Unitended racism

As a member of the Supreme Court I would vote according to principles of maintaining and furthering separation of social-economic classes. Race, skin color and cultural background are almost irrelevant. It's all about the "haves" and the "have nots" to me.

Just Kidding

Affirmative action is pass, and was from its inception. To me it is a red herring distracting from the true concern which is fair and even treatment of all job-seekers. Hiring selection must be based upon ability, talent and qualification.Edited by CosmicChimp, : No reason given.Edited by CosmicChimp, : No reason given.Edited by CosmicChimp, : fixed the incomplete sentenceEdited by CosmicChimp, : fixed the subtitle

Hi, I know that your response is directed to Hyroglyphx, but you have caught my attention in a way that the others who have responded here, with terrific comments as well, have not yet prodded me into similar action. People are ideally hired (and promoted) based upon their good and fitting qualifications. Maybe you mean to present the exceptions to the case, in that event I say, fine point taken. You may be right here, but regardless hiring and promoting bosses simply do the best they can based upon the information they have. And it doesn't get any better or more precise than that. Are you just dropping the bit about qualifications here? If no, then a hiring or promoting boss would be an idiot not to consider the fact that a "hindered" person has accomplished more to be arriving at the same position as a "non-hindered" person.If for some reason you have explicitly dropped the implication of using the word qualifications then I would say you have reverted to some kind of job distribution based upon race distribution in society. At that point I would ask for you to explain the reasons behind artificially making job distribution follow race distribution.

Your posts show many good points that don't go unnoticed so thanks for those. Allow me to at least point out the minor items I do see that I don't think you realize you are not addressing. Regardless of the actual validity of your statement and two points above, qualifications are earned in schools/universities and on the job experience; listed in CVs, resumes and Lebenslafe; and evaluated and reviewed by prospective employers. And certain individuals responsible for hiring will be making decisions about applicants, irrespective of what another hiring agent may have done given the same data. In theory your points may have some use but in practical terms there is nothing useful yet there. Previously I was trying to say that the current system in place is the "best" we have to offer. As in, bosses hiring workers as it has been for ages is the best way we have been able to come up with a solution to the issue. I ask somewhat sarcastically, do you have something else in mind, something that could better replace the existing way of giving/getting jobs?Your comments of hidden racism are no doubt true, even as I can see it in my own experiences.Your further comments regarding other forms of subtle racism I can also accept as valid. Your position on affirmative action is not clear to me; but I still feel that it is a misdirected effort that could be more effectively spent directed more precisely at the problem of racism (or sexism as someone pointed out) in hiring/promotion. Affirmative action as a solution has a place under certain dire circumstances most definitely, but in the current climate as I see it in the USA, I hold that it has outlived it's usefulness, to the society as a whole.Edited by CosmicChimp, : No reason given.

Ah Rahvin, I see now you too have responded, thanks. What is the worthy purpose in making company staffing reflect the racial distribution in society at large? According to affirmative action (AA) laws the company is legally bound to tote the burden of maintaining a certain staff profile even to the detriment of the share-holder dividends and overall efficiency of the profitability of the firm.There's no telling what sort of red-tape nightmare this must be to the company and then the government oversight of the system. What a horrible solution affirmative action surely is when properly viewed from a higher level.What could be so worth all of that? You're dead wrong here. It is racism in the exact style that it seeks to rectify. It is racism against a previously existing situation of racism, counter- racism. No, it is even worse, it is institutionalized racism. What a pity. It's wrong! In the aforementioned case it is even what the Supreme Court says.The damage caused to cultures and segments of society that has at its core hatred, racism and sexism, has absolutely no place in society, must be rooted out stomped and banished forever. Acceptance and tolerance must pervade all the corners of our lives. You still see AA as a viable solution I say it must be replaced with another more direct approach.Edited by CosmicChimp, : Subtitles are driving me crazy.

I did misunderstand you then on that point. But still if I may, let me rephrase your sentence:Unless two applications are the same, they are unequal.This is not a useful point anyway you view it.Also, your point that AA is unfair (reverse discrimination), is also not thought through as AA seeks to correct an already existing unfair situation. But, I still don't see AA as the best solution, as we both agree upon.Edited by CosmicChimp, : edited for clarity

Now you've laid it out so clearly that it actually inspires new ideas in the reader. Nice work and thanks.If the boss chooses the white it is racism and if he chooses the black it is reverse discrimination. But I've beaten that dead horse enough.Edited by CosmicChimp, : No reason given.

After reading his post I was actually the one to come up with that.

Hi Rrhain, I am actually interested in having some of the reasoning spelled out for me. Good news to me then. I definitely would not want to repeat a republican talking point either. No, I did not read it and probably won't have any time for that. But thanks for your clarification nonetheless.

No no I am not interpreting your info. I was only spurred to come up with that as a result of reading your stuff. That's only something off the top of my head and meant in the coffee house spirit of this section.I have finally actually understood what you were getting at, I'm glad you presented it there at the end.

Thank you for your views, I hope to be able to hear even more on this line from yourself and others here. "Justice for all," is promoted by fulfilling AA quotas? Men are not equal (beyond a certain level). Some people have better qualifications than others. If you want to encourage the minorities and the other underprivileged groups, then the focus must be on improving their qualifications.The rest of your post is spot on except for one part. I'm not upset at all. I'll take what you had to say earlier about the issue as true but even then without checking; exactly as I had done regarding Hieroglyph's assertions as well. You seem to know what you're talking about and so I'll just go along with it as I haven't quite reached the threshold of researching the sources. This being coffee shop and all it seems a fitting sort of laziness to keep on my part. Especially as I'm busy making chicken salad, and two cakes.