[Split]When are you white?

[Dave1001]

You misunderstand.

I am not saying that self-identification is met with genetic tests. I am saying that self-identification is met with exo-identification. And, sometimes, exo-identification trumps self-identification.

But in neither of these, we have anything else than opinion to work from.

huh? I'm not saying self-identification is met with genetic tests either. There is no test I'm aware of used by courts of law to assess the accuracy or honesty of racial self-identification. Including an "exo-identification" test. I'm not even sure what you mean by that, but one certainly doesn't have to have a certain preponderance of sub-saharan african physical features or coloration to be accepted as black such that one can benefit from scholarships or affirmative action-assisted admission to selective universities.

 

[slingblade]

Fallacious thinking. AA doesn't solve problems, and in fact creates new ones.

I didn't use the word "solve," so don't credit it to my opinion. I said address. To address in this sense means to deal with or to confront; to deal with something does not necessarily mean to solve it. One can deal with, or address, an issue in a superficial or ineffective manner. I maintain that AA deals with a limited aspect of racism in a somewhat ineffective way. No fallacy.

Removing AA will at least get rid of the new problems it caused. It's fallacious to think that AA should remain because "removing it won't solve old problems".

If the only bridge into town, the only access to town, needs repair, you repair it, or you build another. But if you have no other way into town, you have to keep using the bridge until you do one of those two things. This could be dangerous. It could give way. But if you dismantle it before you have created a new bridge, you have no way into town at all. What if no one builds a new bridge for months? For years? What if no one ever builds a new bridge?

What do you do when you see the access you have provided is faulty, but you have provided no other access?

Are we yet building a new bridge which will keep qualified people from being judged on their apepearance, and which will dismantle the stereotypes which are now firmly embedded within that appearance?

Anyway, I'm not sure what are the problems AA is supposed to solve.

Then perhaps you will take the responsibility to educate yourself. If you don't know something, it's hardly my job to spoon feed you the info.

Racial discrimination? So we can solve racial discrimination by enforcing... racial discrimination. Genius!

Since you admit to having gaps in your knowledge of AA, on what basis do you make the above claim? Do you know what you are talking about?

Who is being discriminated against? No one has yet shown proof that one less-deserving person was awarded something in favor of, or instead of someone who deserved it more. Can you? Or are you just spouting empty rhetoric?

If you can show a certain number of cases of this, under the aegis of Affirmative Action, does this mean that Affirmative Action is worthless and should be done away with, or does it only mean that any program is only as good as the humans who put it into effect? How many mistakes of that nature have to be made under AA in order for it to be worthless?

This IS a fallacy: begging the question.

"Affirmative Action is wrong, because it gives preference to non-whites over whites, thus resulting in whites not getting a job because they are white."

Until you prove that this has occurred, that this preference is indeed given, your conclusion is contained in your premise, and that is begging the question.

 

[slingblade]

So, are you kids coming back to play?

 

[Beleth]

I am not talking about the guy you let in. I am talking about you don't let in. That's segregation.

Sigh... I am using the word "segregation" as it is commonly used. You are not. So what else can I possibly say in response to this but "no, it's discrimination, but it's not segregation"?

Funny how that results in segregation as well as discrimination.

That's why AA is needed - to prevent it from resulting in segregation.

Where else do you have Affirmative Action?

I anxiously await the results of your research into this question. Or are you arguing that the USA is not part of the world?

Besides, maybe Denmark should. How racially diverse is Denmark? Is the lower class made up of the exact same racial demographics as the middle and upper classes? How about Parliament?

It is illegal to distinguish between races. It is illegal to even register people based on race.

That's nice. Now please answer the questions.

How racially diverse is Denmark?
Is the lower class made up of the exact same racial demographics as the middle and upper classes?
How about Parliament?

Why do you suppose they don't have the right grades?

Why else would they need special treatment to get in?

That doesn't answer my question.

You only need one thing: Higher taxes.

How will that solve the problem?

I know this is sacrilegious to you,

Okay Sylvia.

but what is more important to you? Solve the problem or maintain the size of your wallet?

False dilemma. Why can't I do both?
Or here's a thought... what say you donate 30% of your income to help schools in poor neighborhoods in the USA?

 

[Mycroft]

Sigh... I am using the word "segregation" as it is commonly used. You are not...

Wow, about 30 posts later and he still won't even admit he's using the word "segregation" incorrectly.

Guess what?

He never will.

Carry on.

 

[slingblade]

I think he got tired. Or found a spare life in the closet, under a box of old records, behind the three rolls of wallpaper, left-over.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by LostAngeles
In other news, your response to Huntster is correct. If Huntster needs people to tell s/he what s/he is, then it's inane.

ARRGH I don't believe I'm posting to this thread again.

LA, you know I respect you. And saying that you have more experience with race relations than I do couldn't possibly be overstated.

But in reality, it is other people who decide what ethnicity you are.

It becomes extremely more significant when you come from a multi-ethnic family, like I do. I could play havoc with the "racial desigation" questions on federal forms, but in the end, "they" would tell me that I'm white. Same with my brother, but in the end, "they" would tell him that he's black.

I really don't give a rat's ass, which is also a perspective unique in a multi-ethnic family. It was frustrating growing up white/black in a Hispanic community (south of "Lost" Angeles), but my brother and I got to be very good fighters, which was somewhat of a benefit.

The bottom line for me is that racial equality programs are for losers who didn't learn how to fight, how to fight right, or when to fight.

 

[LostAngeles]

ARRGH I don't believe I'm posting to this thread again.

LA, you know I respect you. And saying that you have more experience with race relations than I do couldn't possibly be overstated.

But in reality, it is other people who decide what ethnicity you are.


First of all, trivially, your parents decide what ethnicity you are by conceiving you in the first place.

Second, in terms of things like Affirmative Action, society determines what ethnicity you are. Hypothetical to show my point: You've seen me. I'm as Irish as the driven snow. Say I wanted to go back to school. I want to get a scholarship or something so wherever I was asked what race I was I put "African-American". Would I get any scholarship? Of course not. The people who determine such things would take one look at me... and either bust out laughing, or get outraged that I would even dare to consider checking the African-American box.


In a perfect world we would not need Affirmative Action.
We don't live in such a world.
Ethnicity gets in the way of things when it should not.
People who want to be fair sometimes have no other choice but to invent an imperfection to cancel out another imperfection.
Yes, it's suboptimal...
but sometimes the best you can come to a right really is two wrongs.

I see your point, but I'm talking about people like my sister who has simply decided to accept, "everyone's," decision that she's black, where as my father and I simply select, "Other," when it says, "choose one."

Huntster is mutli-ethnic. I recall this because I wanted to plant my foot up his backside for claiming that that magically made him not a bigot. Alas, it was in AAH (and I'll probably get in trouble for even dragging that in here). My comment was aimed at him. I should have made that clearer.

 

[LostAngeles]

It becomes extremely more significant when you come from a multi-ethnic family, like I do. I could play havoc with the "racial desigation" questions on federal forms, but in the end, "they" would tell me that I'm white. Same with my brother, but in the end, "they" would tell him that he's black.
...

As of the 2000 census, the census forms have a "multi-racial" option. Before then you could in fact fill in all applicable bubbles. They would probably call you as they did my mom after the 1990 census just to make sure that she didn't fill in the white, black, and Asian bubbles for us two kids by mistake, but you could do it.

Granted, the only federal form I've done since then was the FAFSA which does not have a, "racial designation," question. So hey! Maybe they do it.

But when I have to answer that question, I either hit them all, or I hit other. Because that's what I am.

 

[Morrigan]

I didn't use the word "solve," so don't credit it to my opinion. I said address. To address in this sense means to deal with or to confront; to deal with something does not necessarily mean to solve it. One can deal with, or address, an issue in a superficial or ineffective manner. I maintain that AA deals with a limited aspect of racism in a somewhat ineffective way. No fallacy.

Semantics. "Addressing" a problem is an attempt to solve it. Otherwise it's just empty meaningless posturing.

If the only bridge into town, the only access to town, needs repair, you repair it, or you build another. But if you have no other way into town, you have to keep using the bridge until you do one of those two things. This could be dangerous. It could give way. But if you dismantle it before you have created a new bridge, you have no way into town at all. What if no one builds a new bridge for months? For years? What if no one ever builds a new bridge?

That's not a very good analogy. If someone wants to get to the town, they can either build their own bridge, or swim across. Why does the town OWE people a bridge?

Besides, your analogy implies that AA (the "bridge") is the only way for the minorities to "get to town".

Then perhaps you will take the responsibility to educate yourself. If you don't know something, it's hardly my job to spoon feed you the info.

No dear, it's not about education. It was sarcasm. I know what AA is "supposed" to address; the lack of educated, employed, etc. minorities. My question was in fact a sarcastic jab at the fact that it's idiotic.

Since you admit to having gaps in your knowledge of AA, on what basis do you make the above claim? Do you know what you are talking about?

Who is being discriminated against? No one has yet shown proof that one less-deserving person was awarded something in favor of, or instead of someone who deserved it more. Can you? Or are you just spouting empty rhetoric?

Huh? The fact is that AA discriminates by race. Whether "positively" or not, it's still discrimination - they are against policies of "colour blindness". Empty rhetoric? You just put words in my mouth.

"Affirmative Action is wrong, because it gives preference to non-whites over whites, thus resulting in whites not getting a job because they are white."

Until you prove that this has occurred, that this preference is indeed given, your conclusion is contained in your premise, and that is begging the question.

Huh... Since I never made this statement or even this argument, I don't see why I should bother with you again. But since I'm in a good mood, yes, "reverse discrimination" has occurred (thankfully they at least removed the quotas there), and still does. Of course, cases like this are inevitably anecdotal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Not that it's all that relevant, since on principle, AA is still a form of racial discrimination.

 

[wolfgirl]

[derail]
You seem to have been in a different grade school that I was in. In our school the adjective "horrible" would better describe those kids who did things like throwing you or your possessions into pools of mud water and then threatening to beat you up if you told anyone. Strange thing is that they usually did have friends, if only because no one wanted to be their enemy.[/derail]

[derail]By horrible, I refer only to kids who tattled on other kids who were doing something that didn't hurt anyone. Of course, a kid should tell if someone is beating them up. But if someone is just, say, derailing their thread, they really don't have cause to go crying to teacher, do they?[/derail]

 

[DanishDynamite]

It is very relevant in a discussion about AA.

Glad to hear it. But it is unfortunately not relevant to the question at hand. And we should try to stay on topic, should we not?

So, given that your answer has no relevance to the topic we are discussing, please try to give an answer which is.

You are not serious, are you?

Yes.

So, please give a relevant reply.