[Samseau]

(10-18-2012 09:44 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 07:41 PM)houston Wrote:  

Why are people upset that hes not white?

Aparently the casting change is some sort of insult to white manhood and/or an attempt to minimize the efforts of a white hero by making him look different.

It's more than that. It's blantant PC bullshit. Changing races because Hollywood is afraid of looking racist.

Not only is it weak to make a movie out of an internet video like this, but it's pathetic they change the races in order to conform to their warped ideology.




Here's a hypothetical to show it's not just about "White vs. Black":


What if the original video was of a black man bus driver beating up a black woman?



And then they made a movie out of it, except this time the main characters were a Latino woman bus driver giving an upper-cut to a white male passenger?

Wouldn't that be lame?

[Timoteo]

I don't know how many people realize that the guy that first conceived "Underworld" is a black dude. Kevin Grevioux, the actor that played the Lycan Raze (Lucien's right hand man). He was a grad student at Howard U. (Microbiology), and taking writing and acting classes on the side when he decided to pursue it full-time. The concept and characters are his, and he hooked up with Len Wiseman (the eventual director) when they were both working on "Stargate" (Grevioux was an extra, and Wiseman was a prop assistant). Naturally, he wanted a role in the film, but knew he'd have a difficult time getting it made if he, a complete unknown, wanted to big of a role in the film. He wrote himself a supporting, yet decent enough role. He said that if he had wanted too big of a role, they would have tried to cast a rapper like LL Cool J or Ice Cube...HA HA! He had to make the role just unattractive enough that they'd let him play it, and not look for a name. Even though it was largely his film, he couldn't be the face of it and have a prayer of getting it made. At the same time, Sylvester Stallone had the same issue with "Rocky." It was his baby, and he wanted to star in it. Studios loved it, but had a problem casting a nobody in the starring role. He fought and got it, and it won the Best Picture Academy Award and launched a huge franchise, and also elevated Stallone to action hero status in other movies.

[kbell]

Hollywood took much larger risks in filming in the 70s. John Carpenter started off that way introducing long steadycam shots and basically the formula for every slasher for quite some time. The movie Halloween which is the film I'm talking about, also introduced Jaime Lee Curtis. So starring an unknown wasn't that uncommon at the time. Rocky was in the 70's as well. Hollywood doesn't take risks anymore, they allow other markets to do it first, than repackage it for here.

[Excelsior]

(10-18-2012 05:36 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

Yeah, it's almost like a white guy would apply for college, a job, or a government contract and be blatantly discriminated because of his race.

1. Education: Affirmative Action has no statistically significant impact on white college admission rates. The banning of AA would have no impact on whites (AA's elimination has actually been shown to hurt them in some cases, and its presence to benefit them in others). Whites are also very large beneficiaries of non-merit based preferences, more so than any other group.

2. Jobs: The numbers simply don't support the notion that whites are losing out on the employment front. Blacks and Hispanics maintain consistently higher unemployment rates, discrimination against blacks and other minorities in hiring is still quite obvious to see, and blacks/hispanics are heavily underrepresented in most professional fields.

3. Government contracts: The numbers don't seem to support your assertion here either. I'm not seeing the minority dominance.

I won't get into the other forms of discrimination minorities face (legally, financially, socially, etc), as that would take too long. Long story short: the minority dominance you imply does not exist, and whites as a group simply do not maintain any substantive disadvantage in any major area (financially, politically, academically, etc) relative to minorities. AA is also not the boogeyman for whites that it is portrayed to be. Whites are very, very far ahead of everyone else (this is still a white nation), and that will not be changing for a long time. This is the reality most minorities are capable of acknowledging and accepting without too much trouble.

Deal with it-we already have.

Quote:

Anyone that thinks this could happpen is obviously out of their mind or trolling.

Or just not particularly well-versed in the subject matter (affirmative action and its impact on whites) they're seeking to discuss.

[durangotang]

Athlone, you are an utter apologist for affirmative action. I have conversed with you before about it, to which you just ranted about white privilege - just like a feminist ranting about male privilege. Equality under the law? You'll have none of that. Watching you go to such great lengths to defend so irrational an opinion would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

If you have forgotten, it's all in this thread.

I would use the forum's quote system, but the thread is closed. I wrote:

"Do you think that a white child who has studied hard and has better grades should be denied admittance into a school, for a lower qualified black child with lower grades?"

To which you insisted such a thing isn't a common occurrence, while defending affirmative action and placing the blame on rich white legacies. Well now a case exactly as I described is being heard by the Supreme Court. Imagine that.

Affirmative Action Headed for the Dustbin of History

From the article:

Fisher is the plaintiff in the affirmative action case considered by the Court on Wednesday. The young white woman, a recent graduate of Louisiana State University, filed the lawsuit now being considered because, she claims, she was unfairly denied admission to the University of Texas.

I look forward to the ruling.

[Excelsior]

(10-19-2012 03:41 AM)durangotang Wrote:  

Athlone, you are an utter apologist for affirmative action.

Sure. You're an utter apologist for discrimination against under represented minorities.
Now that we've traded quick labels, we can get to the topic at hand.

Quote:

I have conversed with you before about it, to which you just ranted about white privilege - just like a feminist ranting about male privilege.

Modern feminism is white privilege. When I attack one, I attack the other.

Your attempt to shame me by painting my opposition to white privilege as an endorsement of modern feminism is a) entirely too transparent and b) ineffective. You merely draw a false dichotomy, implying that by claiming to attack white privilege I cannot also be simultaneously attacking feminism. This assumes that the two are not related (much less one in the same, as they factually are), an assumption which is quite false.
Keep drawing the distinction if you'd like (I know it is central to your argument), but in practice these are two peas in one pod.

Enjoy your strawman.

Quote:

Equality under the law? You'll have none of that.

We don't have it right now. Never did, not sure we ever will.

You imply that AA is in fact the cause of this lack, which is erroneous.

Quote:

Watching you go to such great lengths to defend so irrational an opinion would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

What lengths? It takes me minutes to dig up the information I used in that post, all of which lead me to make rational (read: based on fact) conclusions.

If you think that's pathetic, good for you. I do not care.

Quote:

If you have forgotten, it's all in this thread.

I would use the forum's quote system, but the thread is closed. I wrote:

"Do you think that a white child who has studied hard and has better grades should be denied admittance into a school, for a lower qualified black child with lower grades?"

To which you insisted such a thing isn't a common occurrence, while defending affirmative action and placing the blame on rich white legacies.

Facts, listed:

1.Whites are not placed at a disadvantage by AA. This is a fact.
This whole segment of your argument is based upon the notion of a white disadvantage that doesn't actually exist. It is a strawman.

2. Whites who gained admission via non-merit based practices are more common on selective American college campuses than blacks and hispanics who have benefited from AA. This is also a fact, and you've said absolutely nothing about it. Why you fail to do this while speaking so often of "equality" and "fairness" is interesting to me.

I have two theories as to why you failed continuously to engage this last point:
A. You're simply not well versed on the topic at hand.
B. You actually favor admissions policies that are not strictly based on merit, so long as they primarily serve to benefit whites.

I don't know which camp you fall in, and I don't really care. I do know, however, that your argument is well off the mark.

Quote:

Well now a case exactly as I described is being heard by the Supreme Court. Imagine that.

Did you really think I wasn't aware of this case? I don't need a summary.

Quote:

I look forward to the ruling.

You shouldn't-an end to AA would require a total overturn of Grutter, which is unlikely based on the merits of this case (if you've been following it, which I doubt you have).

1. The most likely result is a limitation of AA. The elimination of all AA would require a total overturn of the Grutter decision which, if you've bothered to observe the court proceedings, you will see that Fisher's attorneys aren't actually calling for (also, even with Kagan gone, there likely are not 5 justices on the court who'd support a majority opinion like that).

Fisher's attorneys want to "gut" (read: limit) the Grutter ruling, and challenge the extent to which a university can hold diversity as a compelling interest in admissions. Their main challenge to the Texas policy is in its use of racial considerations as part of a "holistic" review after having already achieved a significant amount of diversity via the 10% plan. It was through this holistic review process that Fisher herself was rejected.

The judges will likely create a ruling that sets clear limits to when and how a University can consider race in admissions. How much this ruling will change things is up for debate-my bet is not very much in practice.

2. Even if a ban were possible, it wouldn't really matter.

Good luck dealing with that, though.

Oh, and here are some selected bits from that article you didn't bother to quote:

Quote:

One might argue whether the distinction between these two institutions is so great that Fisher had standing to bring the case at all. She claims that this allegedly diminished pedigree has done her grievous harm. Whatever. Lots of kids don't get into the colleges they most desire. Did Fisher, or those who advised her to sue, choose to complain that some other white student of "lesser qualification" won the spot she so dearly coveted? No, it was only the allegedly "inferior" black applicants whom she apparently resents.

Quote:

If Grutter v. Bollinger is overturned, which seems likely given the current composition of the Court and the tenor of the arguments on Wednesday, once again folks of color will be in a position of structural disadvantage in America. It won't be news to them, as institutional racism was never eradicated and is freshly pungent in the mythological post-racism era in America.

Quote:

In many folks' minds, the question is whether there is, or ever was, an obligation to redress the legacy of segregation and racism by providing an affirmative opportunity to students of color in the admission process. The answer is unambiguously "yes," and the obligation persists despite several decades of slow progress (and a decade or two of backsliding). And there is the secondary, yet equally powerful, argument that a diverse educational environment is a better educational environment for everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity. One would hope these two arguments would be compelling enough to convince any reasonable person that modest efforts to achieve and maintain diversity, like those at the University of Texas, would be embraced on ethical, educational and constitutional grounds. But "reasonable person" may only describe a minority of current Justices.

But what most people don't recognize is that overturning Grutter v. Bollinger will usher in an era of affirmative disadvantage.

Conventional wisdom suggests that admissions criteria are clear and objective; that grade point average and SAT scores are, taken together, an accurate gauge of merit and potential. They aren't, and those who work with young women and men know it. First of all, there is abundant evidence that standardized tests and much curriculum, are riddled with cultural bias. Standardized test scores correlate precisely with wealth, not much else. And wealth is concentrated in white communities.

Quote:

The likely Court ruling may be constitutionally defensible, but it is socially indefensible. It's infuriating that the Court will likely rule that race can't be considered in admissions. Those who argue that we are in a post-racist era claim to be color blind. Try telling that to any person of color. Race is negatively weighted in nearly every other experience for folks of color, from profiling on the highways, to stop-and-frisk practices in New York City, to inequity in employment opportunity. But we can't consider it when it might be properly seen as a desirable asset that a student brings to a school or college. In a post-Grutter v. Bollinger world the most vibrant educational environments will continue to be crafted to include dreamers, eccentrics, artists and iconoclasts, but the only quality that will be excluded for consideration will be race. It is certain that this exclusion will lead to less diverse student bodies, less interesting campuses and less opportunity for students of color.

Quote:

With or without direct consideration of race in the admissions process, any student of color who isn't in the top tier of grades and test scores will be viewed with skepticism. I've seen it over and over again. At Calhoun, the school I lead, I've watched students of color break down in tears because a few classmates smugly assumed that their acceptance at an Ivy League college was related to their race.

Kids of color already know this. Their parents tell them that they simply have to be better and work harder than their peers. A brilliant black poet with mediocre test scores will always be suspect. A white artist will never be challenged for having been admitted on the basis of her race, regardless of her SAT scores. Either way this ruling goes, black students will have to prove their merit in ways that white students don't.

Prohibiting consideration of race in admissions will ensure that young women and men of color continue to operate in a society that places them in a position of affirmative disadvantage. It will feel quite familiar.

He's right to say that minorities are quite used to that state of things, though wrong to assume an overturn of Grutter. Either way, I figure if you were going to quote the article directly, you may as well note its full tone and intent.
Have a good day.

[Vicious]

Athlone, coming from the other end if the argument. What do you consider the merits of AA to be?

[Excelsior]

(10-19-2012 06:02 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Athlone, coming from the other end if the argument. What do you consider the merits of AA to be?

This is a fair question, so I'll work to give it a detailed answer.

1. Discrimination, perhaps the most obvious factor countered by AA. These previous posts (#1 and #2) detail some of the discrimination faced by the under-represented minorities who benefit primarily from AA.

2. Socio-Economic inequality. This is the second pillar of AA. It addresses the socio-economic inequalities that generally have a greater impact on the under-represented groups who benefit primarily from it.

3. (And this is the most important of all the pillars) Diversity. AA ensures a diverse student and working population at all levels in which it is implied.

With regards to this third pillar, you may ask "But Athlone, that doesn't seem like enough-why is diversity relevant for its own sake?"

This is a common question, so I'll be breaking it down further. Diversity is important in the following ways:

A. There are significant educational benefits to diversity, including reduced prejudice, improved cross-racial understanding, and enhanced cognitive ability, among other things. These benefits, of course, aid the entire nation. Evidence for these benefits is outlined extensively in this Amicus Curiae brief submitted to the supreme court for the Fisher case durangotang up there wanted to bring up.

B. There are significant economic benefits to diversity that impact the whole nation, thus making diversity (and any program that promotes diversity) a compelling state interest. Put simply, a lack of diversity = a slower, less competitive American business landscape and, by extension, a slower economy.

If you'd like more substantial academic backing for these economic benefits, I'd point you to the amicus brief submitted by the Fortune 100 in support of the defendant in the Fisher case, which speaks more extensively on these benefits and also provides academic backing. This brief from small businesses also offers plenty of supporting evidence.

C. Further substantiation for the merits of diversity in education, politics, the media, and elsewhere can be found in the following briefs, which detail the academic research supporting these claims.

Perspective of the Ivy League (and the rest of America's elite schools)

Perspective of the US Military

Perspective on the political benefits as outlined by 17 US Senators, 66 congressmen, and 38 members of the Texas state legislature.

If you'd like still more affirmation of the benefits of AA, you can peruse this page. There you should be able to locate the perspectives of every accredited American medical school, every reputable American law school (plus the deans of both Harvard and Yale law schools), most major American catholic and research universities, and a host of other parties, all of which will espouse the benefits of affirmative action in education, politics, economics and society in general (with academic citations).

[cat_a_clysm]

(10-18-2012 06:54 PM)j r Wrote:  

What's more, you can do this little experiment yourself. Write up two resumes with the exact same history, but call one John Jones and call one Jamal Jones. You want to put some money down on which gets more interviews?

Jamal gets more every day of the week, that's a really, really, really bad example for your point

[Excelsior]

(10-19-2012 02:43 PM)cat_a_clysm Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 06:54 PM)j r Wrote:  

What's more, you can do this little experiment yourself. Write up two resumes with the exact same history, but call one John Jones and call one Jamal Jones. You want to put some money down on which gets more interviews?

Jamal gets more every day of the week, that's a really, really, really bad example for your point

No, he doesn't. His example is perfectly applicable, and that's a fact.

[Excelsior]

(10-19-2012 05:03 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-19-2012 03:41 AM)durangotang Wrote:  

Well now a case exactly as I described is being heard by the Supreme Court. Imagine that.

I look forward to the ruling.

You shouldn't-an end to AA would require a total overturn of Grutter, which is unlikely based on the merits of this case (if you've been following it, which I doubt you have).

Just taking the time to provide some further substantiation for this from a more qualified, knowledgeable source.

The notion of diversity as a compelling interest is not being strongly challenged here, and such a challenge would be necessary for your preferred outcome.
You will, in all likelihood, have to wait some time longer for your dreams of "equality" (whatever your definition of that actually is) to come true.

Good luck.

[Gmac]

(10-18-2012 07:31 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 05:49 AM)j r Wrote:  

Yeah, America is real anti-white. It's real tough being a white guy these days. Young white men can't even walk down the street without being stopped and frisked by the police. If Mitt Romney is elected president, I bet people start implying that he's not really an American and demand to see his birth certificate.

Thay made a movie and they wante to cast Danny Trejo, because Danny Trejo is a badass. Stop reading into this shit too much. You know how many movies have been made where the people in real life where non-white, but were cast as white to make the movie more mainstream?

I don't believe Holywood cannot find a badass white guy. But ok that I can forgive because I want to see Danny kicking ass too. But I cannot accept that Hollywood can't find black extras for him to beat up in the bus scene. And fuck making everything mainstream. Lets just be honest. If black guys commit a crime make a movie with black guys being criminals. If a white guy commits crime then make a movie with white guys being criminals.

Jason fucking Statham

[Merenguero]

(10-20-2012 08:46 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-19-2012 05:03 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-19-2012 03:41 AM)durangotang Wrote:  

Well now a case exactly as I described is being heard by the Supreme Court. Imagine that.

I look forward to the ruling.

You shouldn't-an end to AA would require a total overturn of Grutter, which is unlikely based on the merits of this case (if you've been following it, which I doubt you have).

Just taking the time to provide some further substantiation for this from a more qualified, knowledgeable source.

The notion of diversity as a compelling interest is not being strongly challenged here, and such a challenge would be necessary for your preferred outcome.
You will, in all likelihood, have to wait some time longer for your dreams of "equality" (whatever your definition of that actually is) to come true.

Good luck.

The author of the article which Athlone provided a link to either does not understand constitutional law or understands constitutional law and for whatever reason decided not to provide a clear explanation of the relevant constitutional law. I will attempt to clarify things here. The fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the fifth amendment states, in part, that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This part of the fourteenth amendment is commonly referred to as the Equal Protection Clause. Throughout history, one of the important functions of the Supreme Court was to determine whether a particular governmental action (i.e. a state statute or the policy of a state university) violates equal protection. The way the Supreme Court determines whether a particular state action violates equal protection is by analizing the action by using one of three tests. These three tests are known as the rational basis test, intermediate level scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. Classifications based on race, national origin, religion, and alienage (with the exception of illegal alienage) are subject to strict scrutiny. Classifications based on gender or illegitimacy are subject to intermediate level scrutiny. All other classifications are subject to the rational basis test, which is the lowest level of scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny requires a compelling governmental interest and that the classification is narrowly tailored to achievement of that interest. Intermidiate level scrutiny requires that the classification serve an important governmental interest and that the classification is substantially related to achievement of that interest. The rational basis test requires that the classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest.
Classifications based on race are subject to strict scrutiny.
The policy of the University of Texas which is discussed in the article cited by Athlone is part race-specific and part racially-neutral. The part about accepting all students withing the top 10% is racially-neutral, while the part about using race as a factor in admissions is race-specific. The argument against this policy should obviously be that the compelling governmental interest of promoting diversity is met by the "top 10%" part of the university's admissions policy in and of itself and that there is no need for the additional racially-based policy. I believe part of Athlone's point is that diversity as a compelling interest is not being challanged here and therefore there is virtually a 0% chance that the Supreme Court will rule that diversity is not a compelling governmental interest and that college admissions policies which are race-specific and affirmative action as a whole violate the Equal Protection Clause and are unconstitutional. Because the Supreme Court has ruled and will continue to rule in the future that affirmative action serves not one compelling governmental interest, but multiple compelling governmental interests, don't expect for affirmative action do go away any time in the near future.

[Excelsior]

(10-20-2012 09:58 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(10-20-2012 08:46 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-19-2012 05:03 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-19-2012 03:41 AM)durangotang Wrote:  

Well now a case exactly as I described is being heard by the Supreme Court. Imagine that.

I look forward to the ruling.

You shouldn't-an end to AA would require a total overturn of Grutter, which is unlikely based on the merits of this case (if you've been following it, which I doubt you have).

Just taking the time to provide some further substantiation for this from a more qualified, knowledgeable source.

The notion of diversity as a compelling interest is not being strongly challenged here, and such a challenge would be necessary for your preferred outcome.
You will, in all likelihood, have to wait some time longer for your dreams of "equality" (whatever your definition of that actually is) to come true.

Good luck.

The author of the article which Athlone provided a link to either does not understand constitutional law or understands constitutional law and for whatever reason decided not to provide a clear explanation of the relevant constitutional law.

I will attempt to clarify things here. The fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the fifth amendment states, in part, that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This part of the fourteenth amendment is commonly referred to as the Equal Protection Clause.

Throughout history, one of the important functions of the Supreme Court was to determine whether a particular governmental action (i.e. a state statute or the policy of a state university) violates equal protection. The way the Supreme Court determines whether a particular state action violates equal protection is by analizing the action by using one of three tests. These three tests are known as the rational basis test, intermediate level scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. Classifications based on race, national origin, religion, and alienage (with the exception of illegal alienage) are subject to strict scrutiny. Classifications based on gender or illegitimacy are subject to intermediate level scrutiny. All other classifications are subject to the rational basis test, which is the lowest level of scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny requires a compelling governmental interest and that the classification is narrowly tailored to achievement of that interest. Intermidiate level scrutiny requires that the classification serve an important governmental interest and that the classification is substantially related to achievement of that interest. The rational basis test requires that the classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest.
Classifications based on race are subject to strict scrutiny.

The policy of the University of Texas which is discussed in the article cited by Athlone is part race-specific and part racially-neutral. The part about accepting all students withing the top 10% is racially-neutral, while the part about using race as a factor in admissions is race-specific.

The argument against this policy should obviously be that the compelling governmental interest of promoting diversity is met by the "top 10%" part of the university's admissions policy in and of itself and that there is no need for the additional racially-based policy.
I believe part of Athlone's point is that diversity as a compelling interest is not being challanged here and therefore there is virtually a 0% chance that the Supreme Court will rule that diversity is not a compelling governmental interest and that college admissions policies which are race-specific and affirmative action as a whole violate the Equal Protection Clause and are unconstitutional. Because the Supreme Court has ruled and will continue to rule in the future that affirmative action serves not one compelling governmental interest, but multiple compelling governmental interests, don't expect for affirmative action do go away any time in the near future.

All of the bolded is precisely my point, as it has been drawn from observation of the oral arguments and some of the briefs presented so far in the case. Texas' policy may not survive as is, but AA as a whole would not die off as a result of that. That would set a limitation (ex: if a compelling government interest is met by a race neutral policy, additional race-based policies are not necessary), but it would take so little for other schools to meet such a precedent that you'd see virtually no change nationwide in admissions policy.

You've basically read my mind and articulated the contents very effectively, more so than I tried to do earlier in this thread. Thanks for the clarification, though I doubt durangotang will be pleased to see it.

And, again, if anyone wants further substantiation of Merenguero's last point here (that AA serves not one, but many compelling government interests), a quick perusal of the amicus briefs in favor of the respondent (Texas) in this case and the contents therein should do the job.

There is a reason that the likes of the Fortune 100, the Federal Government, representatives of the Texas State Government and the United States Military have come out in support of AA, and that reason isn't solely out of the goodness of their hearts.
AA will persist because it serves a necessary purpose.

[playa_with_a_passport]

(10-19-2012 02:43 PM)cat_a_clysm Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 06:54 PM)j r Wrote:  

What's more, you can do this little experiment yourself. Write up two resumes with the exact same history, but call one John Jones and call one Jamal Jones. You want to put some money down on which gets more interviews?

Jamal gets more every day of the week, that's a really, really, really bad example for your point

I wonder what fantasy world are you living in. Let's not get this twisted, White Supremacy/Privilege are very much alive. Granted it is not the 1920's with the minstrel shows and lynchings but let's not delude ourselves and pretend America is on the level because its not.

Even in Liberal hot bed like NYC there are 100k+ a year jobs on the lower end of the education spectrum that are unofficially reserved for White guys who just couldn't cut it in community college. Minority males just do not have that safety net. Good luck tying as a Black or Latino male to get an apprenticeship in NYC as a elevator mechanic, sandog(underground laborers), back stage hand or crane operator. Even till this day try to find any information about how to get those jobs, they are more secretive than the NSA. You are basically hired not by merit but over a beer and a handshake. How is that shit fair to Tyronne from the projects who did not have the good fortune of living in the suburbs next to an elevator mechanic who could have put him on? He's not even given a chance to take an aptitude test that HBDers swear he's going to fail.

If you are a black male in NYC with just a HS diploma, no criminal record and you do not want to go college, you only really have 3 choices; military, security guard or the 4pm to 12am shift at White Castle. This is the real reason why NYC is full of good looking young Brothas with these fat disgusting neck popping sistas because they can not afford any better.

But I digress, saw the movie. It was horrible. Btw, in the movie "WTC" the Marine who went back to the World Trade Center and rescued the trapped police officers was portrayed by a White actor but the real life Marine was actually Black. Where's the outrage in that? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1682706/posts

[Samseau]

Are we a nation of equals or are we not? Affirmative action is contradictory with equality.

Athlone, you posted this link: http://hlrecord.org/?p=15323

It presents a strong case against AA:

Quote:

Affirmative action policies often involve the unchallenged, but questionable assumption that every institution should generally have a white majority, or at least a white plurality. These policies assume that once an institution has accepted a “critical mass” of each minority group (since quotas are taboo), it has satisfied its “diversity” goal. And once this “diversity” goal has been achieved, white applicants usually inherit the remaining majority of seats.

Consider college admissions. For the recently-enrolled class of 2016, whites were approximately 57 percent of new students at Yale, 56 percent at Harvard, and 58 percent at Princeton. Meanwhile, Cornell proudly announced, in an online article titled “Class of 2016: smart, more diverse, with a female majority,” that “39.8 percent of the Class of 2016 identifies as non-Caucasian.”

Does that tell us something about the remaining 60.2 percent?

Thus, we have an ironic situation where institutions that claim to promote “diversity,” despite their sincere intentions, appear to limit minorities to a minority of seats. Conversely, this results in an apparent entrenchment of white majorities.

This article argues that without AA white majorities would no longer be a majority, and therefore AA is racist.

[BoiBoi]

I enjoyed it, kinda stupid movie, but Trejo is Trejo.

[Excelsior]

(10-21-2012 11:02 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Are we a nation of equals or are we not?

We're not. Getting rid of AA will not change that.

Quote:

Affirmative action is contradictory with equality.

American realities are consistently contradictory to equality. Again, getting rid of AA will not change that.

Quote:

Athlone, you posted this link: http://hlrecord.org/?p=15323

It presents a strong case against AA:

No, it presents a strong case for it by calling completely into the question one of the primary grounds for attacking AA: that it harms whites, and is therefore a form of "reverse discrimination". The numbers presented clearly contradict that, and even display a mild benefit for white males (often the most vocal opponents of the policies).
Again, his displaying this benefit of AA to whites is actually a strong argument for the policy, not against it, because it undermines one of the pillars of the opposition.

His argument following the establishment of all this is that, because whites are in fact major beneficiaries of AA (contrary to their own popular belief), AA is therefore not the best solution. The last portion of his argument is as follows, where he proposes a solution:

Quote:

Meritocracy gives minority groups the chance to excel in, and sometimes dominate, new fields. In the 1940s, basketball was a predominantly white sport—as a 1946 photo of the New York Knicks might easily attest. But today in the 21st century, African-Americans represent over 75 percent of NBA players. As writer Dinesh D’Souza notes, “Presumably […] it is merit that is producing this racially disproportionate result. If coaches are picking the best dribblers and passers and shooters, then who cares if one group has more players and another group has less?”

In contrast, had the NBA maintained a “diversity” policy similar to what some colleges have today, basketball teams would probably be mainly white, with only a “critical mass” of Asians, Latinos, and African-Americans. In that case, would the NBA still have superstars like LeBron James and Jeremy Lin?

The use of a game as an analogy is foolish enough (proponents of diversity are looking for far more substantive progress than that gained in the fields of running/throwing balls around), but the argument for the "meritocracy" (which doesn't exist) is about as naive as you can get.

He continues:

Quote:

Meritocracy, not affirmative action, is probably the more practical approach for promoting racial equality. Society should increase funding for reading programs, summer camps, pre-college preparation, and other educational opportunities that give minorities opportunities to work with whites on an equal basis. While affirmative action often results (ironically) in the entrenchment of white majorities, meritocracy offers minorities real opportunities to achieve real equality.

This shows that he actually isn't as well versed in the topic of AA with regards to under-represented minorities as he should be, even if the rest of his analysis has some merit. This is a very weak argument against AA, for reasons I pointed out above-it assumes equality where it doesn't actually exist, and presumes that AA is a cause (and not merely a symptom) of said inequality.
This inability to recognize the reality of the problem and its fundamentals prevents the promotion of any valid solution.

Quote:

This article argues that without AA white majorities would no longer be a majority, and therefore AA is racist.

The article argues that by ensuring the presence of a white majority or (at least) a white plurality, AA is therefore rendered counter-productive and/or ineffective for minorities. Aside from what I mentioned above (that this argument strongly aids AA proponents by attacking a pillar of the opposition who often claim "disadvantage" because of AA), the reality is that the maintenance of a white plurality (or even a slight majority) as a result of AA is not considered a major problem. The goal of AA is the maintenance of diversity, not the exclusion of whites.

Most AA proponents have no issues with the notion of a white plurality or slight majority, especially in a nation in which they are a majority and (even after losing majority status in about 30 years) will remain a plurality for a very long time to come.
The presence of said plurality =/= racism. He'd have a more effective case if AA proponents did make that conclusion, but they do not. Most AA proponents aren't too hard up about some white males/females gaining some benefit from AA.

We only get a bit worked up when said whites fail to acknowledge this benefit, and attempt to play the victim.

[Samseau]

You want to 'engineer' society. I don't think it can or should be done. It's failed 100 times before, why try it this time?

[dk902]

(10-21-2012 10:53 AM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

You are basically hired not by merit but over a beer and a handshake. How is that shit fair to Tyronne from the projects who did not have the good fortune of living in the suburbs next to an elevator mechanic who could have put him on?

So what if it was a white guy who lived in a trailer park who didn't live near the suburbs and didn't have access to this business network? Should be granted a job on that basis? Or because he's white he shouldn't get it?

The logic of simply having the misfortune to be in the wrong place entitles someone to a job doesn't wash.

I had the fortune to be born in the West, and someone may have the misfortune to be born into abject poverty in the third world.

[Excelsior]

(10-21-2012 04:27 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You want to 'engineer' society. I don't think it can or should be done. It's failed 100 times before, why try it this time?

All government policy represents an attempt to "engineer" society in one way or another by encouraging or pushing (and sometimes outright forcing) outcomes that are deemed, for one reason or another, to be beneficial to society (read: serving a "compelling government interest").

Governments push these policies and force adherence to them in order to satisfy their compelling interests. The laws of our land (repeatedly affirmed by our own supreme court) and many others across the planet and across time (from Babylon to Persia to Rome to China and to Mali) have upheld the right of government to engage in such practices, while subsequently displaying the necessity and benefit of doing so. Civilization was built on the back of said practices.

I see no justification for an end to this interpretation of government policy, nor for an end to AA in particular. This is not a good basis on which to question AA.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Governments push these policies and force adherence to them in order to satisfy their compelling interests. The laws of our land (repeatedly affirmed by our own supreme court) and many others across the planet and across time (from Babylon to Persia to Rome to China and to Mali) have upheld the right of government to engage in such practices, while subsequently displaying the necessity and benefit of doing so. Civilization was built on the back of said practices.

Not true. The best civilizations have been created by law givers that best understood the culture of the people they were dealing with, and created appropriate laws in response to the traditions already in place in order to maximize prosperity.

No government is created in a vacuum, and those that have tried have failed miserably (i.e. see Communist regimes).

American culture was founded on the premise that all men have the same basic rights: property, liberty, and life. AA is in direct opposition to the idea that everyone has an equal shot at property, since certain groups will be excluded in favor of other groups in the name of racist legislation.

Now, even if we agree that equality is bullshit (which it mostly is), it does not change the fact that American culture is based on equality and it would be wrong to change this basic cultural underpinning.

AA goes against this cultural premise, by keeping lesser qualified individuals in place of higher qualified ones.

[Excelsior]

(10-21-2012 07:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Not true. The best civilizations have been created by law givers that best understood the culture of the people they were dealing with, and created appropriate laws in response to the traditions already in place in order to maximize prosperity.

On the contrary, what I said is very true. Governments regularly encourage, push, and force developments that serve their compelling interest, and most of modern civilization is based upon this practice.

This does not mean that they do not also take into account any understanding of the cultures they are dealing with. These practices are not mutually exclusive-the promotion/pushing/forcing of a compelling government interest can always be planned to take into account any entrenched realities on the ground, as we'll soon see that AA does.

Quote:

No government is created in a vacuum, and those that have tried have failed miserably (i.e. see Communist regimes).

Ok.

Quote:

American culture was founded on the premise that all men have the same basic rights: property, liberty, and life.

A premise, yes.

Quote:

AA is in direct opposition to the idea that everyone has an equal shot at property,

...assuming that the groups who benefit most from AA gain a net "leg up" over other groups as a result of it (not backed by the numbers) and were not, in fact, disadvantaged in the first place (well backed by the numbers).

Again, you assume equality where there is none, and mistake AA for a cause of inequality instead of the symptom that it actually is.

AA targets groups that do not, in fact, have an equal shot at any of the lovely ideals you mentioned above, and seeks to help them attain a more equitable stake in the nation's progress.
In doing this, it falls perfectly in line with your stated principle by applying it to a larger share of the American populace who, in the undisturbed state of American nature, tend to be (and historically always have been) denied the "equal shot" you hold so dear.

An environment without AA would more closely parallel a reality that contrasts your stated ideal.

Quote:

since certain groups will be excluded in favor of other groups in the name of racist legislation.

Which groups are "excluded" by AA?

In any case, what you said further above is correct-the best lawmakers are those who understand the nature of their society and govern accordingly. You estimate that those who support AA are operating in contrast to this principle, but that conclusion can only be made if you take an inaccurate (or, in your case, overly idealistic) understanding of the reality of American culture.

The lawmakers who promote and support AA understand something that many (including yourself) apparently do not: that the American culture is not, in fact, about equality, despite statements to the contrary. They understand that ours is a society founded on the basis of inequality, perpetuated by the encouragement of inequality, and permeated at all levels by said inequality. They also understand that race is at the center of this inequality, above all other factors.

They treat your claims with regards to the "cultural underpinning" of actual equality in America as they should be treated-like idealistic fluff. They realize that the reality on the ground is (and always has been) about continued inequality, and promote AA as a means with which to address that truth.

In doing this, they show a very strong understanding of the culture they are dealing with: a culture of inequality, not equality.

Quote:

Now, even if we agree that equality is bullshit (which it mostly is), it does not change the fact that American culture is based on equality and it would be wrong to change this basic cultural underpinning.

Nobody is "changing" anything. People are merely acknowledging the reality that this "basic cultural underpinning" doesn't actually underpin anything, or even really exist outside of idealized portrayals of this society.

As I just mentioned, American culture is based on inequality, not equality. Your understanding is one that only exists in an idealized narrative, and this stated ideal can be considered (and has been considered by most American lawmakers until recent times who have ignored it in practice) pure fluff.

The existence of AA is a recognition of that reality-that groups (particularly racial ones) are not held or treated as equals, and that the promotion of any means with which to address this reality is of compelling interest to the United States Government going forward.

Quote:

AA goes against this cultural premise, by keeping lesser qualified individuals in place of higher qualified ones.

AA supports this idealized premise by giving groups that have historically been treated unequally a more proportional stake in the future of a country which, in about 40-50 years, they will come to dominate demographically. This is as close to "equality" as any of these groups have been during their tenure in this nation.

Your idealized premise is further discredited by the reality on the ground that sees less qualified individuals promoted for reasons not strictly based on merit, regardless of the presence of AA.

You state the AA goes against this cultural premise. The reality is that American culture goes against this stated premise. The non-racial meritocracy is not here, and getting rid of AA will not bring it to you.

[Samseau]

Athlone McGinnis Wrote:

AA targets groups that do not, in fact, have an equal shot at any of the lovely ideals you mentioned above, and seeks to help them attain a more equitable stake in the nation's progress.
In doing this, it falls perfectly in line with your stated principle by applying it to a larger share of the American populace who, in the undisturbed state of American nature, tend to be (and historically always have been) denied the "equal shot" you hold so dear.

You're totally wrong, and I can prove it with a simple example.


The Chinese were subjected to a brutal Moaist regime during the 20th century that did not improve until the late 1980's. The Chinese lived under worse conditions than the average Black American did during the 20th century.

Yet, according to AA, Chinese are openly discriminated against because Asians are over-represented at most universities, and therefore must work harder to achieve higher test scores than everyone else.


Therefore, AA does not help those who have been disadvantaged in the past, since it offers no consideration of a person's past. It only selects on race, which is a de-facto racist policy.

Quote:

Which groups are "excluded" by AA?

Asians.

Quote:

In any case, what you said further above is correct-the best lawmakers are those who understand the nature of their society and govern accordingly. You estimate that those who support AA are operating in contrast to this principle, but that conclusion can only be made if you take an inaccurate (or, in your case, overly idealistic) understanding of the reality of American culture.

Not at all, American culture was mostly founded by immigrants who worked their nuts off in order to succeed, without any government intervention.

All the government did was provide a solid framework for capitalist institutions to operate within, and people were more than able to prosper. See: Thomas Jefferson as the ultimate law giver.

Quote:

AA supports this idealized premise by giving groups that have historically been treated unequally a more proportional stake in the future of a country which, in about 40-50 years, they will come to dominate demographically. This is as close to "equality" as any of these groups have been during their tenure in this nation.

Nope, all it does is give racial favoritism in order to win votes. See: Aristotle on Demagoguery. The 14th amendment says equal treatment - but AA explicitly gives racial preferences. The fact that AA hasn't been overturned is a classic example of popular vote superseding the rule of law.

Quote:

Your idealized premise is further discredited by the reality on the ground that sees less qualified individuals promoted for reasons not strictly based on merit, regardless of the presence of AA.

The difference being one is done by a free association of individuals, whereas the other is carried out by the authoritarian government.

Quote:

You state the AA goes against this cultural premise. The reality is that American culture goes against this stated premise. The non-racial meritocracy is not here, and getting rid of AA will not bring it to you.

It was always here, until AA killed it and made racial politics the norm.

[Excelsior]

(10-22-2012 12:54 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

AA targets groups that do not, in fact, have an equal shot at any of the lovely ideals you mentioned above, and seeks to help them attain a more equitable stake in the nation's progress.
In doing this, it falls perfectly in line with your stated principle by applying it to a larger share of the American populace who, in the undisturbed state of American nature, tend to be (and historically always have been) denied the "equal shot" you hold so dear.

You're totally wrong, and I can prove it with a simple example.

I'm quite correct, actually. The primary groups targeted by AA (African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans) are groups that do not have an equal shot at any of the ideals you mentioned.
Other groups who do not fit that bill (ex: white males and white females) may also benefit and some who do fit that bill (example: some Asians) may not benefit quite as much (at least not in education), but at the end of the day the general statement rings true.

Quote:

The Chinese were subjected to a brutal Moaist regime during the 20th century that did not improve until the late 1980's. The Chinese lived under worse conditions than the average Black American did during the 20th century.

Yet, according to AA, Chinese are openly discriminated against because Asians are over-represented at most universities, and therefore must work harder to achieve higher test scores than everyone else.

Some data/research would be useful to backup your claim with regard to the living standards of Chinese-Americans specifically prior to their arrival in the USA.

Regardless, I'm not going to get into a big discussion as to who is more disadvantaged and who isn't. I will say that I perceive AA's relations to Asian's in education (AA can still benefit Asians in employment/diversity initiatives) to be a sore weak spot of the policy, and I would support improvement in that regard. AA should do better by Asian-Americans.

Quote:

Therefore, AA does not help those who have been disadvantaged in the past,

Factually incorrect statement. AA directly benefits the groups in this nation most harmed by this nation's past (as well as by discrimination in the present).

What you meant to say was this: "AA does not help all of those who have been disadvantaged in the past".
That is a statement I can agree with. Then again, that fact doesn't invalidate the maintenance of AA as a policy. What it does do is bring to light the possibility for improvement.
No policy is perfect.

Quote:

since it offers no consideration of a person's past.

By weighing the realities of discrimination faced by the many of the main beneficiaries (Hispanics, Native Americans, African Americans), AA does in fact take into account the past of those it intends to benefit.
It may not account for ALL disadvantaged pasts, but that is not the same as claiming that it offers NO consideration of pasts. This is a rationale for improvement, not elimination.

Quote:

It only selects on race,

This statement is easily disproven by the existence of the following groups, both of which benefit (or have benefited) significantly from the existence of AA:

A: White women (clearly selected by gender, not race)
B: Hispanics (hispanics are not a race)

Race cannot be claimed to be the only factor in the application of AA, as you have implied.

Quote:

Not at all, American culture was mostly founded by immigrants who worked their nuts off in order to succeed, without any government intervention.

That's just wrong, really.

The early history of the United States is filled with large instances of major government initiative having a big impact on the progress and experience of (mostly white) American citizens. Thomas Jefferson is not excepted.
Slavery is actually another good example of this.

Quote:

All the government did was provide a solid framework for capitalist institutions to operate within, and white people were more than able to prosper.

1. I fixed this piece for you-my edit is emphasized.
2. As I stated above, the American government has historically done much more than sit back and watch when it comes to the development of its citizenry. The white middle class in this country owes its very existence to government initiative, which is ironic given the tendency of some of its members to adopt a strongly libertarian view of things.

Quote:

Nope, all it does is give racial favoritism in order to win votes.

AA is not solely about race, as I established above.
Furthermore, the intended benefits of AA go well beyond political capital. I established this quite clearly here.

Quote:

The 14th amendment says equal treatment - but AA explicitly gives racial preferences.

...primarily to groups that do not receive equal treatment and would not (and have not) receive (received) equal treatment without it (or, in some cases, even with it).

To fail to attempt to address this discrepancy would be to fail to adhere to the 14th Amendment. You seem to think that merely making a statement about the necessity of equal treatment is enough to establish the prevalence of equal treatment in practice, and all further considerations should end there-we should not be concerned about actual outcomes.

This is not wise in my view. When that stated "equal treatment" is not actually applied and there still exists a desire to stay true to the intent of that amendment, initiative can (and should) be taken to try and move closer to that outcome.

Quote:

The fact that AA hasn't been overturned is a classic example of popular vote superseding the rule of law.

The fact that AA has not been overturned is a classic example of its place well within the rule of law. That reality has been made clear by our highest court on several occasions (the popular vote has never been relevant), and I'll not bother to list the instances in which it has been affirmed by lower courts.
Unless you have given more consideration to the policy than any past Federal/Supreme Court (and/or you possess more in the way of constitutional knowledge than they and their staff do), I would find it hard to give weight to any claim regarding AA as a policy standing outside the rule of American law. It has been affirmed to be well within it on too many occasions by too many of our best legal minds.

The popular vote is also not quite as strongly against AA as you may think (see Myth #4).

Quote:

Quote:

Your idealized premise is further discredited by the reality on the ground that sees less qualified individuals promoted for reasons not strictly based on merit, regardless of the presence of AA.

The difference being one is done by a free association of individuals, whereas the other is carried out by the authoritarian government.

A difference that is irrelevant in determining the existence of a "culture of equality", as you so claimed has existed here.
If your "free association of individuals" results in the uplifting of many members of some groups on non-merit based grounds as it historically has without AA, then one must be forced to question the strength of your stated "culture of equality".

In fact, one would be forced to call it fluff, as it would clearly be shown not to actually exist.

Quote:

It was always here, until AA killed it and made racial politics the norm.

"It was always here"? The USA has always been a non-racial meritocracy? Racial politics were not the norm prior to the civil rights movement?

Are you serious?