patrick.net

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.

Kevin says

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.

Actually, better probably to describe it as being about providing equal opportunity, where preventing discrimination and closing the achievement gap would be indirect results of this. Often times, providing equal opportunity goes hand in hand with not discriminating, especially in lower skill jobs.

In any case, the language used by the government has been that of anti-discrimination or "non-discriminatory practices."

Kennedy and Johnson's executive orders on affirmative action:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10925

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246

We live in a country where Apoo the immigrant behind the counter at the quickie mart, could be president if he really sat his mind to it, and had enough people that dug his stuff.

I think at this point, nobody should get an unfair advantage awarded to them, over anyone. People need to quit trying to Handicap society. Those that want to, will aspire to, and those that don't will only screw it up, until they do. You can't poke someone laying in the gutter and say "you there! here take this coat and go manage the FED" Well you could, but we probably shouldn't ever do it again. It's no different than handing a broom to a successful entrepreneur and telling him to go sweep the street.

I was listening to KGO radio while driving this afternoon. The lady talking was a woman I don't know who, and she was conversing with some other woman about the Academy Awards (Oscars).
The second one was explaining who exactly comprised the Academy who of course vote on which movie, actor, actress, etc. is their favorite.
"Most of them are white men, over 65. They're like a bunch of college professors in the 70's or something"
The response from the KGO babe was derisive laughter and some comment about how they are not really making any strides in "diversity", and it was as if this organization was POISONOUS for being comprised of so many white successful men. Imagine the injustice!

Kevin says

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

50 years is plenty of time in which success has been acheived.
Again, I remind you of the current president in office.

TPB says

We live in a country where Apoo the immigrant behind the counter at the quickie mart, could be president if he really sat his mind to it, and had enough people that dug his stuff.

Other than the part of the constitution that bars immigrants from being President, right?

TPB says

I think at this point, nobody should get an unfair advantage awarded to them, over anyone.

I agree. Lets make sure that all schools have the exact same amount of money, all children are raised by equally competent parents, and nobody is allowed to inherit anything.

thomas.wong1986 says

50 years is plenty of time in which success has been acheived.
Again, I remind you of the current president in office.

You can't make up for a millenia of discrimination with 50 years.

And a single half-black president doesn't mean that there's nothing left to do. There's still a massive educational, employment, income, business ownership, and government representation gap between white males and most other groups.

Hey, at least this conversation has moved from the fantasy land of "white men are the most marginalized group" to something that is actually a somewhat reasonable discussion.

Kevin says

You can't make up for a millenia of discrimination with 50 years.
And a single half-black president doesn't mean that there's nothing left to do. There's still a massive educational, employment, income, business ownership, and government representation gap between white males and most other groups.

Should it be 75, 100, or 200 years...and who is to decide that ?

How many black presidents/congressmen must we have until so called discrimination has ended?
How many black CEOs and doctors must we have ?

Whats the quota you have in mind...

This all sounds like demands of some marxist guerrilla group holding out in the jungles of Peru demanding some power sharing structure from the government without actually having to do any work.

Kevin says

Hey, at least this conversation has moved from the fantasy land of "white men are the most marginalized group" to something that is actually a somewhat reasonable discussion.

Keep repeating that and being in denial. My answer is NO, your wrong!

thomas.wong1986 says

Should it be 75, 100, or 200 years...and who is to decide that ?

I suppose it could start being 'decided' when studies like the one below no longer reveal biases in the systems that have been traditionally and pretty much forever controlled by aging white men. To summarize, the study reveals that gender biasses completely influence hiring practices at most symphonies in favor of white males, and that these biases are eliminated when applicant musicians are tested behind screens - IE the talent is allowed to speak for itself and applicants aren't screened out or marginalized because they're women.

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml

"Efforts to conceal the identities of musicians auditioning for spots in symphony orchestras significantly boost the chances of women to succeed, a study co-written by a Princeton economist suggests.

Traditionally, women have been underrepresented in American and European orchestras. Renowned (male) conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply unsuitable for orchestras, and some European orchestras do not hire women at all. Proving discrimination in hiring practices, however, has been difficult."

On being white in America and being offended by affirmative action... A friend of mine describes it as such: "Imagine someone who has been been riding a bicycle downhill with the wind at their back for so long they've forgotten that they're going downhill with the wind pushing them. Then, when they see someone coming in the opposite direction, struggling up the hill against the wind they just assume the problem is with individual and say "hey, what's their problem? We're both just riding bikes..."

thomas.wong1986 says

Keep repeating that and being in denial. My answer is NO, your wrong

Thomas, unfortunately you pretty clearly just don't understand the concept, and making an assumption based on your log in name - that your family is heritage is chinese - I find that kind of surprising, unless I suppose you actually are pretty deep denial. Have you looked into the kind of immigration practices that were in place in California not many years ago for people coming in from china? Do a bit of reading on Angel Island. Would you be arguing to keep those policies in place were they still policy?

Affirmative action is a very enlightened method to attempt enrich our entire culture & society, over the continued preferential treatment of one group. And frankly I applaud if for no other simple reason that it gets more hot multi-cultuaral chicks into the workforce. ;-). However, if your personal philosophy is one based on personal selfishness at the expense of others then I would indeed see why you'd have a harder time understanding or accepting the concepts.

Kevin says

I agree. Lets make sure that all schools have the exact same amount of money, all children are raised by equally competent parents, and nobody is allowed to inherit anything.

So you do admit liberals think most Black families, are headed by sheer incompetence? That's why the Liberals so desperately try to keep under some government or state wardship. And the Liberals want to take from those that are well off, especially those that inherited from a family and give it to them?

Your comeback is why I think Liberals are too incompetent to lead.
The dishonesty in the Republicans can be augmented by subpoenas, but like Scooter sez, you can't fix fucking stupid. This is why I would vote Palin/Buchanan(anyone for that matter) over Obama.

Kevin says

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

Yes, and the program has been built on a base of poor reasoning. It has been wrong since it started and it still is today. We are trying to cure racism and sexism with a racist and sexist policy? Isn't this government approved discrimination? Do the ends justify the means?

Nobody is trying to cure anything. Only accelerate the change. Black and white authoritarian minded thinkers aren't good at solving problems that don't have nice solutions. Speaking of which...

TPB says

you can't fix fucking stupid

Just because you can't comprehend it, doesn't make it stupid. In fact,...well nevermind.

kentm says

women have been underrepresented in American and European

If women have no interest in a given profession, you cannot have govt mandate to require any under represented group (women) to occupy such professions all for the sake of 'equal representation'. Why do Orchestras ? why not do auto mechanics.. Are many women interested in being mechanics ? Not really...

It just gets stupider and stupider..

thomas.wong1986 says

If women have no interest in a given profession, you cannot have govt mandate to require any under represented group (women) to occupy such professions all for the sake of 'equal representation'. Why do Orchestras ? why not do auto mechanics.. Are many women interested in being mechanics ? Not really...

Thomas--you really aren't that dense. Did you read the study? It was proven discrimination.

I'll agree with one thing though--it does just get stupider and stupider. Although I don't think we are talking about the same things....

I hate white men. Or at least the ones posting on this thread.

marcus says

Nobody is trying to cure anything. Only accelerate the change.

Accelerate the change to what Marcus? What exactly is supposed to be the ultimate goal? A color blind and gender blind society?

Kevin says

I hate white men. Or at least the ones posting on this thread.

Are you going to have another "mofo" outburst? Talk about anti-white hate speech!

It's just skin reflectivity...

Will we ever have a "color blind" society? This thread seems to indicate a clear "no."

Scagnetti says

Accelerate the change to what Marcus? What exactly is supposed to be the ultimate goal?

We know that within decades caucasians will be a minority in the US. Even from the most simplistic economic point of view, it should be clear that if strides aren't made in promoting diversity in the academic and corporate world, then we as a country are in trouble.

As it is, I think we have and are making strides, and as a country we do diversity better than most others, which might be a big edge for us by 2200.

As for females, I'm not so worried about equality for women. As a high school teacher, I can tell you, women (girls) are doing great. The old beliefs about girls in Math and science are out the window. Along with this change in perception is the fact that in adolescence girls are often more focused, organized and disciplined than boys.

IT might not be clear why this is so relevant, but,... fact:

Academic success in grades k - 12 is very highly correlated to being middle class (or above). And this isn't just because of bad nutrition, single parent households, distractions of gangs and so on in poor neighborhoods. It's a cultural thing. Poor kids typically don't believe in the system and in the opportunity that school presents (maybe in part a reflection of their parents beliefs and fears about the system).

It's not that simple, but giving someone a good opportunity affects more than just his or her prospects. It's going to affect their children too.

marcus says

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.

Really? Companies would voluntarily do this without the fear of consequences?

In fiscal year 2007, the EEOC received 30,510 formal complaints or racial discrimination, 9,369 complaints of nationality discrimination, and 2,880 reports of religious discrimination, for a total of 42,759 discrimination cases (Jennifer C. Kerr, "Job Discrimination Complaints Jump", Associate Press, March 5, 2008).

Also, keep in mind many more complaints were probably dealt with "in house", through the companies own grievance procedures.

Robert P. Hartwig, Vice president of the insurance information institute says, "Sooner or later, virtually every medium to large size company is likely to find itself the defendant in a discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit". He estimates that 60% of all companies are named in one of these lawsuits every 5 years. When asked why he responded, "The 21st century's racially and ethnically diverse workforce is a potential powder keg."

With all the potential pitfalls, why would a company care to promote diversity? Companies are interested in making money, not social changes.

Scagnetti says

Companies are interested in making money, not social changes.

Exactly--are you implying that promoting diversity reduces profits?

marcus says

We know that within decades caucasians will be a minority in the US. Even from the most simplistic economic point of view, it should be clear that if strides aren't made in promoting diversity in the academic and corporate world, then we as a country are in trouble.

This has been self inflicted. Changes in our immigration policy have opened the flood gates. If the goal is to have a strong academic and corporate world, maybe we should be more selective in who we let in the country.

tatupu70 says

Scagnetti says

Companies are interested in making money, not social changes.

Exactly--are you implying that promoting diversity reduces profits?

No, I'm saying hiring someone less qualified and effective will reduce profits.

marcus says

it should be clear that if strides aren't made in promoting diversity in the academic and corporate world, then we as a country are in trouble.

You're a teacher right Marcus? Do you really want me to throw up charts of the large racial gap in standardized tests? Show me where improvements have been made here.

Scagnetti says

No, I'm saying hiring someone less qualified and effective will reduce profits.

There's the problem. The orchestra study proved that employers don't always know what to measure to determine who is qualified or effective and inherent biases can play a large role. Many companies have found that adding diversity has proven to add more efffective people.

tatupu70 says

Many companies have found that adding diversity has proven to add more efffective people.

What is a more "diversified" company than the United States Armed Forces. Lets look at them shall we?

In 1997, 40 thousand soldiers were questioned in a government mandated survey about race relations. Two thirds of the soldiers said they suffered from "insensitive language" to racial threats or violence. That would be 63% of Whites, 76% of blacks, 79% of Hispanics, and 76% of American Indians.

When asked if opportunities for their race had improved......16% of whites thought so, 39% of Blacks, 47% of Hispanics, and 41% of Indians.

The pentagon delayed the release of this report for 2 years because it was so embarrassed.

Adding diversity for diversity's sake is not productive. Selecting the best person for the job is.

marcus says

IT might not be clear why this is so relevant, but,... fact:

Academic success in grades k - 12 is very highly correlated to being middle class (or above). And this isn't just because of bad nutrition, single parent households, distractions of gangs and so on in poor neighborhoods. It's a cultural thing. Poor kids typically don't believe in the system and in the opportunity that school presents (maybe in part a reflection of their parents beliefs and fears about the system).

It's not that simple, but giving someone a good opportunity affects more than just his or her prospects. It's going to affect their children too.

Marcus is right in one way. For each race, SAT scores go up the further along a person is on the income ladder. Still, there is a large racial gap. It cannot be overcome by raising a child's living conditions. This experiment has failed.

Scagnetti says

Adding diversity for diversity's sake is not productive. Selecting the best person for the job is.

If you say that again, you obviously missed the entire point of my post.