The Democrat Thread

[Rex Kickass]

The "benefits" of giving out the miniority owned business contracts aren't much better than the "benefit" of protecting children from all those gay raper guys out there.

 

Could you elaborate exactly what you mean by this sentence? What gay raper guys are you referring to exactly?

[Jenksismyhero]

Could you elaborate exactly what you mean by this sentence? What gay raper guys are you referring to exactly?

 

Was making a joke. Someone referenced a report that apparently found gay men were more likely to molest children.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Rex Kickass]

Was making a joke. Someone referenced a report that apparently found gay men were more likely to molest children.

 

Missed that post, just didn't understand the sentence.

[StrangeSox]

Except that this argument only gets played like this when it comes to these types of social issues. States grant all sorts of rights tailored towards a specific group while clearly discriminating against others. Think about things like minority contract requirements with cities. It's absolutely blatant discrimination, but no one cares because it benefits the little guy. The "benefits" of giving out the miniority owned business contracts aren't much better than the "benefit" of protecting children from all those gay raper guys out there. Or the other one that really gets me (though it will soon be moot) is the fact that women and children can get free health care in illinois, but a man can't. Apparently the justification is that protecting women and children's health is more important than a man's?

 

Minorities are at a systematic disadvantage. AA-type programs aren't perfect but they're not "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination".

 

The justification is that there's a lot of single mothers out there who can't afford health care for them or their children. It's not fair to punish children for their parents' lack of financial success and if that parent becomes too ill to work, they'll be screwed.

[StrangeSox]

Was making a joke. Someone referenced a report that apparently found gay men were more likely to molest children.

 

I referenced one of the pro-prop 8 witness's ridiculous testimony. His source for that claim was "the internet". No such scientific study exists showing what he claimed; gays are just as likely as straights to molest children, but that doesn't stop the "save the children!" boogeyman from rearing its ugly head all the time.

[Balta1701]

The justification is that there's a lot of single mothers out there who can't afford health care for them or their children. It's not fair to punish children for their parents' lack of financial success and if that parent becomes too ill to work, they'll be screwed.

Hopefully, pretty soon that one is fixed forever.

[Jenksismyhero]

Minorities are at a systematic disadvantage. AA-type programs aren't perfect but they're not "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination".

 

The justification is that there's a lot of single mothers out there who can't afford health care for them or their children. It's not fair to punish children for their parents' lack of financial success and if that parent becomes too ill to work, they'll be screwed.

 

But that kind of argument just defies logic really. Giving Black Plumber a contract over White Plumber, for no other reason than because he's black, is the definition of discrimination. And it does nothing to curb the "systematic disadvantage" of minorities. 99% of minorities aren't plumbers, or roofers, or builders, or whatever service that's being bid for. It serves no purpose other than to say "hey, white people get a lot of work, lets share the love." That's not a good enough reason to discriminate, just like saying gays molest children isn't a good reason to keep them from getting married. It's absolutely reverse discrimination, as is every AA policy. Two wrongs don't eventually make a right.

 

And your point about mothers and kids makes sense, assuming you ignore the fact that there are also poor males out there with s***head/deadbeat wives. Sure they're not nearly as many, but it's still a blanket "right" we're giving one group but not another.

[Balta1701]

But that kind of argument just defies logic really. Giving Black Plumber a contract over White Plumber, for no other reason than because he's black, is the definition of discrimination. And it does nothing to curb the "systematic disadvantage" of minorities. 99% of minorities aren't plumbers, or roofers, or builders, or whatever service that's being bid for. It serves no purpose other than to say "hey, white people get a lot of work, lets share the love." That's not a good enough reason to discriminate, just like saying gays molest children isn't a good reason to keep them from getting married. It's absolutely reverse discrimination, as is every AA policy. Two wrongs don't eventually make a right.

 

And your point about mothers and kids makes sense, assuming you ignore the fact that there are also poor males out there with s***head/deadbeat wives. Sure they're not nearly as many, but it's still a blanket "right" we're giving one group but not another.

The key flaw in your argument is that I can make the reverse equal protection case right now.

 

If there were no affirmative action/diversity programs, I can go before a court with the numbers...white males will win a majority of contracts, get a majority of the jobs in most industries, and generally tend to overrepresent themselves based on the local population. Perhaps the best example of this effect is the gender discrimination effect, whereby on average, women get paid something like $.75 on the dollar for the same work that a male does.

 

I can therefore argue that the discriminated minority, not getting the same job or same pay for the same work...is being put at an inherent disadvantage. If you fire back that it is all environmental factors or education factors...fine, but then you've just accepted that there is an equal protection case in terms of the education or environmental factors.

 

That's why those sorts of programs get tolerated despite the equal protection clause; because the data show strongly that there is a built in bias against them already. Is it something that an ideal society would get rid of? Yes. But we're no where close to that point yet.

[Jenksismyhero]

The key flaw in your argument is that I can make the reverse equal protection case right now.

 

If there were no affirmative action/diversity programs, I can go before a court with the numbers...white males will win a majority of contracts, get a majority of the jobs in most industries, and generally tend to overrepresent themselves based on the local population. Perhaps the best example of this effect is the gender discrimination effect, whereby on average, women get paid something like $.75 on the dollar for the same work that a male does.

 

I can therefore argue that the discriminated minority, not getting the same job or same pay for the same work...is being put at an inherent disadvantage. If you fire back that it is all environmental factors or education factors...fine, but then you've just accepted that there is an equal protection case in terms of the education or environmental factors.

 

That's why those sorts of programs get tolerated despite the equal protection clause; because the data show strongly that there is a built in bias against them already. Is it something that an ideal society would get rid of? Yes. But we're no where close to that point yet.

 

But that ignores the reality of the situation, which is that (1) minorities are a minority for a reason, so of course there's going to be a disparity in the percentage of contracts that get handed out (or scholarships, or admissions, or whatever the case may be), and (2) when a government looks at two bids, one from a minority owned company, and one from a white owned company, or two scholarships (one minority, one not), given the framework of "equal protection" and "government can't discriminate on the basis of race," it shouldn't sit back and say "well, based on previous numbers, we've given a lot of these things to whites, so despite the fact that these are equal bids/applications, or even despite the fact that the whites is better, purely for numbers sake we're going to go with the minority." What you're proposing isn't equal opportunity, it's equal results. So, basically to you equal opportunity means that for every bid or scholarship or whatever that gets sent out the public, the results have to match demographic information, otherwise it's not fair.

 

And what's the built in bias? It's not like a minorities bid or application somehow gets lost in the sea of majority ones. They get (or should get under the law) equal consideration regardless of the numbers. That's my problem with AA programs and minority guarantees. We have the laws in place to ensure that employers/schools/government agencies give minorities and women equal footing from the start. The decision to accept/reject therefore isn't based on those criteria we deem important enough to protect. If it is, there's a claim that can be made. But making programs to make it more fair is ridiculous and achieves nothing. It just discriminates against the majority on the same basis that is supposedly wrong.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The key flaw in your argument is that I can make the reverse equal protection case right now.

 

If there were no affirmative action/diversity programs, I can go before a court with the numbers...white males will win a majority of contracts, get a majority of the jobs in most industries, and generally tend to overrepresent themselves based on the local population. Perhaps the best example of this effect is the gender discrimination effect, whereby on average, women get paid something like $.75 on the dollar for the same work that a male does.

 

I can therefore argue that the discriminated minority, not getting the same job or same pay for the same work...is being put at an inherent disadvantage. If you fire back that it is all environmental factors or education factors...fine, but then you've just accepted that there is an equal protection case in terms of the education or environmental factors.

 

That's why those sorts of programs get tolerated despite the equal protection clause; because the data show strongly that there is a built in bias against them already. Is it something that an ideal society would get rid of? Yes. But we're no where close to that point yet.

 

That's exactly what O'Connor would say in her opinions on this issue. Admitting that it's absolutely against the policies she's trying to protect, but that hopefully one day we don't have to keep doing it. That's a BS argument IMO.

[kapkomet]

Minorities White men are at a systematic disadvantage. AA-type programs aren't perfect but they're not "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination".

 

The justification is that there's a lot of single mothers out there who can't afford health care for them or their children. It's not fair to punish children for their parents' lack of financial success and if that parent becomes too ill to work, they'll be screwed.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

That's why I have a problem with "discrimination" and its definition. ANYONE is discriminated against depending on what slippery slope you want to go down, and why the 14th amendment is pretty much bastardized to fit whatever social injustice you want to pick today.

[lostfan]

You're never, ever going to be able to convince me that white people are discriminated against or that life is somehow unfair for them on account of being white. Especially when actual quotas are not legally enforceable.

 

edit: and, kap, I know you're not racist and I'd never accuse you of that so don't take this the wrong way, but this is one of white supremacists' top 3 talking points of imaginary hardships they whine about

Edited August 7, 2010 by lostfan

[Soxy]

Fixed that for you.

 

That's why I have a problem with "discrimination" and its definition. ANYONE is discriminated against depending on what slippery slope you want to go down, and why the 14th amendment is pretty much bastardized to fit whatever social injustice you want to pick today.

 

You are seriously going to try and tell me that straight white men have it harder than women, gays and racial minorities.

[StrangeSox]

hahahaha

 

 

keep pretending there isn't white male privilege, kap. Maybe it's that white man's burden that's putting us at a disadvantage!

 

kap, jenks, have you guys ever read any sociology at all? Your arguments are completely blind to reality.

Edited August 7, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Soxy]

You're never, ever going to be able to convince me that white people are discriminated against or that life is somehow unfair for them on account of being white. Especially when actual quotas are not legally enforceable.

 

Um, I get really bad sunburns. Like they blister and peel off. So, it's pretty hard to be white in the summer.

[FlaSoxxJim]

My inability to resist the involuntary urge to sing along to Bee Gees songs (typically the girly high part) has absolutely contributed to my exclusion from various social circles.

[kapkomet]

Do you all want to seriously argue that all these laws that force quotas (lost, um, yes, they are enforceable) in hiring, wages, what businesses get what, who can marry, etc. are NON discriminatory? REVERSE discrimination is just as bad as discrimination, yet you all want to make it this nice pretty bow and talk about equal rights for all.

 

If you want to marry your partner, your choice. If a purple, yellow, black, gray, woman, trisexual rabbit looking person gets something through hard work and not just simply because the law calls for a purple, yellow, black, gray, woman, trisexual rabbit looking person gets some entitlement, I have no problem with that.

 

Equal rights means equal rights, not just because you think someone / something is discriminated against.

 

Bigotry has no place in our society, yet it gets bigoted more and more every day, and that cuts both ways the more laws that have to be made and put in place.

[Soxy]

Do you all want to seriously argue that all these laws that force quotas (lost, um, yes, they are enforceable) in hiring, wages, what businesses get what, who can marry, etc. are NON discriminatory? REVERSE discrimination is just as bad as discrimination, yet you all want to make it this nice pretty bow and talk about equal rights for all.

 

If you want to marry your partner, your choice. If a purple, yellow, black, gray, woman, trisexual rabbit looking person gets something through hard work and not just simply because the law calls for a purple, yellow, black, gray, woman, trisexual rabbit looking person gets some entitlement, I have no problem with that.

 

Equal rights means equal rights, not just because you think someone / something is discriminated against.

 

Bigotry has no place in our society, yet it gets bigoted more and more every day, and that cuts both ways the more laws that have to be made and put in place.

 

That wasn't what we asked and you know it. Do you really believe that affirmative action has put white men at a thorough disadvantage in this country? Do you believe that white men have less opportunities EVERY DAY in America than minorities, women, what have you?

[kapkomet]

History tells me no, but today tells me yes, because I see it every day. It was needed at one point, now it's blown clear out of proportion and I think today it has put white men at a disadvantage.

 

Now, this also cuts both ways, because white men think they're entitled to more, which bothers me. The job market right now is a pretty good example.

 

This is truely a double edge sword kind of a problem.

[Soxy]

History tells me no, but today tells me yes, because I see it every day. It was needed at one point, now it's blown clear out of proportion and I think today it has put white men at a disadvantage.

 

Now, this also cuts both ways, because white men think they're entitled to more, which bothers me. The job market right now is a pretty good example.

 

This is truely a double edge sword kind of a problem.

 

Well, I honestly don't know what to say to that. I had a post all written in my head about examples demonstrating otherwise, but meh. I'm too tired and I know that it wouldn't matter.

 

On a lighter note, this must make AA the MUST EFFECTIVE law ever in the history of time. In 20 years it completely undid 200 years worth of f***ery.

[StrangeSox]

hahahaha

 

yeah, white men sure are at a disadvantage compared to minorities!

[Jenksismyhero]

hahahaha

 

 

keep pretending there isn't white male privilege, kap. Maybe it's that white man's burden that's putting us at a disadvantage!

 

kap, jenks, have you guys ever read any sociology at all? Your arguments are completely blind to reality.

 

i'm not whining about the white man being oppressed, i'm calling out a flaw in the arguments here. You can't say anti-discrimination laws are universal when clearly they're not.

[lostfan]

I can't find the supreme court ruling and I'm on my phone so I'm not going to look for it but there is nowhere that says "you must employ x number of minorities and x number of women"

[mr_genius]

hahahaha

 

yeah, white men sure are at a disadvantage compared to minorities!

 

the problem with the current 'affirmative action' standards is that every group is covered (except the evil white male), even ones which are in no way disadvantaged. For example, rich white women or wealthy Asians are not at some disadvantage. If anything, race should not be considered at all and socioeconomic class could be.

 

The current system is badly flawed and should be replaced.

Edited August 7, 2010 by mr_genius

[bmags]

the problem with the current 'affirmative action' nonsense is that every group is covered (except the evil evil white male), even ones which are in no way disadvantaged. For example, rich white women or wealthy Asians are not at some disadvantage. If anything, race should not be considered at all and socioeconomic class could be.

 

The current system is badly flawed and should be replaced.

 

yeah, this isn't a bad argument.

 

I'm tired of AA getting so overblown in regards to college. If you really didn't get in in favor of a minority, then you were on the fringe and you could have done a lot more to get in. You probably then went to another school and got a very similar education and your life is not different.

 

I went to school in missouri with kids who'd never been to school with black people before. I'd say that the cultural knowledge they learned was pretty important. And missouri is no model for cultural diversity, i think it's 85 or so percent white, a big part of this is due to the atrocious school systems of st. louis and kansas city, so bad that a lot of their HS aren't even accredited anymore. Those school districts serve mostly black students. The state school, which actually keeps academic standards down to be available to the state (which i actually liked), still only has about 5% black population.

 

But white people are getting screwed, man.