What is wrong with the concept of "race"?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
No, I am saying that AA allows lesser educated people to get jobs... and the reason it was created in the first place was to help black people, that is why they were being used as an example, because they weren't as well educated as whites.

You sir, are ignorant. If you look at both the period in which AA was created and at the actual law itself, you will realize you are talking out of your arse.

The purpose of AA was to force companies to treat Black and white applicant's equally. That is, if a qualified Black person or white women applied for a position, they could not simply be denied on account of race or gender. In other words, companies became required to take the best person available for the psoition, instead of simply hiring a white man. The law also give the government the power to seek remedies in cases where it is proven that the company has a racist or sexist hiring policy.

In response to this law, some companies have resorted to quota systems or bumping up less qualified minority candidtates, but this was very quickly struck down by the Supreme Court within a few years of the law's passage.

AA was created to deal with the problem of hiring and promiting lesser qualified white males over white women and Black people. By and large, only white women have benefited from AA, as Black people are still not represented proportionally within business or higher education.

Tingkai is correct, however, in stating that many HR people use AA to soften the blow to white men's egos by telling them that they had to promote someone else for diversity reasons. I've heard HR people admit this. When a woman or minotiry candidate is passed over, generally they are told it is because they weren't as qualified. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it ain't. There is still a lot of old boy networking going on, and still a lot of sexism and racism in the workplace.

For those who think that companies that would rather hire an inferior white man over a more qualified white woman or minority candidate are simply shooting themselves in the foot, consider that when this was the practice of the land in the '50s and '60s, US business was by far and away the most dominent business in the world, so hiring lesser qualified people certainly didn't hurt, at least not in the short run. Most jobs don't require the best person available, and certainly the best person for the job isn't always available. Most jobs can be done by less qualified individuals, which means that passing over a more qualified women or minority cnadidate isn't really gonna hurt you, unless that candidate finds out and sues.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun
I do not see any legitimate argument against affirmative action that uses the term reverse discrimination.

Many sociologists see reverse discrimination as an oxymoron, that has no basis in argumentation.

You should phrase things as simply as possible so that by trying to seem more educated / intelligent than you really are you don't give the opposite impression.

The term should simply be called discrimination, but we got into the habit as a society of assuming that all discrimination had caucasian or male subjects and non-caucasian or female objects, so discrimination against men or caucasians became known as 'reverse discrimination'. I never bought into this newspeak myself, to me discrimination is the same no matter who perpetuates it.

AA is racist crap when all is said and done. If people discriminate then they can be sued. Companies that utilize the best talent will succeed. There is no need to add a layer of complexity / expense to the whole equation. The government makes it painful and expensive enough as it is to actually hire someone.

As for HR directors telling people that they didn't get the job because of minority quota, I can't think of a stupider thing to do these days. People are wising up to the fact that at best AA is a slippery slope and at worst it is as bad as what it replaced. Discrimination by any party against any other party is more and more likely to be followed by a visit to court, which is just fine with me.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sikander

You should phrase things as simply as possible so that by trying to seem more educated / intelligent than you really are you don't give the opposite impression.

So, you're using the ad hominem fallacy in your counter-argument??

Anyway, I have not given any false intention -- it's based on books and articles that I have read.

Try reading sometime.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
As for HR directors telling people that they didn't get the job because of minority quota, I can't think of a stupider thing to do these days.

Why do you say that?

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You sir, are ignorant. If you look at both the period in which AA was created and at the actual law itself, you will realize you are talking out of your arse.

The purpose of AA was to force companies to treat Black and white applicant's equally. That is, if a qualified Black person or white women applied for a position, they could not simply be denied on account of race or gender. In other words, companies became required to take the best person available for the psoition, instead of simply hiring a white man. The law also give the government the power to seek remedies in cases where it is proven that the company has a racist or sexist hiring policy.

In response to this law, some companies have resorted to quota systems or bumping up less qualified minority candidtates, but this was very quickly struck down by the Supreme Court within a few years of the law's passage.

The problem is, that quotas, in a way, still exist... And they try to put 'minorities' in leadership positions where they have no business being (of course some DO and those are the ones which a restricted AA program I would support putting in those positions!

AA was created to deal with the problem of hiring and promiting lesser qualified white males over white women and Black people. By and large, only white women have benefited from AA, as Black people are still not represented proportionally within business or higher education.

Tingkai is correct, however, in stating that many HR people use AA to soften the blow to white men's egos by telling them that they had to promote someone else for diversity reasons. I've heard HR people admit this. When a woman or minotiry candidate is passed over, generally they are told it is because they weren't as qualified. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it ain't. There is still a lot of old boy networking going on, and still a lot of sexism and racism in the workplace.

I realise that... And I hope those people who say that it is to soften the blow- but it should not be as such for that is racist speak- I am still sure htat there are incompetent peoplee becuase of AA, and yes, I do realize that without AA, incompetent white people would hold some jobs- both ways are troublesome, with AA and without it.

Chegitz- I do think you have some good points, however, I think that AA does allow a fair amount of lesser qualified people through, and I would like to elimjinate that.


----Mr Fun-

I do not see any legitimate argument against affirmative action that uses the term reverse discrimination.

Many sociologists see reverse discrimination as an oxymoron, that has no basis in argumentation

It is not reverse discrimination- it is racisim all over again, except the other way around, not reverse. At least when lesser qualified people rise above better qualified people.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

It is not reverse discrimination- it is racisim all over again, except the other way around, not reverse. At least when lesser qualified people rise above better qualified people.

Nope --- using the racism or reverse discrimination argument for AGAINST affirmative action is oxymoronic.

[DarkCloud]

No it isn't AA and regualr racism can be exactly the same- AA sometimes cheating out people who deserve their jobs and racism doing exactly the same thing. (but to different types of people)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
No it isn't AA and regualr racism can be exactly the same- AA sometimes cheating out people who deserve their jobs and racism doing exactly the same thing. (but to different types of people)

So you disagree with many of the sociologists who are experts in their field??

Ok, if that suits you.

[DarkCloud]

Mr Fun-
1.) I doubt that.
2.) If so it is merely because they arer all liberal socialistic communist pinko fiends who lie and think that "oh TWO WRONGS DO MAKE A RIGHT"

Two wrongs never make a right- they are merely magnifying the problem.

I know people like those which you cite- and they are horribly wrong.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Mr Fun-
1.) I doubt that.
2.) If so it is merely because they arer all liberal socialistic communist pinko fiends who lie and think that "oh TWO WRONGS DO MAKE A RIGHT"

Two wrongs never make a right- they are merely magnifying the problem.

I know people like those which you cite- and they are horribly wrong.

In your OPINION.

You can read all the conservative sociologists you want, and I can read the liberal sociologists.

Affirmative action is not a wrong. But many white people are fearful of blacks who want to achieve the same success that so many whites have achieved.

[DarkCloud]

That is not to imply that all communists are fiends- merely that the people who say what Mr Fun claiemd are communists.

[DarkCloud]

Mr fun, I listen to both sides- but you didn't listen to me- I said that when AA gives a man who is not as competent a job- everyone loses.

that is when AA is wrong.

If the qualifications are equal- I 'might' support the 'minority' receiving the job, however I feel that it seperates groups nevertheless, although I yeild on the equal qualifications issue.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Mr fun, I listen to both sides- but you didn't listen to me- I said that when AA gives a man who is not as competent a job- everyone loses.

that is when AA is wrong.

If the qualifications are equal- I 'might' support the 'minority' receiving the job, however I feel that it seperates groups nevertheless, although I yeild on the equal qualifications issue.

Affirmative action involves aggressive hiring of minority applicants who are qualified for the job -- not hiring incompetent people.

Do not distort the purpose for AA.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
What is inherently different between classifying human appearances and, say, classifying chemicals, rocks, stars or climates?

Race does not exist? -
Neither do rock types, chemical types, star types or climate types, by themselves. These are all pigeonholes used for easy description and reference. So, why can't we see race as "human appearance types"?

So, once again, what is wrong with the concept of "race"?

1

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by MrFun


Affirmative action involves aggressive hiring of minority applicants who are qualified for the job -- not hiring incompetent people.

Do not distort the purpose for AA.

I am not distoriting the purpose I know the purpose- I also know however, that some people don't care if people who are unqalified receive jobs.

That is the type of AA that I was arguing against.
-
Oh and a note to Ming- just wondering did you ban DaShi after his latest round of spam?

[Velociryx]

What's wrong with "race" is that there's no such beast. The last time there were multiple hominid races to discuss was about the time when the Neanderthals were still around.

Unless you can find a few stray Neanders floating around, there's not a lot that can be said on the topic.

Tribes of humans...sure. Race? Nahhh.

Not for a very long time.

-=Vel=-

[ranskaldan]

What would your definition of race be then?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Chegitz- I do think you have some good points, however, I think that AA does allow a fair amount of lesser qualified people through, and I would like to elimjinate that.

So what's your solution to racist and sexist hiring practices that promote less qualified white men, given that, despite it's prevalence, it is very difficult to prove in specific, individual cases? It's not as if most racists are actually stupid enough to leave evidence lying around.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I am not distoriting the purpose I know the purpose- I also know however, that some people don't care if people who are unqalified receive jobs.

Can you name a specific instance of this?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Why do you say that?

The U.S. Supreme Court has been taking 'quota' cases recently and redefining what is legal, and the trend is to reign in AA so that terms like racial discrimination actually mean what they seem to mean. In other words there is a majority on the SC which feels like the recovery period from segregation and sex discrimination is over or coming to a close, and we had better establish some universal principles which will serve us far into the future where we can see America as having no majority 'race'. This means the we have to apply the laws to people of every ethnic group equally. I obviously agree with the supremes. We have paid more than enough attention to the idea of race in this country, and it has been a painful journey every step of the way.

I'm all for helping people who need a hand, but doing so inefficiently while perpetuating a greater crime is extremely foolish. We should test for need and give a hand to those who need (ie allow a certain percentage of people whose parents didn't attend college into public universities etc.) regardless of their ethnic background. If there are descrepencies between ethnic groups, this will help even things up without forcing anyone to officially identify themselves as any race but human.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun

So, you're using the ad hominem fallacy in your counter-argument??

You never provided an argument to counter in the statement I quoted, it was more or less gibberish. I merely pointed out that your phrasing seemed to indicate that you were not a master of the concept you introduced, and that this is not helpful to either the discussion or to one's impression of your intellectual capabilities. (I then explained the origins of the term 'reverse discrimination', where I agreed that it was stupid without conceding that the concept of discrimination against caucasians and men itself is flawed, and went off on my own rant.)

If this was a one time occurance I wouldn't have commented on it, but I see you do this all the time. Then you complain that no one is paying attention to your posts. The problem is that often your posts are not germain to the discussion at hand, even though they may contain incontrovertable facts. People usually only bother to respond to posts that further the discussion, or which are factually incorrect, or which cause an emotional response (usually negative).

Originally posted by MrFun

Anyway, I have not given any false intention -- it's based on books and articles that I have read.

Your appeal to authority was ham-handed, and though I agreed to some degree with what you said, I didn't agree with what you thought you were saying. I felt that you would have been a good deal clearer if you used language that you have a better grasp of. I realize that the ideas you referred to are not your own. You should realize that just because you read something in a book or article doesn't mean that the ideas so conveyed are free from bias, stupidity etc. Mein Kampf is a book too, and no one is going to cut you any slack for quoting it or the ideas it conveys any more than I am going to cut you any slack for ideas you regurgitate from nameless sociologists.

Originally posted by MrFun

Try reading sometime.

So that's what you do with those book thingies! I have hundreds of them around the house, now I can put them to good use. Thanks for the tip!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander


The U.S. Supreme Court...

What does that have to do with your statement: "As for HR directors telling people that they didn't get the job because of minority quota, I can't think of a stupider thing to do these days."

In other words, why do you think it is stupid that HR directors use AA as an excuse?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


What does that have to do with your statement: "As for HR directors telling people that they didn't get the job because of minority quota, I can't think of a stupider thing to do these days."

In other words, why do you think it is stupid that HR directors use AA as an excuse?

Yes, both for the initial reason that they are lying and adding to the general racial tension in society by doing so, and because they are opening themselves up to lawsuits by telling people that they lost the job in order to meet a minority hiring goal (which I explained in the subsequent post is a growth industry here in the U.S. as the SC reigns in blatant racial preferences of any kind). Even if the company is able to prove that the HR director was lying it will be costly.

[MrFun]

Sikander, where did I say that I was the master of this issue??

If you felt I was implying that, then sorry for the misunderstanding.

And, I am not blindly appealing to authorities -- I am merely saying that my opinion is not without foundation, since I have read some material on this issue.
No, one should never blindly kow-tow to experts on any issue.

And with my previous posts, I have made statements that laziness is an individual trait, not a racial trait.
I also pointed out that the purpose of affirmative action was not to hire incompetent people just because they belong to a minority group -- it is to aggressively hire people who qualify, who are of a minority group.

I fail to see how those statements are incoherent ramblings when they specifically countered statements made by other people??

But now I understand that the others merely meant the potential misuse of affirmative action.

Ok, so there is potential for some misuse, but can you point out a program that is perfect??

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

I am not distoriting the purpose I know the purpose- I also know however, that some people don't care if people who are unqalified receive jobs.

Can you name a specific instance of this?

Yes, in real life I know some people who stated what I said. I know AT LEAST 2 people. And I only debated this aroudn 30 people.

So what's your solution to racist and sexist hiring practices that promote less qualified white men, given that, despite it's prevalence, it is very difficult to prove in specific, individual cases? It's not as if most racists are actually stupid enough to leave evidence lying around.

My solution:
If the authorities DO overview the hiring records and see that the applicants are equally qualified, then they should interview the employer, and if the employer does not have a GOOD reason, then the "minority" should receive the job!


-
Oh and Chegitz, if you heard of the Crackerbarrel discrimination lawsuit- I have one thing to say- I sort of expected it... The Crackerbarrel employees are *******s to everyone, that's why I no longer eat there. Their employees are the biggest jackasses I ever saw. I can explain if you want. Or if you wish to know about the lawsuit.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun

And, I am not blindly appealing to authorities -- I am merely saying that my opinion is not without foundation, since I have read some material on this issue.

Reading some material is background, a foundation is when you have a defensible logical base for your assertion.

Originally posted by MrFun
No, one should never blindly kow-tow to experts on any issue.

Agreed.

Originally posted by MrFun
And with my previous posts, I have made statements that laziness is an individual trait, not a racial trait.
I also pointed out that the purpose of affirmative action was not to hire incompetent people just because they belong to a minority group -- it is to aggressively hire people who qualify, who are of a minority group.

I fail to see how those statements are incoherent ramblings when they specifically countered statements made by other people??

I have only been referring to the two line post of yours (which I quoted in my post in our first exchange) where you speak about 'reverse discrimination'. That was incoherent. I haven't touched upon the issues you are talking about above, or the posts you refer to.

Originally posted by MrFun

But now I understand that the others merely meant the potential misuse of affirmative action.

Ok, so there is potential for some misuse, but can you point out a program that is perfect??

I'm not sure why you address this argument to me, as it has very little to do with anything I've stated here. I'm less concerned with actual and potential misuse of AA than I am with the entire concept of racial identity which it breathes life into. I want the race categorizing to stop, especially at the official level where it receives the ultimate legitimacy and economic and legal power.

AA is the latest in a long line of laws and policies in this country going back to the constitution, through Dred Scott and Jim Crow and segregation. The fact that the shoe is on the other foot is but a smokescreen for the greater evil, which is identifying others and ourselves by race and perpetuating the critical basic idea behind racism.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sikander

AA is the latest in a long line of laws and policies in this country going back to the constitution, through Dred Scott and Jim Crow and segregation. The fact that the shoe is on the other foot is but a smokescreen for the greater evil, which is identifying others and ourselves by race and perpetuating the critical basic idea behind racism.

Ok, so we will agree to disagree.