patrick.net

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?

Honest Abe says

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?

+1....Where did all the naysayers go Abe?

Kevin says

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.

I'm not sure about the word marginalized but.........

Doesn't the chart below show the increased belief of discrimination against whites? Does the survey show that BLACKS think that whites are more discriminated against now then before?
Does the chart show that blacks are believed to be less discriminated now then before by both blacks and whites?

Sure--racial bias is decreasing. I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

Honest Abe says

The funny thing is this: liberals and people of color still demand concessions based on skin color alone

For the most part people of color that are the least bit concerned about making their way through out the world with out feeling like someone owes them a shinning path, are not in this group. And there are plenty of people of color that fall into this category. They look for the nearest exit every time this topic comes up.
As for people of color pulling the race card, they have every right to, in a world where everyone is looking for a leg up. At least they are ingenious about it.

I have no Eph'n Idea what in hell the white Liberals motives are. It damn sure isn't to make a better life for the people of color. If they had their way, the Liberals would like to keep them quarantined in the Red line district as far away from the liberal award winning schools as possible. And the more dependent on social services, then the more jobs can be created for those with a degree in Liberal arts, they obtained from their supperior "Good School District".

This reality is the Only goddamn "Transparency" in the whole damn country.

I am tired of ivory tower academics lumping the Irish race in with "white". The Irish are a distinct race and species from modern humans. The are the lowest of the low, below Plains Savages, Pygmies, and French Men.

I dare say most of the "whites" facing discrimination are tainted with Irish blood. If such is the case, I say, "Huzzah!"

tatupu70 says

Sure--racial bias is decreasing. I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

Gee.....that's strange! I could have swore it was you who said this.

tatupu70 says

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

Scagnetti says

Kevin says

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.

I'm not sure about the word marginalized but.........

Doesn't the chart below show the increased belief of discrimination against whites? Does the survey show that BLACKS think that whites are more discriminated against now then before?

Does the chart show that blacks are believed to be less discriminated now then before by both blacks and whites?

People being less racist is not an indication of marginalization of white people, unless you believe that white people are being marginalized if they can't be racist or something.

White males ARE the mainstream, primary element in the united states (i.e. the exact opposite of a "marginalized" group). Calling us "marginalized" is so fucking ridiculous I don't even know where to begin.

Kevin says

People being less racist is not an indication of marginalization of white people, unless you believe that white people are being marginalized if they can't be racist or something.

White males ARE the mainstream, primary element in the united states (i.e. the exact opposite of a "marginalized" group). Calling us "marginalized" is so fucking ridiculous I don't even know where to begin.

Wait a second here folks...

#1 - I never used the word "marginalize". You did. I used the word discrimination.

#2 - Look at the chart again. It shows an increase, yes that's right ladies and gentlemen, an increase in discrimination AGAINST white people. I REPEAT an INCREASE! Whites believe they are more discriminated against then in the past. Blacks also believe whites are more discriminated against then in the past. Once again, the chart shows an INCREASE of discrimination AGAINST whites.

And yes, it also shows that there is less anti-black bias as well.

@Kevin & tatupu70

Here is some information that will be helpful for now and in the future!

-A graph is a picture of information.
-There are three main elements in a graph.
1)the y axis
2)the x axis
3)at least one line or set of bars
-To understand the graph, do the following
1)read the labels and range of numbers on the x and y axis
2)find the trend(s) formed by the line(s) or set of bar(s)

To start you off on the right foot I will interpret the above graph for you!

-Whites think that anti black bias has significantly went down the last 50 years.
-Blacks think that anti black bias has significantly went down the last 50 years.
-Whites think that anti white bias has significantly went up the last 50 years.
-Blacks think that anti white bias has somewhat went up the last 50 years.

Well, since you are being so helpful, I guess I will join in and aid in your understanding.

This statement:

tatupu70 says

Sure--racial bias is decreasing. I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

Is NOT the same as this statement:

tatupu70 says

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

So, while I did post both of them, they are in no way contradictory.

Does that help? Let me know if you need a more detailed explanation!

tatupu70 says

Well, since you are being so helpful, I guess I will join in and aid in your understanding.

This statement:

tatupu70 says

Sure--racial bias is decreasing. I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

Is NOT the same as this statement:

tatupu70 says

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

So, while I did post both of them, they are in no way contradictory.

Does that help? Let me know if you need a more detailed explanation!

Here is a recap.

-I post a graph showing increasing anti-white bias and decreasing anti-black bias.
-You say "Sure--racial bias is decreasing. I don't think anyone is arguing that point."
-I point out that you are ignoring the facts presented in the chart.

You ignored the fact that anti white bias is on the rise according to that study. You had previously complained about people ignoring facts. You just ignored the facts yourself. You can't have it both ways tatupu70!

It's probably natural that as the number (and percentage) of non whites in the population increases, that "white people" would simultaneously be more accepting ( discriminate less), but also feel more discriminated against?

I appreciate most of the discourse here, and think much of it is rather intelligent, whether I agree with it or not. Although it was obvious to me, I guess I can clarify what I was saying, or the point I was making.

Kids can organize groups that promote kids and are exclusive to kids
Senior citizens can organize groups that promote senior citizens and are exclusive to senior citizens
gays can organize groups that promote gays and are exclusive to gays
women can organize groups that promote women and are exclusive to women
blacks can organize groups that promote blacks and are exclusive to blacks
asians can organize groups that promote asians and are exclusive to asians.....

you get the idea.

white males (but actually whites in general) can NOT organize a group that promotes white males. And any community group that a white male belongs to can in no way be exclusive to white males.

Clearly this is a double standard.

White people believing that they're being more discriminated against is perception, not fact.

White males do not need an advocacy group. We are the dominant, mainstream, majority culture. Historically marginalized groups are the ones who need advocacy groups.

It really is this simple.

Kevin, there are wonderful examples of every "group" in America pulling thermselves up with their own labor. Everyone applaud's that, inspiring success stories that lift our spirits is part of the American dream.

What many dislike is the preferential treatment showered upon the government approved few. As if those groups are incapable of helping themselves, who need extra help because life's not fair, or they are too stupid to figure out life's rules, or they need a caring government to coddle their every need, or they need to get put at the head of the line because of something that happened 250 years ago, or to help level the playing field, blah, blah blah, whine, whine whine. Liberal hogwash.

Shut up, get to work, bust your balls, and make something out of your life. Stop complaining and demanding a double standard of prefential treatment.

Stop judging people by their skin color, it only makes YOU a racist. How about treating everyone EQUAL, thats the liberal password, right?

Todays book: Animal Farm Geo. Orwell

Good day, Abe

Nomograph says

There's actually a large number of groups dedicated to the advancement of white people.

Instead of playing victim why don't you join one, Jeremy? Or better yet, start your own.

* American Third Position Party, is an American political party which promotes white supremacism. It was founded in 2010, and defines its principal mission as representing the political interests of white Americans.

* American Nazi Party, is a neo-Nazi organization based largely upon the ideals and policies of Adolf Hitler's NSDAP in Germany during the Third Reich but claims that it is in conformance with the Constitutional principles of the U.S.'s Founding Fathers. It also supports Holocaust denial.

* Aryan Nations, is a white supremacist neo-Nazi organization founded in the 1970s by Richard Girnt Butler as an arm of the Christian Identity group known as the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian.

Nomograph's argument is transparent here. Every group he named, is or has been labeled as a white supremacist or "hate" group. He is attempting to label all white groups who are racially solidified as racist. There are black supremacist groups too such as.....

-Nation of Islam
-New Black Panther Party
-United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors
-Tribu Ka
-Nation of Yahweh
-Bobo Shanti
etc. etc.

This does not mean that all black groups are racist. Nor is Nomograph suggesting this. He is saying that....

Nomograph says

The world is filled with double, triple, quadruple, and higher order standards. Many of these multiple standards have evolved or were created for very good reasons.

Many of these multiple standards have evolved or were created for very good reasons huh? Since the context of this thread is whites, you must be preaching that whites SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to form a group for good reasons. What are these reasons?

Remember what I said before?

Scagnetti says

It's possible to organize a fellowship of all whites promoting the advancement of "white people". You need to be ready to be called a "racist","nazi", "kkk member" etc. etc. See below......

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Isn't this what the klan and the militia movement and, lately, the teabaggers were all about?

The anti-white figureheads, pundits, and parrots will come out in force to discredit a group like that any way possible. The most common tactic would be to call the group "racist". It doesn't matter if anything they say is true or not, what matters is the label.

It looks like Nomograph has degenerated to the point where he will insinuate that any racially conscious white group is racist, just like I said would happen above. Am I a psychic or do you think this type of illogical reasoning has been used before?

Nomograph says

Disagreement with Affirmative Action has NOTHING to do with your claim of being marginalized because you are a white male.

It has everything to do with discrimination! Affirmative action gives preferential treatment to non whites and women based on there sex and race. The program is inherently biased! It is supposed to be, "the best person gets the job".

The majority of Americans believe that affirmative action gives preferential treatment to minorities and women. http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0623.htm

The majority of Americans believe that affirmative action should be abolished. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1307

Kevin says

White people believing that they're being more discriminated against is perception, not fact.

White males do not need an advocacy group. We are the dominant, mainstream, majority culture. Historically marginalized groups are the ones who need advocacy groups.

It really is this simple.

Here is a fact. From 1998 to 2008, there was a 45 percent rise in race based discrimination filings by whites! (Scott Cannon, "More Whites Complaining to EEOC of Racial Discrimination" Kansas City Star, July 28, 2009.)

"Affirmative action" is complicated. Its intent was to prevent discrimination. Only sometimes, and more so in the past does this translate to " preferential treatment to non whites and women."

Preferential treatment to non whites and women makes more sense to me in some places than others, and it's usually done voluntarily, more than because of fear of consequences. This is especially true within corporations that sometimes go out of their way to promote having a diverse workforce.

It's fascinating to me, that the same people who complain about welfare also complain about this. IF in the future you want to be justified in telling people that they only have themselves to blame for not having a good job, then the workplace environments out there have to be diverse.

Don't we all at least partially understand the complexity of this? And probably many of us, myself included, have some ambivalence about it when it comes to for example med school or law school admissions.

But at the same time it's an example (before the current fascist era) of our government, corporations and educational institutions addressing a really tough issue that didn't have a perfect solution.

This is a good description of the evolution of affirmative action. IF you are just going to read part, check out #6 and #7 about med schools. Quotas were deemed unconstitutional, and yet affirmative action survived.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

Scagnetti says

Nomograph says

Disagreement with Affirmative Action has NOTHING to do with your claim of being marginalized because you are a white male.

It has everything to do with discrimination! Affirmative action gives preferential treatment to non whites and women based on there sex and race. The program is inherently biased! It is supposed to be, "the best person gets the job".

The majority of Americans believe that affirmative action gives preferential treatment to minorities and women. http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0623.htm

The majority of Americans believe that affirmative action should be abolished. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1307

Of course Affirmative action gives preferential treatment to women and minorties -- THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE PROGRAM!

There will come a day when affirmative action is no longer needed, but that day hasn't come yet.

And, yes, the majority of people (i.e. the non-marginalized groups) would OF COURSE believe such programs should be abolished. They've always opposed them.

Affirmative action was not "intended to prevent discrimination". It was intended to try to close the achievement gap between men and women, between whites and minorities. It has worked to some extent, but it's not done yet.