patrick.net

Government out there trying to force equality, socialism everywhere lead to this. Every group out there is special, everyone needs government assistance, affirmative action, handout, bailout. Your skin is slightly darker than you need help, your accent is a bit off you need help, you have a few too many children you need help, you bought a house at a wrong time here is your check, you are a delinquent and an idiot here is your check, welfare, food stamps, government job opportunities, etc...

Democratic party loves the idea, they get to turn people into dependents, taking away their freedom and individuality, while putting themselves in charge.

That's Obama's entire campaign, victim mentality. I'm glad I don't belong to any of his special victim groups, and never will!

Kevin says

Do we have a race problems today ?

Yes.

Do we need diversity programs to fix anything anywhere ?

Yes.

Oh yeah, I'd like to hear about these Race problems, preferably from the actual recipient of the supposed Racial problem. Then we'll adjourn to the adjacent room and you can tell all about how diversity can fix this fictitious problem over crack cocaine, and jello shots.

I have to give an example for these guys.
I once was at a small business that was going to be contracted by San Francisco. There is something called the "human rights commission" there and it's a bunch of people to decide if the business contracted is "diverse" etc.
We weren't well paid and the small business had no blacks working there. I doubt any self-respecting black college graduate would have ever worked there.
Our manager went up to San Francisco to discuss the contract and the people looked at our staff and said to him: "This is bad. Your company is all white males!" The manager said "We have a lesbian and an Asian, do you see?"
White males are envied, belittled, made fun of, and generally disrespected in the media.
What exact meaning you want to attribute to "marginalized" is your own bias.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/21/justice/scotus-race-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Kevin says

There's certainly been progress over the last 50 years, but the lack of blacks, hispanics, and ESPECIALLY women in positions of power is stark.

You have been stuck inside the walls of SF to ever notice what has been happening in the great SF Bay Area.

So where is the Occupy Silicon Valley movement ?

Gentlemen, I propose a club to advance white men and push back against the idiocy of the cultural celebration of the filthy Colored man, like St. Patrick's Day. In a few weeks our city streets will be filled to the brim with Coloreds gayly parading, dancing, drinking, and asking for kisses. These disgusting wretches need to know that white men are not going to be pushed around anymore!

Let us make our first stand for the advancement of white men and get cities around the country to cancel St. Patrick's Day celebrations!

Nomograph says

Playing victim won't get you anywhere, Jeremy.

Indeed it won't if you are a "straight white not jewish male". It works for any other group.

Nomograph says

clambo says

He's making an astute observation.

Are you saying that a victim mentality will get you ahead in life?

Of course if you are a Jew, or a Black, or a homosexual, or a Feminist, or at least an invalid.

Gentlemen, we need a name for the marginalized 18 to 52 year old white male club. Might I propose:

Vanilla Boyz
Knightly Kings of Kinship
The NHL
Congressional Committee on Contraception
Davos
Cream and Sugar
National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood (NO MA'AM)

thomas.wong1986 says

Kevin says

There's certainly been progress over the last 50 years, but the lack of blacks, hispanics, and ESPECIALLY women in positions of power is stark.

You have been stuck inside the walls of SF to ever notice what has been happening in the great SF Bay Area.

So where is the Occupy Silicon Valley movement ?

SF doesn't have walls, and if it did it would be hard to get stuck in them from 1000 miles away.

I find this whole thread hilarious.

Kevin, you didn't name one group more marginalized - fail.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/IDoqE5ioYHA

Honest Abe says

Kevin, you didn't name one group more marginalized - fail.

- Black men
- Black women
- White women
- Hispanic men
- Hispanic women
- Native american men
- Native american women

I'm sure I could think of others if I cared to try.

Kevin, I know you keep trying to support the liberal agenda, but why not take the blinders off and escape from "the dark side"?

Its a lot more edifying, uplifting and morally refreshing to support: liberty, free market transactions, cooperation as opposed to force, personal property rights, privacy, life as opposed to government supported abortion and murder, sound money, limited constitutional government, and just plain minding your own business. You should see if you can get your mind around those positive aspects of FREEDOM! It really is refreshing!!

BTW, with any company that wants to do business with the government, or be involved with the making, or creation of
any Federally backed loan (which is now virtually all of them) there is a questionaire which asks: "Is your frim a Small Business? Female Owned? Minority Owned?

The last two questions would eliminate ALLof the groups you "feel" are more marginalized - Fail.

Sincerely,

Honest Abe

"Sociologists from Harvard and Tufts universities asked 209 white and 208 black men and women to rate 'racism' against both ethnic groups since the 1950s on a scale of one to 10."

"The results, published in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, showed that on average blacks saw anti-white bias rising slightly from 1.4 in the 1950s to 1.8 today."

"Blacks also perceived that racism against themselves had steeply declined from 9.7 in the 1950s to 6.1 in the 90s."

"Whites believed that discrimination against them had increased from an average of 1.8 in the 1950s to 4.7 in the 2000s."

"Responding to the results, researchers Michael Norton and Samuel Sommers said that despite predictions that Barack Obama's election in 2008 would herald a 'post racial' America, this had not in fact occurred."

"They concluded: 'A flurry of legal and cultural disputes over the past decade has revealed a new race-related controversy gaining traction: an emerging belief in anti-white prejudice."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390205/Whites-suffer-racism-blacks-Study-shows-white-people-believe-discriminated-against.html#ixzz1n7X9iQZi

The most marginalized group in America are "progressives."

We now have a government dominated by politicians who take an oath to not raise taxes, that is to keep them near their lowest level in the past 50 years, while at the same time we are in a depression with an out of control debt.

These politicians call themselves "conservative."

There was a time not so many decades back, when being conservative wasn't just about rationalizing self interest or the self interest of your wealthy or corporate masters.

marcus says

The most marginalized group in America are "progressives."

Actually it is liberals - suddenly that has become a four letter word so we have to call ourselves progressives.

marcus says

These politicians call themselves "conservative."

And Liberals! Don't forget the Cheese.

It's time we men of stature and merit, being only 0.001% of the nation, be granted "Minority" status.

From a study taken at the University of Wisconsin-Madison............

"The University of Wisconsin-Madison granted an extremely large degree of preference to blacks and Hispanics over Asians and whites in 2007 and 2008. These preferences are evidenced in a number of ways.

Overall Admission Rates. In 2007 and 2008, UW admitted more than 7 out of every 10 black applicants, and more than 8 out of 10 Hispanics, versus roughly 6 in 10 Asians and whites.

SAT Scores among Admittees. The median combined SAT score (math plus verbal) for black admittees was roughly 50 points lower than the median score for Hispanics and 150 points lower than the median score for Asians and whites. The median SAT score for Hispanic admittees was lower than the median for Asian and white admittees by roughly 100 points. The Asian median was 30 points higher than that for whites.

ACT Scores among Admittees. The median ACT score for black admittees was likewise significantly lower than those for Asian and white admittees. The Hispanic median was also substantially lower than those for Asians and whites, while the median score for Asians was slightly higher than the white median.

High School Class Rank among Admittees. The median class rank for black admittees was slightly lower compared to that for Hispanics (by one point in 2007 and two in 2008). It was significantly lower than the average class rank for Asians and whites (85th versus 93rd percentile). Hispanic medians were also lower than those for Asians and whites, while Asian and white admittees had the same median high school rank.

Rejected Applicants. During these years, UW-Madison rejected 1 black and 3 Hispanics, but 39 Asians and 777 whites, despite having higher test scores and class rank compared to the average black admittee.

Odds Ratios. Using the SAT and class rank while controlling for other factors, the black-over-white odds ratio was roughly 576 to 1; the Hispanic-over-white odds ratio was 504 to 1. Using the ACT and class rank while controlling for other factors, the black-to-white odds ratio was 1330 to 1; the Hispanic-over-white odds ratio was even higher (1494 to 1). In contrast, whether using the SAT or ACT, the Asian-white odds ratio was 1 to 1."

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/eupdates/asm76/CEO%20undergrad.pdf

What was the race of the 777 whites?

Ah, yeah, anecdotes are fun. How about some real data?

Median household income:

White: $65,317
Hispanic: $45,871
Black: $40,685

America is only 75% white, but 95% of people in the top 5% of incomes are white.

Comparing men to women is even worse: Men earn, on average, more than $20,000 more than a woman with an equivalent degree and experience.

74% of fortune 500 CEOs are white males.

Women make up less than 20% of congress.

There is not a single black senator in the united states.

The house is almost fair with regards to race; blacks are nearly 10%, with 12% of the population.

We could also look at incarceration rates, high school graduation rates, murder rates, etc., but that would just be silly.

Claiming that white males are marginalized at all -- nevermind "the most marginalized" is fucking ridiculous. It could only be the attitude of a white male who's never known any real hardship in his life.

Kevin says

There is not a single black senator in the united states.

Not so smart comments! There are lots of Black CEOs but your blind to them.

Senator Obama with 2 years experience got a promotion. The "other guy" with 25 years in Congress didnt.

"Obama previously served as a United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned following his victory in the 2008 presidential election."

If you want to talk about unfair racism...or even segregation today ... here you go!

"Over the years, the question has arisen, "Does the caucus allow only black members?" Pete Stark, D-CA., who is white, tried and failed to join in 1975. In January 2007, Josephine Hearn reported in Politico that white members of Congress were not welcome to join the CBC.[8] Freshman Representative Steve Cohen, D-TN., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituency, which is 60% African American. Hearn further reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black." Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-MO., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-MO., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen stated, "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in." Clay issued an official statement from his office:

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives"

On January 25, 2007, Representative Tom Tancredo, R-CO., spoke out against the continued existence of the CBC as well as the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference saying, "It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses."

I feel like having this comment put in jail:

You're a dumb motherfucker.

Kevin says

I feel like having this comment put in jail:

You're a dumb motherfucker.

Ah, ah, ah....that wasn't very polite. I'm surprised your making personal attacks like that!

You can't invalidate an argument through personal attacks. Won't your argument stand up to debate?

Nomograph says

Kevin says

You're a dumb motherfucker.

Scagnetti went on my Ignore list, so now he can feel even more marginalized. People like Scagnetti and Jeremy are self-marginalizing; the whole of society puts their kind on Ignore.

When someone makes a post like this, it's interesting to see what kind of folks crawl out from under their rock.

I realize Nomograph can't see this but I'll respond anyway....

You have the 4th highest "ignore" rate of anyone on this website and the 2nd highest "disliked" rate! Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black?!!?

Also, the text from Kevin you quoted, was probably directed toward Wong! On the other hand, maybe Kevin was reading some of your previous posts and it was directed toward YOU!

You tried to pigeon hole me early in the discussion. I turned the tables on you, and you backed off. You didn't try to challenge me again in this thread and instead went after Jeremy. That was smart of you!

Your accusations toward me are a classic example of trying to silence debate. We should be ENCOURAGING debate on these type of topics, not stifling it. We can never move forward if we don't challenge some of the assumptions we have that may be wrong! Also, I wont be knocked off course for fear of you or anyone else "calling me names".

P.S. ~ Not once in this debate did I ever say I "felt" marginalized.

Scagnetti says

Won't your argument stand up to debate?

His argument did. Wong chose to ignore it, as it appears you did.

If you persist in ignoring the facts, no argument, no matter how well presented, will be effective.

Scagnetti, I like how you dug up the dirt on Nomo. 4th highest "ignore" rate and 2 nd highest "dislike". Hahahaha. I always knew he was a wack job but that kinda confirms it, well done! (I think I'll put Nomo on both of those lists too)

And Kevin finally revealed his true colors with his "mo-fo" outburst. None of those fools identified any other group more marginalized than white males. They are the true racists because they want to judge people based on the color of their skin, not by the content of their character.

WE, on the other hand, are "color blind"!!

tatupu70 says

Scagnetti says

Won't your argument stand up to debate?

His argument did. Wong chose to ignore it, as it appears you did.

If you persist in ignoring the facts, no argument, no matter how well presented, will be effective.

Here is the whole of my post that you cut......

Scagnetti says

Kevin says

I feel like having this comment put in jail:

You're a dumb motherfucker.

Ah, ah, ah....that wasn't very polite. I'm surprised your making personal attacks like that!

You can't invalidate an argument through personal attacks. Won't your argument stand up to debate?

That question was in response to his personal attack. If the argument is well laid out, no personal attacks are necessary. Those type of attacks are reserved for when someone can no longer effectively argue their point and they have nothing left but name calling. Please see my above post about trying to stifle debate by accusations and "name calling".

Scagnetti says

Those type of attacks are reserved for when someone can no longer effectively argue their point and they have nothing left but name calling. Please see my above post about trying to stifle debate by accusations and "name calling".

Again--that assumes the other party in the discussion is arguing in good faith and listening to your points. If not, then the whole back and forth is useless and frustrating. Kevin's points were well laid out. Don't you agree?

tatupu70 says

Scagnetti says

Those type of attacks are reserved for when someone can no longer effectively argue their point and they have nothing left but name calling. Please see my above post about trying to stifle debate by accusations and "name calling".

Again--that assumes the other party in the discussion is arguing in good faith and listening to your points. If not, then the whole back and forth is useless and frustrating. Kevin's points were well laid out. Don't you agree?

Whether someone is directly engaging and refuting a persons arguments, facts, and figures with their own or not, I still don't see a reason to hurl vulgarities at them. It weakens your own position.

Lets be honest! It's a steep mountain to climb to overcome someone's predetermined opinion! It can be frustrating but it's not pointless. The best you normally can do, is to try to put the slightest amount of doubt in their mind. It's wishful thinking to assume that person is going to say "You're right, I was wrong". Also, keep in mind, there are many viewers who aren't participating in the discussion that are forming judgments themselves from OUR arguments.

Kevin has came up with some facts and figures that are interesting. I could argue against some of them if I wished. It's not my intent to prove that a group is the "most" or the "least" anything. I want to challenge some of the assumptions that have been ingrained in us.

Kevin says

I feel like having this comment put in jail:

You're a dumb motherfucker.

I don't quite get it. You want me to delete that comment and stop you from posting for a day?

Kevin says

I feel like having this comment put in jail:

You're a dumb motherfucker.

I don't quite get it. You want me to delete that comment and stop you from posting for a day?

I just had to say what I was thinking.

Kev - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Black_Caucus_of_State_Legislators

http://www.nlc.org/build-skills-networks/networks/constituency-groups/nbc-leo

One more for the record...but don't you go hurling any bad language my way!!

Honest Abe says

Kev - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Black_Caucus_of_State_Legislators

Honest Abe says

http://www.nlc.org/build-skills-networks/networks/constituency-groups/nbc-leo

One more for the record...but don't you go hurling any bad language my way!!

It's really all about a groups "racial consciousness". Non-whites are allowed and encouraged to have it. Whites are not. See the below example.

kentm says

Jeremy says

Straight white males between the ages of 18 and 54. As far as I can tell, this is the only group of Americans that can not form a group to promote themselves or their own advancement within American society. Am I wrong?

By the way, boo-f'ing-hoo. Practically every single private club in the country was Straight white males between the ages of 18 and 54 until a few years ago.

Scagnetti says

It's really all about a groups "racial consciousness". Non-whites are allowed and encouraged to have it. Whites are not.

Although this wasn't always so. There was a time when whites had a very strong sense of racial consciousness. Current views about race touted by the media and the education system are in direct opposition to the views whites had up until about the 1950's - 60's.

They believed people differed in temperament, ability, intelligence, and the type of societies they lived in. They also believed races should be separated socially and politically.

Sound familiar? IT SHOULD! Minorities pursue strictly "racial policies and agendas" all the time this day and age!

Why are we obsessed with skin color? Who cares?

Or are we hard-wired to fight based on skin color?

It's a known fact that you can't put two pet gerbils in the same cage if the gerbils don't recognize each other's scent. If you do, the gerbils will fight to the death.

I guess humans aren't that much different.

The funny thing is this: liberals and people of color still demand concessions based on skin color alone, where as others want to judge people by their skills, and content of their character, not by the color of their skin.

Which group's are practicing racism?