Should the KKK be allowed to protest at historical sites?

[WCSox]

The whole idea of affirmative action or any manner of preferences is simply trying to use 2 wrongs to make a right. You can't complain all day long about how unfair things are then happily accept an unfair advantage that benefits you. Thats hypocrasy. What is needed is a level playing field where merit decides who gets what. If that means that minorities don't get a certain percentage of jobs or college admissions or whatever then maybe they should shut their yaps and look to better themselves.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I've seen numerous instances of female and/or minoritiy candidates (who are underrepresented in my field) receive job offers, while more-qualified white males who interviewed for the same positions received "Thank you for your interest" letters. None of these under-represented people were significantly "disadvantaged" in comparison to their white male counterparts.

 

Affirmative actions creats feelings of inferiority in those who benefit from it and feelings of hostility in everyone else. Not to mention that it fails to accomplish the most important thing: selecting the best person for the position.

[GoodAsGould]

Umm, someone from over a hundred and fifty years ago told you he regrets ever being part of the KKK?!?!

 

Its not hard to learn history...... maybe if you pickup a book it will tell you about how someone from over a hundred and fifty years ago can tell you how he regretted being part of KKK. I wasnt even studying him... was studying the Civil War history and found out about Forrester through that.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I've seen numerous instances of female and/or minoritiy candidates (who are underrepresented in my field) receive job offers, while more-qualified white males who interviewed for the same positions received "Thank you for your interest" letters. None of these under-represented people were significantly "disadvantaged" in comparison to their white male counterparts.

 

Affirmative actions creats feelings of inferiority in those who benefit from it and feelings of hostility in everyone else. Not to mention that it fails to accomplish the most important thing: selecting the best person for the position.

 

 

If some of these minorities had an ounce of pride and integrity they would view affirmative action as a slap in the face. Instead, they greedily accept preferential treatment because all they are looking for is a handout and a way to get over on the system.

[GoodAsGould]

If some of these minorities had an ounce of pride and integrity they would view affirmative action as a slap in the face. Instead, they greedily accept preferential treatment because all they are looking for is a handout and a way to get over on the system.

 

All I have in a response to you Nuke is :puke

[AngelasDaddy0427]

This thread made me think of this site someone showed me my first year in college...

 

The history of Martin Luther King Jr from a white spremicist point of view...

http://www.martinlutherking.org/

 

According to the site he was an anti-american communist with a habit of using church money to pay for white prostitutes which he then beat...

Edited June 13, 2006 by Jeckle2000

[kapkomet]

All I have in a response to you Nuke is :puke

Oh really? WHY? Put something substantial instead of just ragging on someone's personal opinion.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I've seen numerous instances of female and/or minoritiy candidates (who are underrepresented in my field) receive job offers, while more-qualified white males who interviewed for the same positions received "Thank you for your interest" letters. None of these under-represented people were significantly "disadvantaged" in comparison to their white male counterparts.

 

Affirmative actions creats feelings of inferiority in those who benefit from it and feelings of hostility in everyone else. Not to mention that it fails to accomplish the most important thing: selecting the best person for the position.

 

I think it's naive to think that qualified minorities have never and are never denied employment or completely overlooked based on race, religion, or sex, which is why such laws have had to be implemented in the first place.

 

I also question your whole "feeling inferior" idea...I'm sure plenty of people are just happy to get a good job no matter how they had to get it...Incapable and underqualified people aren't being hired; there are general standards for every job.

 

Personally, I would kinda equate affirmative action when being used to hire someone less qualified than another candidate as equal to all those underqualified people who get jobs because of who they know (most city jobs, for example) and not what they're capable of. Just a thought.

[kapkomet]

Personally, I would kinda equate affirmative action when being used to hire someone less qualified than another candidate as equal to all those underqualified people who get jobs because of who they know (most city jobs, for example) and not what they're capable of. Just a thought.

 

Apples and oranges. These two have nothing to do with each other.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Apples and oranges. These two have nothing to do with each other.

 

Never said they did. I clearly stated that I just considered them to be equal in nature.

[Gregory Pratt]

That man wasn't the first KKK member, and he wasn't even that important. He was their first grand wizard, but he wasn't even really a member:

 

It was during this time that he became the nexus of the nascent Ku Klux Klan movement. According to one oral report, George Gordon, a former Confederate brigadier general, went to Forrest in Memphis and told him about the new organization, to which Forrest replied, "That's a good thing; that's a damn good thing. We can use that to keep the n*****s in their place." He was acclaimed at a Nashville, Tennessee, KKK convention (1867) as the first Grand Wizard, or leader-in-chief of that organization. In an 1868 newspaper interview, Forrest boasted that the Klan was a nationwide organization of 550,000 men, and that although he himself was not a member, he was "in sympathy" and would "cooperate" with them, and could himself muster 40,000 Klansmen with only five days' notice. He stated that the Klan did not see blacks as its enemy so much as "carpetbaggers" (northerners who came south after the war ended) and "scalawags" (white Republican southerners).

 

-------

 

And to answer the question, "How does KKK even take themselves seriously when the original grandmaster or whatevr u want to call it regretted ever being part of it."

 

Well, they take themselves seriously because the white race is being threatened.

 

Also: the Klan has been around for almost hundred years. Even if the General were as big a part in their history as he's being made out to have been, and let's concede that he was, that doesn't mean that the organization has to stop taking itself seriously because one man disavowed them.

Edited June 13, 2006 by Gregory Pratt

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, they take themselves seriously because the white race is being threatened.

If you don't mind good sir, I'd like you to place this line in reference for me. Are you stating that the KKK feels the white race is being threatened, or that you do? Because grammatically, you state it as if it were factual information. I assume that was not your intent, but I'd like to have that clarified.

[WCSox]

I think it's naive to think that qualified minorities have never and are never denied employment or completely overlooked based on race, religion, or sex, which is why such laws have had to be implemented in the first place.

 

Oh, I'm not denying that it hasn't happened. I'm sure it has. However, penalizing people like me (who had nothing to do with it) is completely asinine. Like Nuke said, two wrongs don't make a right... especially when you're penalizing people for something that other people 30, 50, or 100 years ago did. What's next? Slave reparations? :headshake

 

I also question your whole "feeling inferior" idea...I'm sure plenty of people are just happy to get a good job no matter how they had to get it...Incapable and underqualified people aren't being hired; there are general standards for every job.

 

That logic may apply if you're applying for a job at the DMV or something. But, to quote one of the Grinder Rules, "good enough, isn't" when you work in a competitive field. Companies spend tens of thousands of dollars flying in/hosting job candidates. Major companies fly in up to 15-20 people for one position, which probably costs them $25,000 or more. If you only meet the "general standards", you won't get past a phone interview.

 

Clarence Thomas wrote a good essay on the "feeling inferior" point. You should check it out.

 

Personally, I would kinda equate affirmative action when being used to hire someone less qualified than another candidate as equal to all those underqualified people who get jobs because of who they know (most city jobs, for example) and not what they're capable of. Just a thought.

 

Preferential treatment in hiring in any way is unethical.

Edited June 14, 2006 by WCSox

[Gregory Pratt]

If you don't mind good sir, I'd like you to place this line in reference for me. Are you stating that the KKK feels the white race is being threatened, or that you do? Because grammatically, you state it as if it were factual information. I assume that was not your intent, but I'd like to have that clarified.

 

Let's back up here.

I don't believe that, not in the least. I said it mockingly, as in mocking the KKK. I am not a Klansman, in the least.

 

Although it is true that the Klan believes that the White Race is threatened by minorities in schools and our cities, interracial marriages, etc. etc., no? And so I was mocking them for that.

[NorthSideSox72]

Let's back up here.

I don't believe that, not in the least. I said it mockingly, as in mocking the KKK. I am not a Klansman, in the least.

 

Although it is true that the Klan believes that the White Race is threatened by minorities in schools and our cities, interracial marriages, etc. etc., no? And so I was mocking them for that.

I figured - but the sentence wasn't clear. Understood.

[Rex Kickass]

Oh, I'm not denying that it hasn't happened. I'm sure it has. However, penalizing people like me (who had nothing to do with it) is completely asinine. Like Nuke said, two wrongs don't make a right... especially when you're penalizing people for something that other people 30, 50, or 100 years ago did. What's next? Slave reparations? :headshake

That logic may apply if you're applying for a job at the DMV or something. But, to quote one of the Grinder Rules, "good enough, isn't" when you work in a competitive field. Companies spend tens of thousands of dollars flying in/hosting job candidates. Major companies fly in up to 15-20 people for one position, which probably costs them $25,000 or more. If you only meet the "general standards", you won't get past a phone interview.

 

Clarence Thomas wrote a good essay on the "feeling inferior" point. You should check it out.

Preferential treatment in hiring in any way is unethical.

 

Clarence Thomas is a beneficiary of affirmative action. It's how he got into the College of the Holy Cross and how he got into Yale. He probably also was nominated to the Supreme Court because of his color, to replace the retiring Thurgood Marshall. This isn't to say that Justice Thomas isn't qualified, but rather that his nomination was at least in part because of the color of his skin. yet I don't hear many federal circuit court judges whining about getting passed over because Clarence Thomas was black. He may criticize Affirmative Action as something that isn't right for America, but if it wasn't for it, nobody would care what he thinks today.

Edited June 14, 2006 by Rex Kickass

[NorthSideSox72]

Clarence Thomas is a beneficiary of affirmative action. It's how he got into the College of the Holy Cross and how he got into Yale. He probably also was nominated to the Supreme Court because of his color, to replace the retiring Thurgood Marshall. This isn't to say that Justice Thomas isn't qualified, but rather that his nomination was at least in part because of the color of his skin. yet I don't hear many federal circuit court judges whining about getting passed over because Clarence Thomas was black. He may criticize Affirmative Action as something that isn't right for America, but if it wasn't for it, nobody would care what he thinks today.

You really think a federal judge is going to call out a Supreme Court justice on something like that? Even if they do feel slighted? Not a chance.

 

There is no such thing, societally, as a beneficiary of affirmative action. Because in the net, you just gain one and lose one. And worse, you do it for non-job-related reasons. Its not even a zero sum game - its a negative sum game. Its organized bigotry at worst, and a depreciating social investment at best. No race or individual is made better by propping up someone in a position they weren't most qualified for.

[WCSox]

Clarence Thomas is a beneficiary of affirmative action. It's how he got into the College of the Holy Cross and how he got into Yale. He probably also was nominated to the Supreme Court because of his color, to replace the retiring Thurgood Marshall. This isn't to say that Justice Thomas isn't qualified, but rather that his nomination was at least in part because of the color of his skin. yet I don't hear many federal circuit court judges whining about getting passed over because Clarence Thomas was black. He may criticize Affirmative Action as something that isn't right for America, but if it wasn't for it, nobody would care what he thinks today.

 

Oh, I wouldn't doubt that he was given an extra break or two in his education/career because of the color of his skin. But did you ever consider that his own experience as an alleged beneficiary of Affirmative Action is what prompted him to write the essay in the first place? Did you ever consider that Clarence's own colleagues may have treated him like a second-class student/attorney/judge because they suspected that he was treated preferrentially? And perhaps it's possible that he didn't want the next generation of African-American professionals to experience the same Affirmative Action-induced hostility that he did? :rolly

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Oh, I'm not denying that it hasn't happened. I'm sure it has. However, penalizing people like me (who had nothing to do with it) is completely asinine. Like Nuke said, two wrongs don't make a right... especially when you're penalizing people for something that other people 30, 50, or 100 years ago did. What's next? Slave reparations? :headshake

 

You keep talking in the past tense and mentioning "30, 50, or 100 years ago" as if it's something that would not or does not happen today...

 

I agree with the general principle of affirmative action although I'll also agree that I, too, don't like to see it misused and/or taken advantage of.

[WCSox]

You keep talking in the past tense and mentioning "30, 50, or 100 years ago" as if it's something that would not or does not happen today...

 

If it still does happen today, it doesn't happen very often. In fact, many companies have Affirmative Action-based "quotas" now, where it's OFFICIAL POLICY to discriminate against white males. If anything, the tide has been turned now against male Caucasians.

 

And if discrimination against minorities is still happening today, penalizing people who have nothing to do with it is just flat-out stupid. Take the corporations to court, rather than take jobs away from the other innocent applicants.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

If anything, the tide has been turned now against male Caucasians.

 

Oh, please...

[WCSox]

Oh, please...

 

You're funny. There's LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL discrimination against "over-represented" races/genders in job hiring now and you're still trying to play the minorities-aren't-getting-a-fair-shake card. :headshake

[SleepyWhiteSox]

You're funny. There's LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL discrimination against "over-represented" races/genders in job hiring now and you're still trying to play the minorities-aren't-getting-a-fair-shake card. :headshake

 

white male oppression

[WCSox]

white male oppression

 

So, you hate white males? I'm not surprised.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

So, you hate white males? I'm not surprised.

 

 

That one's way too ridiculous for me to take the bait.

[WCSox]

 

That one's way too ridiculous for me to take the bait.

 

Oh, I get it. You just want free handouts at the expense of everyone else. Thanks for clarifying.