Poll: Do you believe in the "everyone is racist" campaign.

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    affirmative action [...] Recognizing that injury is not thinking less of them, as a people
    The recognition and intent behind isn't. However, many implementations (quotas, for instance) do come from the angle that those victims can't raise up without intervention from the oppressing party: that removes agency from them, and it's racist as racist can be. The definition is not only what it makes you feel good about yourself.

    It may serve a good purpose somewhere in the future (after 25 years it seems to be not working at all though), so I take it as a learning experience. But yes, as it stands today it's racist. Particularly for someone that ignores intent when it comes to race issues, it seems disingenuous that you argue affirmative action is not racist because of it's intent.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Why does someone have to "rise up" above someone mundane to be noticed? Affirmative action tries to level the playing field.
    to raise up to the median. Not above.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    First, that really isn't true. And second; bigotry is more widespread than some people think. It isn't "almost over", with a few people tucked away in mountain enclaves who still express bigotry. It's a lot of people. But not "pretty much everyone", either.



    You're not grasping the definition.

    Bigotry isn't recognizing race, or working to correct inequity. Affirmative action, by definition, is not bigotry.

    It's thinking less of someone, based on a superficial characteristic. For instance, recognizing that women have, on average, lower upper body strength than men, that isn't sexist. Barring women from being firefighters based on that, however, is. And in a great many cases, the "statistical data" people cite as if the superficial characteristic were the causative factor, ignoring the very obvious socioeconomic factors at play in that same data set, which usually have been confirmed as causative factors; socioeconomics explains almost the entirety of ethnic discrepancies in terms of crime rate, in the US, for instance; when you control for those factors, the racial distinctions more or less disappear.
    Here's where I disagree, because essentially I do think all people are a little bit bigoted or racist in some way shape or form. I have to agree with Nextormento on this. Trying to get rid of one form of racism/bigotry, typically just embraces another form. Simply put, regardless of what happens, you are probably offending someone.

    Add that I also disagree with your point about affirmative action. I think it does make someone think less of someone. A woman or a man of color gets a job because of it, and what do you think their co-workers are thinking? Yup, this person only got the job because they were a woman or a person of color, not because they deserved it or earned it. Thus, IMO, it is racist and bigoted.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailswipe View Post
    By that definition pretty much everyone is a bigot.
    Yep, and if anyone thinks they're better than bigots because they're not a bigot, they're a bigot. There's no way out. If you can't beat em, join em. Even the most anti racist liberal protestors who rile against particular racial groups for "being racist" are, by definition, racist. You can't escape "being human". I have no idea why people keep trying.
    Last edited by Janaa; 2014-11-05 at 09:31 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by DSRilk View Post
    The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Affirmative action is meant to level the field. Because that was not, and is still not the case (about rising up to the median).

    I do not think it is a perfect system mind you. But it is there for a reason.
    I know it's meant to do that. I'm arguing about certain implementations that are ultimately racist. And that it's flawed in that it has furthered segregation in some cases. One can't blanket state 'nope not racist', when a sufficiently large amount of policies are indeed racist. As such I take it as a learning experience.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Does intent matter? Because, I can listen to two different people talking about race, and one can come off racist, while the other person comes off funny.

    Affirmative action is not perfect. I am sure there are places where it can be improved/corrected, etc... but the intent matters. The intent is not to be racist, the intent is to level the field so that minorities have a fair shot at getting in.
    Just so we're clear: I'm not disagreeing with you but with Endus. Because Endus dismisses intent and condemns what essentially amounts to thoughtcrimes. I think intent matters: it's just not the whole picture or the only metric. And I'm not arguing that affirmative action is evil or anything: just that it has its ups and downs and needs deeper examination.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post


    That's just factually untrue. Their lower average socioeconomic status is an injury that was done to them, as a group. Through hundreds of years of enslavement and oppression. Recognizing that injury is not thinking less of them, as a people, any more than having a broken leg makes you less valuable a person. It just means you need the bone to be set, and a cast put on to protect it while it heals.

    And that's what affirmative action is.
    Im not in disagreement that it's not a issue that arises due to genetics/race etc, but it is effectively thinking less of a group of people that do have black skin. Im not really sure i understand your first post in this context.

  8. #48
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Arlon View Post
    Im not in disagreement that it's not a issue that arises due to genetics/race etc, but it is effectively thinking less of a group of people that do have black skin. Im not really sure i understand your first post in this context.
    Because you have the context literally wrong. It is not "thinking less of a group". Not unless you add a statement that the inherent worth of a group is predicated on their current socioeconomic status, which I would flat-out deny to be true.

    Recognizing statistical demographics isn't racist. Concluding that any negative factors in those demographics are due to their race is what's racist.


  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by nextormento View Post
    Just so we're clear: I'm not disagreeing with you but with Endus. Because Endus dismisses intent and condemns what essentially amounts to thoughtcrimes. I think intent matters: it's just not the whole picture or the only metric. And I'm not arguing that affirmative action is evil or anything: just that it has its ups and downs and needs deeper examination.
    I can agree with this. My opinion though, in regards to affirmative action is that the design has the intent of "leveling the playing field" as Connal put it. That really is inherently a racist notion, because at that point you are taking the inferior and not the best qualified. Thus, it holds back progression.

    Simple, and insane, example, What if Blizzard said that every 25man raid team (is this still a thing? haven't played WoW in a long time) and 10man had to have at least 20% repreesentation by women gamers, How would gamers feel about that? Your choice a superior healer vs an adequate undergeared one just based on gender. It would hold your progression back. Doesn't mean that the adequate healer (in this case the woman) can't learn and step up her game and be a great healer, just that it's going to hold you back for a while as you play and hope and pray they get better. {Disclaimer here: I have no bias against women in gaming, in fact I think there are many amazing women gamers out there and many far superior to their male compatriots.}

  10. #50
    Legendary! Vargur's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    European Federation
    Posts
    6,664
    You can be racist all you want, just don't flaunt it.
    Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    To resist the influence of others, knowledge of oneself is most important.


  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Because you have the context literally wrong. It is not "thinking less of a group". Not unless you add a statement that the inherent worth of a group is predicated on their current socioeconomic status, which I would flat-out deny to be true.

    Recognizing statistical demographics isn't racist. Concluding that any negative factors in those demographics are due to their race is what's racist.
    However that's not what society at large deems as racism. They deem "a random member of x race is statistically more likely to y" as racist, no matter whether it's mathematically true or not. What would be racist, rather would be "a random member of x race is statistically more likely to y because they're x".

    At work and typing on phone so can't easily quote, but on the other points regarding affirmative action not being racist because its intent isn't racist, unfortunately doesn't prevent the implementation often being racist. For example, the all too frequent example of empty seats in University courses because "they're reserved for members of x race" meaning people of another race miss out on available space. Now, I'm aware the AA truist would still say "it's better to be empty rather than not filled with people who are x race because that would create a societal imbalance", but that doesn't prevent it being individual racism against those being denied entry to said course on the basis of their race. And there are other examples where no such imbalance exists, just using this example since it's so commonly known. If I am personally disadvantaged because of my race, I am a victim of racist policy, no matter what guise it comes in.
    Quote Originally Posted by DSRilk View Post
    The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught.

  12. #52
    Bloodsail Admiral vastx's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Considering one of the pillars of Republican support is implicit racism against blacks....yeah, I buy it. The Southern Strategy still forms a cornerstone of GOP electoral politics.
    Garbage.

    Show me Republican policy that is racist towards blacks.

  13. #53
    Deleted
    Things like this prove that racism is just used by people that like to play the victim to further there own needs.

  14. #54
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by anyaka21 View Post
    I can agree with this. My opinion though, in regards to affirmative action is that the design has the intent of "leveling the playing field" as Connal put it. That really is inherently a racist notion, because at that point you are taking the inferior and not the best qualified. Thus, it holds back progression.
    Also completely untrue. Affirmative action is not about taking on people who aren't qualified.

    As for "best qualified", that also isn't true, because you're trying to artificially weight qualifications. For jobs or university applications, there's a set of minimum standards, and then they evaluate you on a host of merits. There is no "best" applicant, there's only those who appeal most to the employer/university. A higher GPA does not automatically mean you should be getting that spot in the university, to begin with.


    Quote Originally Posted by Janaa View Post
    At work and typing on phone so can't easily quote, but on the other points regarding affirmative action not being racist because its intent isn't racist, unfortunately doesn't prevent the implementation often being racist. For example, the all too frequent example of empty seats in University courses because "they're reserved for members of x race" meaning people of another race miss out on available space.
    Affirmative action quotas were deemed unconstitutional in 1978. That's like 35 years ago. Your talking points are in need of updating.

    Now, I'm aware the AA truist would still say "it's better to be empty rather than not filled with people who are x race because that would create a societal imbalance", but that doesn't prevent it being individual racism against those being denied entry to said course on the basis of their race. And there are other examples where no such imbalance exists, just using this example since it's so commonly known. If I am personally disadvantaged because of my race, I am a victim of racist policy, no matter what guise it comes in.
    Affirmative action doesn't disadvantage anyone based on race. Just literally untrue. You are, again, establishing that the white student is somehow more deserving of the spot than the African-American student, so the only way the black kid gets in is if he "steals" the white kid's slot somehow.

    That is racist. The student who didn't get accepted lost that acceptance due to their own personal lack of merit. And the reason affirmative action programs encourage minority applicants is because student bodies are still disproportionately weighted against people of those ethnic groups; they already have more white (and Asian) kids than would normally be expected, based on a proportional representation.

    Claiming that AA is racist against white students is just nonsense, and deliberately ignores necessary context.


  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    That is not what is meant by leveling the field.

    4.0 White Student and 4.0 Black student. <--affirmative action leveling out bigotry, the blacks student should have an equal shot of getting it.

    vs

    3.5 White student and 4.0 Black student. <--affirmative action leveling out bigotry, the blacks student should have a better shot of getting it.

    vs

    4.0 White Student and 3.5 Black Student. <--affirmative action reasonably should not play a part here, other then giving the black student the shot of applying, and competing with other students.

    That is not racist, that is leveling the field against bigotry.
    yet too many times the 3.5 black student, woman student will get the class or into med school, or law school based on their color or gender to fill those quotas. That is what affirmative action ends up doing and as thus denying someone better qualified, based on the color of their skin and their gender.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Janaa View Post
    However that's not what society at large deems as racism. They deem "a random member of x race is statistically more likely to y" as racist, no matter whether it's mathematically true or not. What would be racist, rather would be "a random member of x race is statistically more likely to y because they're x".
    You're misstating their position. The vast majority of society tends to view the former example as problematic when it's quite frequently used as a means of justifying something negative about random individual members of "X race". Which is an Ecological Fallacy.

  17. #57
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by anyaka21 View Post
    yet too many times the 3.5 black student, woman student will get the class or into med school, or law school based on their color or gender to fill those quotas. That is what affirmative action ends up doing and as thus denying someone better qualified, based on the color of their skin and their gender.
    Again, quotas haven't been legal since 1978. Seriously, I think the issue is that some of you just don't understand what affirmative action is.

    Also, if the school requires a 3.5 GPA, then there's no reason not to take the black student. And a 4.0 GPA doesn't mean you're a better candidate than a student with a 3.5. That isn't how university admissions work, at a very fundamental level. GPA only really "matters" if it's exceptionally high, otherwise they're just going to ensure it's above the minimum and then they've evaluate you on other more subjective matters.

    My application to grad school was much more about the content of my research proposal and my background. My GPA they only needed to check to ensure I had at least a 3.0, beyond that they didn't care, and an applicant with a 4.3 GPA and without my sundry other qualifications would not have beaten me out for the position.
    Last edited by Endus; 2014-11-05 at 10:25 PM.


  18. #58
    Everyone is racist? Nah, I wouldn't say everyone is racist.

    Everyone is prejudice though. EVERYONE holds at least 1 prejudice.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Affirmative action quotas were deemed unconstitutional in 1978. That's like 35 years ago. Your talking points are in need of updating.
    Actually, I live in NZ, where such quotas are still in place, through education, housing, employment, etc.

    Affirmative action doesn't disadvantage anyone based on race. Just literally untrue. You are, again, establishing that the white student is somehow more deserving of the spot than the African-American student, so the only way the black kid gets in is if he "steals" the white kid's slot somehow.
    Quite the opposite - I was saying the white student isn't *less* deserving of the spot.

    That is racist. The student who didn't get accepted lost that acceptance due to their own personal lack of merit.
    Clearly we're talking at cross purposes as you're possibly unaware that in many places around the world, NZ and Australia included, race-based slot reservations still exist as an issue that we have to deal with and discuss. However I accept the misunderstanding - the discussion on here is largely US centric, even if due to the nature of the internet, the campaign being discussed becomes a global talking point.
    Last edited by Janaa; 2014-11-05 at 10:31 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by DSRilk View Post
    The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught.

  20. #60
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Janaa View Post
    Actually, I live in NZ, where such quotas are still in place, through education, housing, employment, etc.


    Quite the opposite - I was saying the white student isn't *less* deserving of the spot.


    Clearly we're talking at cross purposes as you're unaware that in many places around the world, NZ and Australia included, race-based slot reservations still exist as an issue that we have to deal with and discuss. However I accept the misunderstanding - the discussion on here is largely US centric, even if due to the nature of the internet, the campaign being discussed becomes a global talking point.
    By the same stance, complaining about a quota system is not a complaint about affirmative action in general. It's a complaint about a quota system.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •