of the white vote (total) went for McCain. The only area where Obama was comparable to McCain was with younger white voters. 96% of the black votes were cast for Obama. I fail to see how a Black president getting significantly less than half of the white vote is suppose to demonstrate an end to racism……..especially that since his election, state houses across the country have been working to cripple the minority vote.

Quoted

Quoted

A white man in American can't claim discrimination, perceived or otherwise.

What a ridiculous statement. Anyone can claim discrimination for any number of reasons which may or may not be linked to race. In fact:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html

Quoted

Allan Bakke, a white male, had been rejected two years in a row by a medical school that had accepted less qualified minority applicants-the school had a separate admissions policy for minorities and reserved 16 out of 100 places for minority students.


So a white man DID claim discrimination successfully, albeit in the 1970s, which led to the amendment of the affirmative action laws. Which brings me onto:

I’m glad you did point that out, yes, it was in the 1970’s and it was one of the cases that I had previously cited from the supreme court myself. He lost, although the way affirmative action was carried out by schools had to be changed. And just from looking at your source, I could pick and choose any number of quotes to post that argue my point. What were you just chastising me over?

Quoted

As historian Roger Wilkins pointed out, "blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else."
Considering that Jim Crow laws and lynching existed well into the '60s, and that myriad subtler forms of racism in housing, employment, and education persisted well beyond the civil rights movement, conservatives impatient for blacks to "get over" the legacy of slavery needed to realize that slavery was just the beginning of racism in America.


Quoted

Quoted

Again, I can't really speak as to how the laws are in the UK, but in the US, affirmative action does not do the things you said that it does. Schools and Universities can't set hard quotas for enrollment, but they are compelled to set goals to make their admissions as diverse as possible. Businesses can set hard quotas for hiring, but it's not mandated by the laws on the books, effectively leaving out the points you said you disagreed with, so what's the problem?


Sorry, I failed to expand on my overly-simplistic example.

The concept of an institution having race-related goals is what I am against. Race should not be a factor in deciding who gets which places or jobs, BUT to ensure it isn't a factor statistics of applicants should be recorded and checked.

I agree, but the fact of the matter is, that in America, race is already a factor in who gets employed. You can still discriminate and get away with it because most businesses do hire a few token minorities so if they ever get investigated for bias, they have evidence to the contrary. Look, in America, white men still rule when it comes to jobs, wealth, employment, and education. I find this idea that somehow affirmative action is keeping the white man down to be ridiculous.

Quoted

You have said businesses can set hard quotas but they aren't mandated to - so what happens if they fail to meet those quotas? Can they set their quotas at 100% white intake? If not, why not? Furthermore, whilst you have provided a lot of statistics showing how the police discriminate against black people (not hispanic, chinese or "other" though), there is no reason to believe that black people are being discriminated against when it comes to employment or education.

Just like there is no reason to believe that white men are being discriminated against when it comes to employment or education? The ultimate reason why I will prevail on this issue is the fact that states have begun to ban affirmative action policies in college enrollment. (This includes DD too). This allows me to very adequately demonstrate the effect of ending affirmative action and how it tilts the system against minorities almost immediately because you can’t achieve equality in an unequal society.

Quoted

This paper finds that, for the typical student and the typical college, affirmative action bans have no effect. However, affirmative action bans decrease underrepresented minority enrollment at selective colleges. For example, the results suggest that banning affirmative action at a public university in the top 50 of the U.S. News rankings is associated with a decrease in black enrollment of roughly 1.74 percentage points, a decrease in Hispanic enrollment of roughly 2.03 percentage points, and a decrease in Native American enrollment of roughly .47 percentage points. Since the bases are already small, these effects are very large in relative terms. Moreover, the results using the synthetic control method of Abadie and Gardeazabal (2003) and Abadie, Diamonand Hainmueller (2010) confirm that affirmative action bans have an especially larger effect at particular selective institutions. Thus, the results in this paper are consistent with Arcidiacono (2005), in which affirmative action bans affect the distribution of colleges attended but have only a small effect on overall college attendance rates. However, it is worth bearing in mind that the states with affirmative action bans in the time period studied in this paper are home to both a large minority population and selective public institutions. Thus, the effect of an affirmative action ban in the typical state may not be quite as large as the effects found in this paper. But taking the results at face value, the practical importance of the findings hinges on three important issues: (1) whether college quality matters for later labor market outcomes, (2) whether underrepresented minorities are “mismatched” at selective colleges and (3) whether college diversity matters for later outcomes. Existing evidence on each of these issues is mixed. But to the extent that college quality matters for later outcomes, the fact that there is a decline in underrepresented minority enrollment at selective institutions when affirmative action is banned would be detrimental to underrepresented minorities. On the other hand, to the extent that there is mismatch, the results in this paper may be welfare-enhancing for all. To the extent that college diversity is important for later life outcomes, the shift in minority enrollment from more-selective to less-selective colleges may be detrimental to students at more-selective colleges but beneficial for students at less selective colleges.


http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/plh24…_aff_action.pdf
Please, read the whole paper, it’s very well done and informative on this very topic.

Quoted

You have provided statistics which show that black unemployment is twice that for whites, but conveniently this tallies with my belief that economic background is more of a barrier for entry than race when you consider the stat you presented which puts black poverty rate at double that for white people (33%black c/w 16%white).

So you’re arguing they are unemployed because they’re in poverty? Couldn’t you argue that they’re in poverty because they’re unemployed?
But no, despite what you *Think* discrimination does happen in the work place, even with affirmative action.

Quoted

The University of Chicago
The Journal of Law & Economics
ARTICLE: PERCEIVED CRIMINALITY, CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, AND THE RACIAL HIRING PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS *
October, 2006
49 J. Law & Econ. 451
Author
HARRY J. HOLZER, Georgetown Public Policy Institute and STEVEN RAPHAEL, University of California, Berkeley and MICHAEL A. STOLL, University of California, Los Angeles

Quoted

Annu Rev Sociol. 2008 January 1; 34: 181–209.
PMCID: PMC2915460
NIHMSID: NIHMS222293
The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets
Devah Pager and Hana Shepherd


Quoted

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science January 2009 vol. 621 no. 1 243-259
Race in the American Mind: From the Moynihan Report to the Obama Candidacy

Lawrence D. Bobo
Social Sciences at Harvard University

Camille Z. Charles
Center for Africana Studies at the University of Pennsylvania

Take from the last paper:

Quoted

Whites and minority groups have decidedly
different views about the persistence of racial
discrimination as well as the causes of racial
inequality in American society


Look, I know it’s a lot of reading, but please, read these three papers. They’re informative and well written and they express better the things I want to say. I know you’re just going to whine that I’ve found materials that simply agree with me, but look at the sources. There comes a point when you can’t simply disagree with me on the basis that fact agrees with me too. Again, if you want me to take you seriously, then perhaps you can cite studies of your own that supports the things you’re saying, because so far you’ve not done that, you’ve merely reacted to my posts instead of taking the lead.

Quoted

My point is that quotas for race applied by any institution give out a negative impression which does not aid racial divides in society, because it merely leads to the spread of race-based resentment. The previous source I quoted referenced a court-case in 2003, taken out against the university of Michigan. The university was ruled in favour by the court (with some adjustments), however I believe the very fact that there WAS a court case (2 in fact) shows there is a strong feeling of resentment out there. Whether that is justified or not is immaterial - it exists. Affirmative action does not help racial divides in society. As further evidence, look back over this thread. You don't believe any white person has a right to complain about discrimination, but that doesn't solve the issue of people feeling as though they are being discriminated against.

I’m not interested in perceived racism, which is all there is towards whites, I’m interested in actual, happening every day to real people racism which is quite well chronicled and catalogued in the studies I provided. Point being, your argument is immaterial.

Quoted

Bringing things a little closer to the UK with this:

Quoted

See, I don't even go that far with my thought, in my view, police suffer from the misconception that blacks are more likely to use and sell drugs, which is false, and there fore they set up their stings in poverty stricken minority areas, and yes, the fact they do that in the urban environment does yield them more minority arrests. Where the truly racist tinge comes in is during vehicular stops and searches, it's been well documented that black men are stopped more commonly and searched then white men, but again, I don't think it's an issue where a cop is conciously sitting in his car thinking of how he's gonna bust some "darkie" today, hence the fact the racism is institutionalized.


The UK has "stop and search" laws too. Here is a table:


Note the statistics include population data too to form a comparative basis. So the police appear to harbour the same racial feelings here as they do in the US, according to these statistics. Yet I don't believe the police are institutionally racist in the UK… maybe that's not massively rational of me.

Then what would you call it? You keep denying the points I make yet you make no attempt at justifying the data. Look, tables like the one you’ve shown aren’t one time deals, they follow a trend over time and that trend works against blacks. You haven’t explained it, DD hasn’t explained it, no one has explained it except for me, and the best you can do is “I don’t think it’s institutionalized racism”? Come on……….and before you repeat your point, I’ve already shown it’s not correlating with poverty.

Quoted

Miscellaneous points:

Quoted

Actually yeah, the same law that started affirmative action also set it up so you couldn't be fired for your religious beliefs.

But do companies set quotas for the number of Atheists they aim to hire? That law in the UK is covered under "unfair dismissal" and is distinct from the concept of what we call "positive discrimination" but what people in the US appear to call "affirmative action".

It’s not needed because asking about religious background is illegal in the hiring process. Obviously, depending on how the person dresses or what their name is gives clues about background, but there is no box to select “atheist” on a job application. However, if you were fired after it came to light you were indeed an atheist, then there are laws against that. Affirmative action deals mainly with the hiring process, not what happens afterwards, so, irrelevant.

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

The above quote acknowledges the idea that current racism present in US society means black people are viewed as being "of lower social status", which I reckon is racist. So I am more inclined to agree with your stance that racism is still relevant in US society, however I am not convinced that whatever social discrimination exists against black people should be tackled with "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination". I'll address that later.



This quote is like the bridge to nowhere, it makes no valid point nor does it seem to have a purpose other than for you to simply state that there is a correlation between economic status and drug use, which I never said there wasn't, my point was that it doesn't explain the disproportionate number of blacks arrested for drug use compared to the nominal percentage of blacks that use drugs.


You apparently didn't read what I said about the quote. I highlighted the part that DIDN'T link economic status to drug use, i.e. the low social status part. This somewhat supports your stance that black people are discriminated against in US society, or at least that there is a perception of that. It wasn't meant to be a bridge to anywhere, merely a bridge from my counter-hypothesis that proportionally more black people DEAL drugs (which they may do - about 50% more black youths do (proportionally) according to the link I provided).

No, the link you provided demonstrated that BOTH white and black youth were more likely to use and deal drugs if they were readily available to them in their daily lives. That’s a far cry from making the presupposition that blacks were 50% more likely to peddle drugs than their white peers. And I get that you were shoring up my argument, but the reason I said your point was useless was the fact you said “Yeah I agree with you but affirmative action is still bad blah blah blah” Hence why I said, what’s the point of that statement. Restating your position isn’t a defense of your position.

Quoted

Also (I've made this point before):

Quoted

I mean, the key point here is that despite affirmative action in the US, minorities are STILL discriminated against in the work force (black unemployment 16.7% white unemployment 8.5% durrrrrrrr).

That tallies PERFECTLY with some previous statistics on percentages of poor people by race. The black unemployment rate is double the white unemployment rate because there are twice the proportion of black people classified as poor, working jobs which in a recession will be the first to go. That is not a rationale for affirmative action based on race - it is a rationale for helping the poor irrespective of skin colour!

So you’re arguing that because blacks are poor, they are working jobs that will be the first to be lost in a recession? Well, people smarter than either of us disagree with you:

Quoted

Overall trends in poverty, however, do not fully capture the cumulative and multidimensional nature of black economic disadvantage.

Quoted

Daedalus Spring 2011, Vol. 140, No. 2, Pages 11-36
Posted Online July 14, 2011.
(doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00091)
© 2011 by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Somewhere between Jim Crow & Post-Racialism: Reflections on the Racial Divide in America Today
Lawrence D. Bobo


Another good read. But point being, I spent at least two hours on this reply, if you insist on questioning my sources, stats or use of stats, then perhaps you can spend some time and quantatively shore up your own position instead of merely just telling me I’m wrong based on the virtue that I’m wrong. Like I said, it’s easy to criticize my position when you’re not actively trying to shore up your own.

Quiffmiester

I'm one of the big boys now :D

  • "Quiffmiester" started this thread

Posts: 810

Date of registration: May 19th 2009

Occupation: Profesional student

  • Send private message

70

Tuesday, January 10th 2012, 11:59pm

ok, I'll be gone for a while as I've got a lot of reading to do BUT there are a couple of points I'd like to clarify before I do disappear because there is still a misunderstanding.

I have ended up taking the stance that the "institutionalised racism" which you are claiming exists is primarily NOT racism but a result of poverty. To support this point, I used the statistics which you provided for Georgia. Your latest reply has shown that you still did not understand the point I felt I had made clearly:

Quoted

No, that’s exactly the point, for white’s mainly, drug arrests correlate well to socio-economic status, it starts to skew when you involve Hispanics and other ethnicities, but Blacks are consistently the outlier, which furthers my point, their arrest rate is higher due to institutionalized racism, and you seem to focus on Georgia, this is true in every state.


It does not skew for Hispanics or other ethnicities, by your very own stats, which again links in to why people should not blindly chuck statistics out to make their point. Normalised by POPULATION, there are three times the number of drug arrests for hispanics that whites - this appears to be skewed, however it correlates EXACTLY with the socio-economic data you provided where proportionally 3 times as many hispanics were declared to be impoverished than whites. So, you say that hispanics are charged for drug offences because the police are institutionally racist, and I say there are proportionally more arrests because there is proportionally more poverty in the hispanic population than the white population. The only race where this didn't correlate was with black people, where the initial 5:1 convictions (proportionally) falls to 2:1 when considering relative black:white poverty. So, as I mentioned before, this furthers your point about institutionalised police racism against BLACK people but NOT THE OTHER RACES.

Quoted

Look, there’s a problem if I have to go back and hold your hand to lead you through the previous posts. I’d suggest you give the whole thread a read through once more and then get back to me.


I know exactly why you mentioned it, and I hope this time I will be able to explain to you why your statistics were meaningless to the point you were trying to make without the baseline race data for that area.

Quoted

The previous poster challenged that with the above quote, and I provided my statistics as merely an aside to prove that yes, indeed, mostly only white people hunt and fish.

Your statistics, as you presented them, did not prove that A GREATER PROPORTION of white people hunted or fished, relative to the overall population. Which was what you needed to say to claim that making hunting or fishing licenses legal forms of ID was discriminating against certain races. With me? Just showing that, of the people who fish, most are white, doesn't get you anywhere. Here is a silly hypothetical example to demonstrate my point: Races A and B live in the same state. Of people in that state who fish, 50% are of A and 50% are of B. If the state gives money to people who fish, does this benefit races A and B equally or not? Answer - you can't tell, because you need to know the race split in the whole population of that state, not just of those who fish. If you want to contest this point, we can do so in PMs.

You then presented population statistics for the whole of the US, which is an incorrect thing to do because we were only considering alabama. That was why I pulled you up on it the second time. So:

[quote[Again, irrelevant, you didn’t understand the point I was making or why.[/quote]
You didn't understand the point I was making, which is that you have to understand the statistics that you present, not just present something which you think supports your point when in fact it doesn't provide any meaningful information at all. Again, I will refer back to my joke assertion that the higher crime stats for minorities show that minorities commit more crimes as an example for why statistics should never be mis-represented.

Another interesting little game to play with percentages is this little mind-puzzle - if I have a 100kg of watermelons, which are 1% flesh and 99% water, and I leave them out in the sun such as half of their water 'evaporates' in the heat, what percentages of melon flesh/water do I subsequently have? Answer -> approx 2% flesh, 98% water. It's not relevant at all, just something to make people go "eh…?".

Quoted

Police target urban minority areas, they primarily arrest blacks despite the fact there are other races in the same areas, institutionalized racism……..the point I was making from the very start.

No, you were initially claiming that the police targeted minorities, and until I pointed out that your statistics only showed they target BLACK minority areas you did not make that distinction. I agree, your original point about institutionalised racism remains sound and I now agree with it, but I disagree that your rationale has remained constant. It is much more specific than you initially presented it to be, IMO.

Quoted

Personally, I find what you’re insinuating to be offensive, but that’s just me.

I suspect it's you mis-understanding what I have said, which appears to be a consistent theme.

Quoted

Obama didn’t get the white vote. 55% of the white vote (total) went for McCain. The only area where Obama was comparable to McCain was with younger white voters. 96% of the black votes were cast for Obama. I fail to see how a Black president getting significantly less than half of the white vote is suppose to demonstrate an end to racism……..especially that since his election, state houses across the country have been working to cripple the minority vote.

And what % of the white population are regular republican voters….? Again, stats used out of context. Maybe 80% of the white vote is normally for the democrats, maybe 40%. In fact, first paragraph of your own link clears this up:

Quoted

Barack Obama, who will be the nation’s first African-American president, won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976 amid a backdrop of economic anxiety unseen in at least a quarter-century, according to exit polls by The Associated Press and the major television networks.


Here is another nice example where actually your own statistics have, when correctly interpreted, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED WHAT YOU CLAIMED THEY SHOWED. Furthermore:

Quoted

In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites.

Obama won 54% of the young white votes. There is still a long way to go, but I don't think things are as bad as you would have us believe.

Quoted

And just from looking at your source, I could pick and choose any number of quotes to post that argue my point.

I consider those quotes as anecdotal evidence. You can find a quote to backup any stance you wish, but for a debating perspective they carry no rationale and no counter to the opposing arguments. All you have done is quoted someone who agrees with your stance, and just shows that someone else in the world agrees with you.

Quoted

I agree, but the fact of the matter is, that in America, race is already a factor in who gets employed.

And I disagree that race is a factor before institutions make it one. You have so far used criminal data and extrapolated the institutionalised racism to claim it is prevalent in the whole of society. I am sure that the papers you have linked me to will clear this part up, but no statistics you have presented show racism in the job market extends beyond anything that can be directly correlated to economic status.

Quoted

I find this idea that somehow affirmative action is keeping the white man down to be ridiculous.

That isn't what I am arguing! You see racism as a divide in society, and you are promoting a method to solve this which merely keeps those divides in place and gives an advantage to the races which are perceived to need it. I see this strategy as enforcing divisions and perpetuating the cycle of racism, ultimately against the minorities it seeks to help, when the cycle could be broken by helping people based on wealth (or rather lack of it) which will proportionally help minorities more (as they suffer from higher poverty rates) but doesn't explicitly divide people by race.

Quoted

Just like there is no reason to believe that white men are being discriminated against when it comes to employment or education?

I wish to draw the distinction to you or I believing someone is being discriminated against, and that person themself.

I will go away and read those papers (it may take a while as I am supposed to be submitting a paper of my own in a weeks time) but for now:

Quoted

This paper finds that, for the typical student and the typical college, affirmative action bans have no effect. However, affirmative action bans decrease underrepresented minority enrollment at selective colleges.

I suspect (and this is probably covered in the paper but given your previous history with this kind of thing I am assuming it isn't unless otherwise shown) that selective colleges (are they the top ones?) are effectively more likely to select students from wealthy backgrounds. The removal of affirmative action, without being replaced by a system to encourage some form of increased economically diverse intake, could very well show a drop in minority attendees for no other reason than the colleges select who is best. Selecting on this basis completely screws over people who have grown up in poverty and haven't had access to private education/good local schooling etc. If this is the case, there would be an expected drop in intake from minority applicants.

Quoted

So you’re arguing they are unemployed because they’re in poverty? Couldn’t you argue that they’re in poverty because they’re unemployed?
But no, despite what you *Think* discrimination does happen in the work place, even with affirmative action.


Poverty stats include the unemployed and those who are in low paid jobs. 33% of black people in poverty does not mean 33% of black people are unemployed. You were arguing that the unemployment rate for black people is twice that for white people is a sign of racism, whilst I pointed out it needn't be.

Quoted

Whites and minority groups have decidedly
different views about the persistence of racial
discrimination as well as the causes of racial
inequality in American society

As typified by your continued assertion (irrespective of its correctness) that white people have no reason to feel discriminated against. Ultimately, the individual will feel discriminated against and that is not a function of statistics.

Quoted

I know you’re just going to whine that I’ve found materials that simply agree with me, but look at the sources.

I have never accused you of only finding sources which agree with you. I have accused you of manipulating sources to agree with you, when they do not do what you claim (see the Barak Obama example).

Quoted

Again, if you want me to take you seriously, then perhaps you can cite studies of your own that supports the things you’re saying, because so far you’ve not done that, you’ve merely reacted to my posts instead of taking the lead.

I have had no need, because you've been presenting plenty of material to support my stance too up to now.

Quoted

I’m not interested in perceived racism, which is all there is towards whites, I’m interested in actual, happening every day to real people racism which is quite well chronicled and catalogued in the studies I provided. Point being, your argument is immaterial.

No, my argument is completely relevant when considering the goal of eliminating racism. The first issue is to tackle perceptions of boundaries/differences which lead people to be racist. Affirmative action does the very opposite to this.

Quoted

and before you repeat your point, I’ve already shown it’s not correlating with poverty.

… for black people in the US.

Quoted

It’s not needed because asking about religious background is illegal in the hiring process. Obviously, depending on how the person dresses or what their name is gives clues about background, but there is no box to select “atheist” on a job application. However, if you were fired after it came to light you were indeed an atheist, then there are laws against that. Affirmative action deals mainly with the hiring process, not what happens afterwards, so, irrelevant.

Orthodox Jews? Sikhs? So affirmative action doesn't tackle religions beliefs in the hiring process, and it could be needed. Maybe not for atheists. But, not completely irrelevant. (and I did file it under Misc. points)

Quoted

So you’re arguing that because blacks are poor, they are working jobs that will be the first to be lost in a recession? Well, people smarter than either of us disagree with you:

Quoted


Overall trends in poverty, however, do not fully capture the cumulative and multidimensional nature of black economic disadvantage.

kk, will read that. Note that it refers to BLACK disadvantage (not hispanic or other cultures) and it also notes that poverty does play a role. I am interested to see how much of a role it attributes to poverty and how much to race.

Quoted

if you insist on questioning my sources, stats or use of stats, then perhaps you can spend some time and quantatively shore up your own position instead of merely just telling me I’m wrong based on the virtue that I’m wrong.

Please show some understanding of why your stat use has been so horrific. I have not questioned your sources or stats, merely how you have tried to use them. And I believe, to this point, your inability to use them correctly has subverted your case.




Basic HoFs: 12
AHoF: 1
Moons given: 0
Moons received: 99999999999999999
I is wewl n00bish innit. But then, who needs m4d ski11z when you can DDC your way through the universe!

Treize Khushrenada

Unregistered

71

Wednesday, January 11th 2012, 10:37pm

ok, I'll be gone for a while as I've got a lot of reading to do BUT there are a couple of points I'd like to clarify before I do disappear because there is still a misunderstanding.

I have ended up taking the stance that the "institutionalised racism" which you are claiming exists is primarily NOT racism but a result of poverty. To support this point, I used the statistics which you provided for Georgia. Your latest reply has shown that you still did not understand the point I felt I had made clearly:


Ok, yes, there is indeed a misunderstanding and I’m going to attempt to straighten this out the best I can and then we can move on with the discussion accordingly.

Now, I know we’ve been using ‘racism’ and ‘institutional racism’ interchangeably throughout this debate, but let’s set some basic definitions:

Institutional Racism: Sir William Macpherson used the term as a description of "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin", which "can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes, and behaviour, which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping, which disadvantages minority ethnic people". Sir William’s definition is almost identical to Stokely Carmichael’s original definition some forty years earlier. Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton 1967 were black power activists and first used the term 'institutional racism' to describe the consequences of a societal structure that was stratified into a racial hierarchy that resulted in layers of discrimination and inequality for minority ethnic people in housing, income, employment, education and health (Garner 2004:22).

Racism: Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination.

Affirmative Action deals with Institutional Racism and the majority of this debate has also focused on that as no one has argued that minorites are inherently different from Whites, just that racial hierarchies have caused inequality for minorities in housing, income, employment, education, etc etc.

Now, I’ve mentioned this before, but there are stark differences in the types of institutional racism that occurs in the US and the UK. Let’s pretend it’s a virus, and there are multiple strains.

In the US you have about five current strains of discrimination that occur:
1. Discrimination against Blacks (dark skinned minorities)
2. Discrimination against immigrants (primarily Hispanics)
3. Discrimination against Women
4. Discrimination against Muslims (islamophobia)
5. Discrimination against gays

Again, I’m not up to par with racism in the UK, but from my understanding, discrimination comes in these main varieties:
1. Discrimination against minorities (includes all minorities, native or not)
2. Discrimination against Muslims (islamophobia)
3. Discrimination against gays
4. Discrimination against Women
And if you look at the two countries histories, this makes sense. I already stated that in the UK, slave labor wasn’t widely used because of limited agricultural land use and the fact that in the UK serfdom and indentured servitude were quite common, meaning that second class citizenry was more tied to economic class rather than racial class. In America however, African slaves were widely used while indentured servitude and serfdom were non-existent after our independence from the UK, meaning that second class citizenry was based on skin color as opposed to economic class because poor whites were ‘better’ than any black man based on the society at the time. This was the birth of institutionalized racism in the US, and it’s a special case because it was created out of Racism; IE these people really do think that Blacks are inferior. Now, the UK upped the ante when they started colonialism in Africa, and came to many of the same conclusions, but in the UK there has never been a threat to the white majority from a minority group, and Blacks aren’t necessarily the largest minority group.

Now, the problem that has occurred in this debate is the fact that myself and the other posters from the US have veered off almost on a tangent, where when examining institutional racism in the US the discussion has become almost exclusively about discrimination against Blacks, not minorities as a whole. And to be fair, Affirmative Action in the US was born out of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, it was intended to deal primarily with discrimination against Blacks, but included all minorities. Now, for right or wrong, other minority groups in the US haven’t been discriminated against in the same was as Blacks have. Discrimination against Hispanics, the new largest minority group in the US tends to rise and fall based on the state of the economy. During rough economic times discrimination is high because there is this perceived notion that Hispanics are taking all of our jobs and causing part of the economic problems. Also, discrimination against Hispanics isn’t so much about the color of their skin either, it’s more of a xenophobic thing born out of the vein of anti-immigrant views in the US. The same holds true for Asians in the US, for the most part they are not discriminated against unless there is a special case like the internment of Japanese Americans as a result of WWII. Other than that though, discrimination against Asians is pretty rare. Honestly, if I wanted to break it down to its purist form, discrimination in the US follows skin color ( I know that sounds redundant, but follow with me), IE that the darker your skin tone, the more discrimination you’ll likely face. This sort of touches on the point I made about Barak Obama, in the US, you have white, then Asian (which typically is very light colored, almost white in skin tone), then you have brown (Hispanic, Arab, South Asian, Mixed race, etc), and then lastly Black (African, African American, South Asian, other). The point being, you can’t compare discrimination against blacks to discrimination against minorities in general and I’ll address it at the relevant point that Quiffmeister brought up Hispanics. I’ll also apologize in advance for my interchanging usage of Blacks and Minorities. For the course of my arguments, when I say minorities, I’m typically referring to Blacks almost exclusively.

Quoted

Quoted

No, that’s exactly the point, for white’s mainly, drug arrests correlate well to socio-economic status, it starts to skew when you involve Hispanics and other ethnicities, but Blacks are consistently the outlier, which furthers my point, their arrest rate is higher due to institutionalized racism, and you seem to focus on Georgia, this is true in every state.


It does not skew for Hispanics or other ethnicities, by your very own stats, which again links in to why people should not blindly chuck statistics out to make their point. Normalised by POPULATION, there are three times the number of drug arrests for hispanics that whites - this appears to be skewed, however it correlates EXACTLY with the socio-economic data you provided where proportionally 3 times as many hispanics were declared to be impoverished than whites. So, you say that hispanics are charged for drug offences because the police are institutionally racist, and I say there are proportionally more arrests because there is proportionally more poverty in the hispanic population than the white population. The only race where this didn't correlate was with black people, where the initial 5:1 convictions (proportionally) falls to 2:1 when considering relative black:white poverty. So, as I mentioned before, this furthers your point about institutionalised police racism against BLACK people but NOT THE OTHER RACES.


So congratulations, you got the point that I was trying to make. I purposefully used Georgia for my point because it had a higher number of Hispanics in poverty than Blacks, yet drug arrests for black were higher than they were for Hispanics. Why did I make this point? You argued that the higher than nominal drug arrests for Blacks correlated with poverty:


Quoted

So, having presented statistics which show that 'minority' (for want of a better word) households are significantly worse-off than 'white' households, you then blame a disproportionate incarceration of 'minorities' on current racism within the system? I think that is complete bull - the reason for the skewed incarceration rates is directly related to poverty, and as my evidence I present your own :censored: statistics.


It wasn’t bull. Let’s look at another state. In Arizona, white poverty is at 13%, Black 37%, Hispanic 39%, Other 42% (Most likely native American). Please note these are percentages of their respective racial group populations, not percentages of the population as a whole. Total populations for Arizona are as follows: 3,663,500 white, 2,132,400 Hispanic, 529,300 Other and 268,000 Black. 831,636 Hispanics live in poverty, yet their arrest rate per 100,000 total population is 1075. 476,255 whites live in poverty, their arrest rate is 590, almost 2:1 which is what you pointed out last time, if it correlated with poverty, that’d be what you expect. Here’s where it gets dicey, there are 99,160 Blacks living in poverty in Arizona, yet their arrest rate is 3294 per 100,000. Am I the only one that stands out to as WRONG? Let’s look at the national level: White population 196,784,000 Black population 37,024,600 Hispanic population 49,881,300 Other 21,501,300. People living in poverty: White 27,549,760 (14% of the total white population) Black 13,328,856 (36% of the Black population) Hispanic 17, 458, 455 (35% of the total Hispanic population) Other 4,945,299 (23% of Other population) yet when we go back to the chart I posted on the national new drug arrests per 100,000 population over the age of 14, it breaks down to a rate of 175 New Black drug related incarcerations, 60 new Hispanic drug related incarcerations and 10 for White/Other. There are MORE white people living in poverty (total number) than any other minority in America, yet they have the lowest drug related arrest rate………….Am I just mis-representing my statistics here Quiffmeister? See, one of the things you missed in looking at my initial stats is that the percentages of poverty I list for Georgia aren’t percentages of the total population of the state, they represent the percentage of their respective population, IE the percentage of Whites that live in poverty are a percentage of the white population, not the population as a whole. Same for Blacks and for Hispanics. I should have made that more clear, but that’s why I posted the link to where I was getting my percentages from. I assumed you’d have followed it to verify my source. Obviously, you didn’t. Feel free to double check me this time: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=14&cat=1

Quoted

Quoted

Look, there’s a problem if I have to go back and hold your hand to lead you through the previous posts. I’d suggest you give the whole thread a read through once more and then get back to me.


I know exactly why you mentioned it, and I hope this time I will be able to explain to you why your statistics were meaningless to the point you were trying to make without the baseline race data for that area.

IT’S IRRELEVANT THOUGH!!! Ugh, why are you hung up on that point? It wasn’t an important point to the discussion as a whole and I was addressing something to a specific user. Seriously, if that’s the crux of your argument against me, then you have a really weak line of defense. MOVE ON and debate the important points, not sit there and nit pick.

Quoted

Quoted

The previous poster challenged that with the above quote, and I provided my statistics as merely an aside to prove that yes, indeed, mostly only white people hunt and fish.

Your statistics, as you presented them, did not prove that A GREATER PROPORTION of white people hunted or fished, relative to the overall population. Which was what you needed to say to claim that making hunting or fishing licenses legal forms of ID was discriminating against certain races. With me? Just showing that, of the people who fish, most are white, doesn't get you anywhere. Here is a silly hypothetical example to demonstrate my point: Races A and B live in the same state. Of people in that state who fish, 50% are of A and 50% are of B. If the state gives money to people who fish, does this benefit races A and B equally or not? Answer - you can't tell, because you need to know the race split in the whole population of that state, not just of those who fish. If you want to contest this point, we can do so in PMs.


*Sigh* Again, I listed my source. Table 50 within said source provides the very data you want. Look, when I cite something, or list it as a source, that sort of encompasses all of the material, for the good or bad of my argument, within said source. I *assume* that you’d look at my source before criticizing the way in which I present it. You’ve been lazy this whole debate acting in a reactionary manner, so please, take some initiative.

Quoted

You then presented population statistics for the whole of the US, which is an incorrect thing to do because we were only considering alabama. That was why I pulled you up on it the second time. So:

Alabama was relevant in the sense that is where the relevant law was, I was making the point of fishers in general, the majority were White. Honestly, I’m not spending anymore time on that point as it’s irrelevant to the discussion at large. Read the study, examine their methodology, and then get back to me. But the point being though, it doesn’t change the fact that the majority of Hunters and Fishermen in the US are white. If you can prove that incorrect, I’d love to see it.

Quoted

[quote[Again, irrelevant, you didn’t understand the point I was making or why.

You didn't understand the point I was making, which is that you have to understand the statistics that you present, not just present something which you think supports your point when in fact it doesn't provide any meaningful information at all. Again, I will refer back to my joke assertion that the higher crime stats for minorities show that minorities commit more crimes as an example for why statistics should never be mis-represented. [/quote]

And I’ll say again, irrelevant. When you can cast doubt on the main point we’ve been arguing, racial disparities in drug arrests, then we’ll talk, I won’t be addressing the hunting and fishing stats anymore though.

Quoted

Another interesting little game to play with percentages is this little mind-puzzle - if I have a 100kg of watermelons, which are 1% flesh and 99% water, and I leave them out in the sun such as half of their water 'evaporates' in the heat, what percentages of melon flesh/water do I subsequently have? Answer -> approx 2% flesh, 98% water. It's not relevant at all, just something to make people go "eh…?".

Irrelevant

Quoted

Quoted

Police target urban minority areas, they primarily arrest blacks despite the fact there are other races in the same areas, institutionalized racism……..the point I was making from the very start.

No, you were initially claiming that the police targeted minorities, and until I pointed out that your statistics only showed they target BLACK minority areas you did not make that distinction. I agree, your original point about institutionalised racism remains sound and I now agree with it, but I disagree that your rationale has remained constant. It is much more specific than you initially presented it to be, IMO.


Based on your own method of examining my stats:

Quoted

Let’s look at the national level: White population 196,784,000 Black population 37,024,600 Hispanic population 49,881,300 Other 21,501,300. People living in poverty: White 27,549,760 (14% of the total white population) Black 13,328,856 (36% of the Black population) Hispanic 17, 458, 455 (35% of the total Hispanic population) Other 4,945,299 (23% of Other population) yet when we go back to the chart I posted on the national new drug arrests per 100,000 population over the age of 14, it breaks down to a rate of 175 New Black drug related incarcerations, 60 new Hispanic drug related incarcerations and 10 for White/Other. There are MORE white people living in poverty (total number) than any other minority in America, yet they have the lowest drug related arrest rate………….Am I just mis-representing my statistics here Quiffmeister?


Let’s see, absolute numbers of people in poverty by race breaks down to 2.1:1 White: Black and 1.58:1 White:Hispanic yet when we look at the disparity in drug related arrests its 17.5:1 Black:White and 6:1 Hispanic:White. Neither correlates to poverty in absolute terms. Are those stats and analysis up to your standards? I hope so cus I followed your methodology exactly.

Quoted

Quoted

Personally, I find what you’re insinuating to be offensive, but that’s just me.

I suspect it's you mis-understanding what I have said, which appears to be a consistent theme.

No, you’re misunderstanding led you to question my ability to read, understand, and present statistical evidence, which I still find the insinuation to be offensive.

Quoted

Quoted

Obama didn’t get the white vote. 55% of the white vote (total) went for McCain. The only area where Obama was comparable to McCain was with younger white voters. 96% of the black votes were cast for Obama. I fail to see how a Black president getting significantly less than half of the white vote is supposed to demonstrate an end to racism……..especially that since his election, state houses across the country have been working to cripple the minority vote.

And what % of the white population are regular republican voters….? Again, stats used out of context. Maybe 80% of the white vote is normally for the democrats, maybe 40%. In fact, first paragraph of your own link clears this up:

Quoted

Barack Obama, who will be the nation’s first African-American president, won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976 amid a backdrop of economic anxiety unseen in at least a quarter-century, according to exit polls by The Associated Press and the major television networks.


Here is another nice example where actually your own statistics have, when correctly interpreted, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED WHAT YOU CLAIMED THEY SHOWED. Furthermore:

Quoted

In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites.

Obama won 54% of the young white votes. There is still a long way to go, but I don't think things are as bad as you would have us believe.


The difference in the numbers of young white voters alone can account for the fact that Obama won more white votes than other democrats, but you’re arguing two different things here. You’re saying that because he had more white support than other presidents, there can be no racism surrounding his election. But what you didn’t show is the nominal number of white voters in this election compared to previous elections. OMG YOU’RE MISREPRESENTING YOUR STATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted

Quoted

And just from looking at your source, I could pick and choose any number of quotes to post that argue my point.

I consider those quotes as anecdotal evidence. You can find a quote to backup any stance you wish, but for a debating perspective they carry no rationale and no counter to the opposing arguments. All you have done is quoted someone who agrees with your stance, and just shows that someone else in the world agrees with you.


I did it to be facetious.

Quoted

Quoted

I agree, but the fact of the matter is, that in America, race is already a factor in who gets employed.

And I disagree that race is a factor before institutions make it one. You have so far used criminal data and extrapolated the institutionalised racism to claim it is prevalent in the whole of society. I am sure that the papers you have linked me to will clear this part up, but no statistics you have presented show racism in the job market extends beyond anything that can be directly correlated to economic status.


The papers do address that, but the fact of the matter is, economic status, based on the very definition of instutionalized racism, can’t be separated as a factor all of its own, because institutionalized racism incorporates economic status and poverty into itself. See the definitions posted at the top of the post.

Quoted

Quoted

I find this idea that somehow affirmative action is keeping the white man down to be ridiculous.

That isn't what I am arguing! You see racism as a divide in society, and you are promoting a method to solve this which merely keeps those divides in place and gives an advantage to the races which are perceived to need it. I see this strategy as enforcing divisions and perpetuating the cycle of racism, ultimately against the minorities it seeks to help, when the cycle could be broken by helping people based on wealth (or rather lack of it) which will proportionally help minorities more (as they suffer from higher poverty rates) but doesn't explicitly divide people by race.


Again, let’s look at the nominal numbers of people in poverty in America:

White: 27,549,760 (14% of the total white population)
Black 13,328,856 (36% of the Black population)
Hispanic 17, 458, 455 (35% of the total Hispanic population)
Other 4,945,299 (23% of Other population)

While there are a greater percentage of blacks living in poverty, there are double the total number of impoverished whites than blacks. Policies based only on poverty would still help whites more than Blacks. Hell, there are more whites on social welfare programs than there are blacks, which is another interesting point I’ll make to counter your claim you can treat institutionalized racism with poverty only policies. Despite the fact that whites are the dominant ethnicity receiving state aid, blacks are percieved to be the dominant ethnicity on welfare, which in itself is a symptom of institutionalized racism because whites perceive blacks to more likely be poor than whites. Because of such, you often times see conservative politicians pushing cuts to social welfare programs and often try to pass legislation ending social welfare programs. As long as minorities are the perceived welfare recipients, poverty only policies will never address nor correct institutionalized racism.

Quoted

Quoted

Just like there is no reason to believe that white men are being discriminated against when it comes to employment or education?

I wish to draw the distinction to you or I believing someone is being discriminated against, and that person themself.


I can lead a horse to water, but I can’t make him drink. I’ve gone above and beyond demonstrating my points. Your excuse as to why you haven’t made any of your own assertions is unacceptable.

Quoted

I will go away and read those papers (it may take a while as I am supposed to be submitting a paper of my own in a weeks time) but for now:

Quoted

This paper finds that, for the typical student and the typical college, affirmative action bans have no effect. However, affirmative action bans decrease underrepresented minority enrollment at selective colleges.

I suspect (and this is probably covered in the paper but given your previous history with this kind of thing I am assuming it isn't unless otherwise shown) that selective colleges (are they the top ones?) are effectively more likely to select students from wealthy backgrounds. The removal of affirmative action, without being replaced by a system to encourage some form of increased economically diverse intake, could very well show a drop in minority attendees for no other reason than the colleges select who is best. Selecting on this basis completely screws over people who have grown up in poverty and haven't had access to private education/good local schooling etc. If this is the case, there would be an expected drop in intake from minority applicants.


That is still institutionalized racism. Blacks are impoverished due to racism and racial policies in the past, Black student grows up poor, Black student can’t get a good education due to said poorness, Black student can’t get into a good college. While the last part is directly reliant on the poverty, poverty, race, and the reason’s said student are poor in the first place are all a part of institutionalized racism.

Quoted

Quoted

So you’re arguing they are unemployed because they’re in poverty? Couldn’t you argue that they’re in poverty because they’re unemployed?
But no, despite what you *Think* discrimination does happen in the work place, even with affirmative action.


Poverty stats include the unemployed and those who are in low paid jobs. 33% of black people in poverty does not mean 33% of black people are unemployed. You were arguing that the unemployment rate for black people is twice that for white people is a sign of racism, whilst I pointed out it needn't be.


More white people in poverty, yet white unemployment is still lower. Also, one of the papers addresses this as well. Argue my point after you’ve read it.

Quoted

Quoted

Whites and minority groups have decidedly
different views about the persistence of racial
discrimination as well as the causes of racial
inequality in American society

As typified by your continued assertion (irrespective of its correctness) that white people have no reason to feel discriminated against. Ultimately, the individual will feel discriminated against and that is not a function of statistics.


Oh, I know they’ll feel that way irrespective of statistics, but when all the statistics say they aren’t being discriminated against, it’s irrelevant how they feel. They’d still be treating minorities badly irregardless of whether they felt that way or not, it’s just that when there are policies to level the playing field, white people tend to get scared and defensive, but that isn’t a valid reason for keeping the playing field unlevel.

Quoted

Quoted

I know you’re just going to whine that I’ve found materials that simply agree with me, but look at the sources.

I have never accused you of only finding sources which agree with you. I have accused you of manipulating sources to agree with you, when they do not do what you claim (see the Barak Obama example).


All of the sources I’ve used to agree with me *sigh*

Quoted

Quoted

Again, if you want me to take you seriously, then perhaps you can cite studies of your own that supports the things you’re saying, because so far you’ve not done that, you’ve merely reacted to my posts instead of taking the lead.

I have had no need, because you've been presenting plenty of material to support my stance too up to now.


Again, not an acceptable excuse, just show’s laziness on your part. As said before, no one has demonstrated how Affirmative Action is detrimental to White people.

Quoted

Quoted

I’m not interested in perceived racism, which is all there is towards whites, I’m interested in actual, happening every day to real people racism which is quite well chronicled and catalogued in the studies I provided. Point being, your argument is immaterial.

No, my argument is completely relevant when considering the goal of eliminating racism. The first issue is to tackle perceptions of boundaries/differences which lead people to be racist. Affirmative action does the very opposite to this.


Poverty only policies will never eliminate racism in the US.

Quoted

Quoted

and before you repeat your point, I’ve already shown it’s not correlating with poverty.

… for black people in the US.


Or Hispanic

Quoted

Quoted

It’s not needed because asking about religious background is illegal in the hiring process. Obviously, depending on how the person dresses or what their name is gives clues about background, but there is no box to select “atheist” on a job application. However, if you were fired after it came to light you were indeed an atheist, then there are laws against that. Affirmative action deals mainly with the hiring process, not what happens afterwards, so, irrelevant.

Orthodox Jews? Sikhs? So affirmative action doesn't tackle religions beliefs in the hiring process, and it could be needed. Maybe not for atheists. But, not completely irrelevant. (and I did file it under Misc. points)


No, it is completely irrelevant.

Quoted

Quoted

So you’re arguing that because blacks are poor, they are working jobs that will be the first to be lost in a recession? Well, people smarter than either of us disagree with you:

Quoted


Overall trends in poverty, however, do not fully capture the cumulative and multidimensional nature of black economic disadvantage.

kk, will read that. Note that it refers to BLACK disadvantage (not hispanic or other cultures) and it also notes that poverty does play a role. I am interested to see how much of a role it attributes to poverty and how much to race.


I already started demonstrating that with the nominal numbers. Also, it’s easy to find similar papers where you substitute “black” with “hispanic”, but yeah, discrimination against the two groups is fundamentally different, something I already touched on.

Quoted

Quoted

if you insist on questioning my sources, stats or use of stats, then perhaps you can spend some time and quantatively shore up your own position instead of merely just telling me I’m wrong based on the virtue that I’m wrong.


Please show some understanding of why your stat use has been so horrific. I have not questioned your sources or stats, merely how you have tried to use them. And I believe, to this point, your inability to use them correctly has subverted your case.
[/quote]

I find it ironic that you accuse me of misusing stats when it simply boils down to you not understanding what the stats are showing.

LHTB

There're many behind me...but still some ahead

Posts: 1,290

Date of registration: Dec 4th 2008

  • Send private message

72

Saturday, February 25th 2012, 7:30pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…emies-diversity

It seems this issue is going to the SCOTUS (Americans and their acronyms...)

To me, it seems this lady, via affirmative action, was subject to discrimination due to her race. Selection should be via ability, not factors you cannot control like ethnicity, age or gender.

What does everyone think the SCOTUS will decide?
"Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are God. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realise that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods." -Christopher Hitchens