Unitended racism

Hyroglyphx posts: But that's not what that said. Numerical goals are not prohibited. Infact, numerical goals are not allowed to create quotas in this argument.

---

- xongsmith

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

Only in Message 63 I showed you the official UK parliamentary document that describes 'positive action' as the special treatment of people with certain ethnic or racial characteristics.

---

And as I responded in Message 68, I pointed out that I cannot speak for the UK. However, what you are describing is not what happens here in the US.But I notice even still despite being directly asked to provide an example, you have yet to show a single specific case of something happening in the UK that is problematic.

quote:

---

Because you're ensuring that more people of a certain race or ethnicity will apply for a position than others.

---

So? Since only the qualified will be chosen, why does it matter where the applicants come from? You seem to be upset over the idea that you're facing stiff competition. That if we allow people who aren't white males to apply, a qualified person who isn't white or isn't male just might be selected. Shock and horror!

quote:

---

You are increasing the chances that a person of certain race or colour will be selected.

---

That's precisely the point! By making sure we look everywhere for qualified candidates, we are more likely to make sure that everybody has a chance. Why would you be upset over making sure that qualified people are given a shot? Only white males are allowed to apply? It isn't fair to white males if we consider people who aren't white or aren't male?Do you truly not see the racism in your position?

quote:

---

Tell me, if an employer selectively targeted white audiences to advertise their vacancies how would this be viewed: as 'positive action' or just plain old racism ?

---

Huh? If that were the only thing they did, then yes. This is why companies have to advertise open positions even when they think they have a good candidate within the company: It would be unfair to prevent other people from applying.But affirmative action isn't about advertising only to people who are in the minority. It's about making sure that those who are in the minority are given the same chance as those who are in the majority. Part of that is ensuring that they are aware of the opportunities.

quote:

---

Let's not play with words here. If you are an employer, any decision you make concerning who and when to hire is an employment decision.

---

Huh? You ask that we don't play with words and you then immediately launch a semantic game. I'm sorry, I'm not going to play.

quote:

---

See, the trouble with this is the use of the terms 'disadvantaged' and 'qualified' in the same sentence.

---

Oh? Why? Why is it impossible for someone to be qualified but disadvantaged? To again use a specific example, the local professional theatre scene here in San Diego. We have the Old Globe and the La Jolla Playhouse. Both Tony winning theatres. Many of the shows that start here go on to Broadway and win awards in their own right.But try being an actor from San Diego and getting cast. Both theatres pretty much cast only out of LA. Many of my colleagues would audition and never get any response...until they put a Los Angeles phone number on their resume. Everything's the same, they're still living in San Diego but because they suddenly looked like they were an LA actor, they were getting called back and cast.They were perfectly qualified, but they were disadvantaged due to bias on the part of the casting directors regarding where a "serious" actor lives.Again, another specific example: Symphony orchestras were primarily peopled with white males and of those who weren't white or were women, they were relegated to the lower parts, never getting the principal parts. The conductors were adamant over the fact that they weren't racist or sexist in their selections, but those who were in the orchestra thought differently. So, a new system of auditioning was insituted: Blind auditions. The judges don't get to see who is auditioning. Instead, the auditioner performs from behind a screen, saying nothing. Suddenly, women and non-whites were making profound headways into the orchestra.They were perfectly qualified, but they were disadvantaged due to bias on the part of the orchestra management regarding race and sex.I don't understand why you have a problem with a person being both qualified and at a disadvantage.

quote:

---

and just what's wrong with that?

---

Because labor laws are specific regarding when and how you can go about finding employees. That's why companies have to advertise open positions, even when they think the perfect candidate is going to come from within the company. It is unfair to prevent qualified people from applying.

quote:

---

if that's "affirmative action" then all current laws and rules for affirmative actiom are obsolete and redundant.

---

Right...because we can always trust upon the kindness of people to do the right thing.That's the nice thing about affirmative action laws: If you're going to do the right thing anyway, you're never going to run afoul of the law. It only comes down on the unethical.

quote:

---

So, if this is "affirmative action" then what's the point of it?

---

To make sure that public actions are done above board and without discrimination. It would be a wonderful thing if employers took to heart the idea of finding the best candidate without regard to things like race and sex, but people are people and have biases and prejudices which discriminate against people.People are very good at claiming that they aren't discriminating and often believe that they aren't.

quote:

---

Do you know of any employers advertising in 'white-only' press?

---

You seem to think that a source that is used primarily by whites is conscious of the fact that it is so.

quote:

---

I don't think that AA is the sanitised, marketable view you're trying to present here.

---

And yet, you haven't given a single, real-world example of a problem. All you've done is whine about fantasies you have created in your head. Do you have any actual examples to bring forward or do you only have the monsters under your bed to complain about?

quote:

---

There are plenty of people who want you to THINK that such is the case, but they have a long track record of lying to you.

---

Nice true, but that's my argument to you. So far, I have been the only one talking about actual examples. I've been the only one referring to what the courts have actually said. All you've done is spew racist bullshit. Do you have any real example to examine or are we all just supposed to cower in fear because you said boo?

quote:

---

So you think that increasing someone's opportunities because of their race, ethnicity or sex doesn't constitute discrimination, is that right?

---

Logical error: False premise.I think that increasing the opportunities for those who are routinely disadvantaged so that they are on par with everybody else does not constitute discrimination.

quote:

---

i had a look through the Title VII but I failed to find an exact definition of AA. Could you point it out to me?

---

Congratulations. You found out the point. "Affirmative action" is just a catchphrase. It isn't like you can write a law repealing "affirmative action." Instead, "affirmative action" is a reference to a large body of laws. Title VII is one of them (and Title VI has some say, too).You've fallen for the conservative talking point, thinking that it's some sort of simplistic, "give it to the minority" slogan. Instead, it is a very complex set of regulations. Quotas are not part of it and, at least in the United States, are expressly illegal (see the Bakke decision.)A person's race and/or sex can be taken into account but cannot be the definitive criterion. That's the law.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hyroglyphx responds to me:

quote:

---

Again, if I fell for Republican talking points does it mean that you default to falling for Democrat talking points?

---

Since my arguments are coming from the courts, does that mean the courts are Democratic strongholds?

quote:

---

Why must it be polarized or being duped in to a position instead of either agreeing with AA or not?

---

Because when someone is letting other people do their thinking for them, pulling their references from the popular press rather than from the actual source material, they become subject to manipulation from those whose only goal is their own agenda.You still haven't addressed the actual Ricci decision.

quote:

---

While the number may be arbitrary as to how many minorities a company employs, is there not an expected percentage?

---

Didn't you read your own source? But even then, the point is not to establish quotas. It is done in order to examine how things are going. Unless you are about to say that there is something about not being white or not being male that actually affects ability, then we should expect that a non-biased process should be aligned with the available population.That doesn't mean it must be in lock-step with it. There are other factors involved that can result in a difference across populations. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there are factors other than direct discrimination involved in the salaries of men compared to women. Women, as a group, tend to work fewer hours and are more likely to have a gap in their employment history. This is a cultural difference between the way men work and the way women work. Until we can change the way families are raised, with women being the ones who primarily look after children and adjust their working habits to accomodate it, then there will always be a discrepancy.But notice the law takes that into account: "The availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer's work force." If there aren't any qualified applicants or candidates other than those who are white males, then so be it.Thus, no quotas. It is just as much against the law to deny a white male the position out of some attempt to ensure that you "meet the numbers" as it is to deny someone who isn't white or isn't male due to discriminatory practices.It cuts both ways. That's the entire point behind the Ricci case and what the Supreme Court decided: Threat of a lawsuit isn't sufficient.

quote:

---

It's vague as to what it expects except for the fact that it wants minorities being hired.

---

Incorrect. It expects that minorities are given equal opportunity.

quote:

---

If that isn't a quota system then what is it?

---

It's a benchmark. You might have very valid reasons for it and can justify your results. If so, then there is no problem. That's what the Supreme Court decided in the Ricci case: Threat of a lawsuit is not sufficient.

quote:

---

Then riddle me this if you don't think anyone was denied anything: What did the case go to the Supreme Court for?

---

To determine if it was legal for the city of New Haven to toss the results of the test due to concern over threat of a disparate-impact lawsuit.You did read the decision, did you not? Have you read the decision? Yes or no.

quote:

---

The answer is that the city only invalidated the tests because a group of minorities stated that they would sue,

---

Correct.

quote:

---

thus not promoting the 2 white firemen and 1 hispanic fireman who scored very well.

---

Incorrect.Do you know how the promotion system works? Did you read the decision, because it describes it. Passing the test does not get you promoted.

quote:

---

These supposed racially biased test claims are absurd.

---

Do you know what the actual claims are or are you relying upon what media sources are telling you?Have you read the decision? Yes or no.

quote:

---

What could be racially discriminatory about fighting fires?

---

Have you read the decision to find out?

quote:

---

CBS News

---

Once again, have you read the decision or are you relying upon what media sources are telling you?

quote:

---

As you can see, they were denied.

---

Except they weren't. Passing the test does not get you a promotion. You would know that if you had read the decision.How does the New Haven fire department actually promote somebody?Have you read the decision?Yes or no.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

What I said was that the racial quota imposed by the university was the direct result of application of AA.

---

But your very claim is destroyed by this: The process was struck down as illegal. Therefore, it wasn't the result of the application of AA. It was the result of a misapplication.By your logic, anybody who adds two and two and gets five has just proven that mathematics is completely fraudulent. It can't possibly be because the person doing the adding screwed up, no. It has to be that math, itself, makes those mistakes happen.You seem to be complaining that when a quota system was established, people sued and won and had the Court point out that affirmative action is specifically not a quota system and had been established law for decades.

quote:

---

It goes back to my previous point about the distinction between policy and its implementation.

---

Huh? That's my point to you. There is the fantasy about how AA is implemented that you have and then there is the reality.Quota systems are against the law. Affirmative action law expressly forbids it. If you find out that a company is using a quota system, you can sue and get injunctive relief. That's precisely what happened.And you're upset that an illegal quota system was stopped?

quote:

---

Imposing racial quotas is a reasonable way of adhering to the principles of AA

---

Incorrect. It is expressly illegal. How can something that is absolutely and specifically denounced by affirmative action be part and parcel of this "mindset" you keep insisting upon?

quote:

---

it's also brazenly and shamelessly racist.

---

Which is why it is expressly forbidden. How can something that is deliberately and purposefully rejected be a "reasonable way of adhering to the principles of AA"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So any time somebody attempts to address the problems of racial discrimination and screws up, that means affirmative action is completely useless?

---

​

No, just any time an implementation of AA policy is nationally exposed as blatantly racist it serves to undermine the policy's validity and usefulness.

---

That doesn't answer the question, though. If everybody agrees that racist policies violate not only the letter of AA legislation but also its spirit, how can that "undermine the policy's validity and usefulness"?By your logic, every child who adds two and two and gets five is "undermining the validity and usefulness" of math. It can't possibly be that the kids screwed up and that math is perfectly valid and useful. No, the mere fact that somebody who thought he was doing it right got a wrong answer is proof positive that the entire structure is complete and utter crap.

quote:

---

It's not that the person's stupid, it's just that the theorem they're using is flawed.

---

But quotas are expressly forbidden under affirmative action. That's been settled law for decades.How does establishing a quota system when a quota system is expressly forbidden lead one to conclude that the policy is "flawed" and "reasonably" allows quota systems?You're using the logic of a child who, upon being told that he is not allowed to have a cookie, tries to justify why a cookie seems to have found itself inside his mouth."No, I didn't eat the cookie. The cookie jumped off the counter and fell into my mouth. You didn't say I couldn't swallow a cookie that fell into my mouth."Quotas are expressly forbidden by affirmative action law. How does the successful prosecution of a quota system as being illegal, as expressly declared by affirmative action law, lead one to conclude that affirmative action law encourages the use of quota systems?If I specifcally and expressly tell you not to do something and you do it, how is it my fault for your mistake? I told you not to do it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I already pointed out a very specific and infamous case in your own country, which you rejected off hand as something that's nothing to do with AA, as if the University of Michigan had suddenly decided to impose what amounted to a racial quota out of boredom rather then adhering to AA principles. But more on this in my next post.If you want specific UK examples, here's the Gloucestershire Police admitting that they rejected 108 applicants because they "were white males".and here's the Avon Fire Service barring white people from attending its open recruitment days!!Are these examples 'problematic' enough for you? What do you think drives those employers to do such things? Is it just bad luck or the application of AA policy? Ugh?? I thought that the whole point of existence of AA is because it does matter where the applicants come from!! Or is that it only matters as long as they aren't white?? Ahh yes....the last resort of the politically correct: any person who doesn't agree with our ideology must be inherently racist/sexist/[something]ist! Here's a suggestion: fight the argument, don't fight the person. No, but I do see the fascism in yours. I already stated im my previous post to you that this is already happening. The vast majority of employers advertise on national press and the internet. The wonderful thing about the internet is that it's colour blind: anyone can access it from anywhere. It isn't and I never claimed that it was! I can only assume one of three things happening here:1) you are deliberately misrepresenting what I write
2) you don't bother reading what I write
3) You are so consumed by your ideology that you think this is what I must be writing despite what I actually write.This is what I actually wrote: Let me summarise it for you: I'm taking issue with the fact that affirmative action muddles qualifications criteria with disadvantage criteria. Qualifications are objective and measurable. 'Disadvantage' isn't! Is that clear?Example: a US software company advertises on a web-site. The advert's in English. A Korean software developer lives in the US, is technically qualified for the job but doesn't speak or read English well. So he never reads the advert. Is he at a disadvantage? Undoubtedly yes. Is his disadvantage his own making? My answer's yes but there may be people who disagree. Should the employer advertise in Korean in order to correct this disadvantage? Should the employer advertise in Korean web-sites? Where do you draw the line? and why?To use your San Diego theatre scene example: Are the San Diego actors 'disadvantaged' or is it that they don't meet the qualifications criteria set by the directors? After all, the directors may think -rightly or wrongly- that LA actors are better than their San Diego counterparts. They may have had good experiences with LA actors and bad ones with San Diego. If they're wrong they're the ones who're going to suffer. Why must the state -or people like you- intervene and tell them how to manage their plays? It's this totalitarianism that I object to. In neither of your examples anyone is prevented from applying. It's just that they're rejected on a basis that you find unfair. Whether you think it's fair or not is irrelevant. It's the director's play so they decide who would be best for it regardless of your approval.As for your Symphony Orchestra example all it does is to demonstrate that racial bias does exist in the selection process. Which I never denied. However, as you claim that AA doesn't influence the selection process this example is totally pointless and out of place. was that a Freudian slip?? err..so...like I've been saying all along AA is a policy, a direction, a mindset, a culture if you like. Various laws and employment regulations are put in place to implement the AA directive. I'm glad we're agreeing on this one. There is a very complex set of regulations that enforce AA, yes. Nobody said they are part of it or that they are legal. I said that quotas are a natural consequence of following AA policy. Crudely put, if your objective is to help disadvantaged people overcome their disadvantage what better way to do it than to set aside some employment spaces for them? I've now given you three concrete examples of AA application, one in the US and two in the UK. All three are blatantly racist and discriminatory. You've already dismissed one as having nothing to do with AA. I can't wait to see what other feeble excuse you'll find to dismiss the other two. All three examples adversely affected people because of their race or colour.You -on the other hand- have stuck to referring to legislation and have yet to produce a single example where AA actually helped to produce something positive or useful other than exclude people because of their race or colour.The sad irony is that you're actively advocating a policy that takes a person's race or colour as employment criterion yet have the gall to accuse me of racism. Blessed are the self-righteous.Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

BZZZT! Causal Paradox fallacy. Just because the means were struck down as illegal doesn't mean that the end is justified.If the effective imposition of a racial quota wasn't the result of trying to follow AA policy and AA guidelines then what was it the result of?Did the Dean of the University wake up one morning and thought "What shall I do today?...I know, I'll start giving minority candidates extra selection points."Or did she look at the US equivalent of the Positive Action Framework and said "Right, how do I make sure that under-represented minorities get represented in the university? I know, I'll start giving minority candidates extra selection points."Do tell, how do you think it went? BZZZT! Weak Analogy fallacy.calling the University of Michigan's racial quota debacle a mis-application of AA is like calling the invasion of Poland a mis-application of 'Lebensraum'. "No, it wasn't the result of Germany's expansionist policy, just a totally unrelated incident caused by some generals' misconception!" Naturally! but I never claimed it was legal. Just a reasonable way of ensuring that under-represented minorities get represented. Because the people who setup the quota didn't do it explicitly. As far as I can see they didn't setup specific percentages to target but instead were awarding extra selection points for black, Hispanic or American Indian students. Which effectively amounts to setting up a quota as it ensures that proportionately more minority candidates get offered positions, all other things being equal. So in their minds they probably weren't doing anything wrong, just adhering to the guidelines of "making sure that under-represented minorities get represented in the university". They were just taking Affirmative Action. As they were being told to. You're missing the point: it doesn't matter how or why it got rejected, what matters is why it was created in the first place. I assert that it was created as a way of following AA policy, i.e. "making sure that under-represented minorities get represented". A reasonable way of ensuring this happened was the points system they set up, which was effectively a racial quota and was deemed to be racist and illegal. It was just another demonstration of Affirmative Action. The fact that it was deemed to be racist and illegal only re-inforces my point that AA is a discriminatory policy/practice/mindset. How and where does everybody agree that racist policies violate the spirit of AA legislation? If anything, they capture its spirit very well! BZZZT! Weak Analogy again. Lebensraum. 'Nuff said. A quota system is one of the most obvious ways of ensuring that under-represented minorities get represented. It's also racist. The fact that the Supreme Court called you on it only weakens AA, as one of the main methods of implementing its prime directive is now racist and illegal.It's like being told by the government that by this time next month everyone should be driving a new hybrid car. For most people the only way of complying would be to go out and steal one. It doesn't mean that everyone's inherently criminal, it just means that there's something fundamentally wrong with the policy.Why is this so hard to see?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

I already pointed out a very specific and infamous case in your own country, which you rejected off hand as something that's nothing to do with AA

---

Incorrect. What I did was point out that that case destroys your point: The policy established by the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions department was declared illegal, in direct contravention to affirmative action law, and had to be scrapped.And you're upset over this? The law specifically states that quotas are illegal, an institution develops a quota system, the institution is taken to court and found guilty of establishing a quota system, and this is a problem?How can a legal system designed to ferret out quota systems and quash them be interpreted to be actually in support of them?

quote:

---

If you want specific UK examples, here's the Gloucestershire Police admitting that they rejected 108 applicants because they "were white males".

---

Did you read your own source? Once again, this case demolishes your claim: [emphasis added]What part of "illegally" are you having trouble with? If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is that my fault? By this logic, the entire legal system is a sham because people still keep breaking the law.

quote:

---

and here's the Avon Fire Service barring white people from attending its open recruitment days!!

---

Now, that's not exactly true, is it? Didn't you read your own source? One of the sessions was restricted to ethnic minorities. One was restricted to women. The others were open to everyone.How is being allowed to go "barring" anybody? But if there's a problem, take it to court and see if it withstands scrutiny. If it turns out to be illegal, then what is the problem? You've got a system designed for ferreting out racist policies, including those aimed at white males, and it succeeded.You seem to be upset that racist policies against white men are being shot down.

quote:

---

Are these examples 'problematic' enough for you?

---

The first actually demolishes your argument and the second doesn't actually support your claim. Since I haven't seen any legal action out of it, it's still up the air, though. Do you have any references to this beyond the 2008 popular press discussion? I don't know enough about the British legal system to know where to look for how this case was handled, if at all.

quote:

---

I thought that the whole point of existence of AA is because it does matter where the applicants come from!!

---

And thus, you show that you don't know what affirmative action is at all. You have this cartoon vision that was fed to you and you've fallen for it.At any rate, you're engaging in the logical error of equivocation. The "where they came from" that I was referring to had to do with recruitment. The "where they came from" that you are referring to has to do with selection.Those two are not the same thing. This is the same logical error creationists use when they claim that "evolution is just a theory," hoping that nobody will notice that when a scientist calls something a "theory," it means something very different than what the average person means by "theory."

quote:

---

Here's a suggestion: fight the argument, don't fight the person.

---

Physician, heal thyself!

quote:

---

No, but I do see the fascism in yours.

---

You don't even know what fascism means, do you? Where in my position am I advocating for a corporatocracy, nationalism to the point of xenophobia, and a dictatorial system of government?

quote:

---

I already stated im my previous post to you that this is already happening.

---

But according to your own source, it is doing so illegally. What's the problem? If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is that my fault?

quote:

---

The vast majority of employers advertise on national press and the internet.

---

So? You seem to think that there is no racial discrepancy with regard to press and internet availability. The internet is a very white place. And newspapers tend to be read by white people. So if that's where you advertise, what makes you think you are reaching everyone?

quote:

---

The wonderful thing about the internet is that it's colour blind: anyone can access it from anywhere.

---

You pretend that everybody has equal access. Accessing the internet requires a computer. Having a computer requires money. Money tends to accumulate around white people compared to non-white people.This is the same logic that "grandfather clauses" were justified with after the 15th Amendment was ratified: By restricting the right to vote to those whose grandfather had voted, people could claim that this was a "race-netural" act. After all, it doesn't mention race at all. Of course, this completely ignored the fact that for black people, of course their grandfathers hadn't voted because it was illegal for them to vote.The bigotry of racism and sexism is pervasive and has effects beyond the simple, direct ones. If we're going to do something about it, then we have to make sure that what we are doing isn't merely "neutral" on the surface.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is it impossible for someone to be qualified but disadvantaged?

---

​

It isn't and I never claimed that it was!

---

Did you or did you not say: This would seemingly indicate that you think there is a problem with those two qualities existing in the same person.

quote:

---

Qualifications are objective and measurable. 'Disadvantage' isn't! Is that clear?

---

No. Disadvantages are also objective and measurable and qualifications are also subjective, difficult to quantify, and keep changing according to political views and ideologies.You have this fantasy that decisions are made purely on objective standards. Why is it, do you think, that orchestras didn't manage to have non-whites and women in the band until after they started having blind auditions?

quote:

---

a US software company advertises on a web-site.

---

Already, they've cut out a huge non-white population. The internet is a very white place.

quote:

---

Are the San Diego actors 'disadvantaged' or is it that they don't meet the qualifications criteria set by the directors?

---

Since the only difference was the area code, what do you think?

quote:

---

It's this totalitarianism that I object to.

---

(*chuckle*)Did I say anything about legal action regarding this? I don't recall saying it. Instead, I was pointing out that people have biases that they act on even when they claim they don't.

quote:

---

In neither of your examples anyone is prevented from applying.

---

And you might have a point if my statement were connected to those examples. Instead, it was in regard to internal promotion.

quote:

---

It's the director's play so they decide who would be best for it regardless of your approval.

---

"It's the employer's position, so they decide who would be best for it regardless of your approval and if that means a white male ('Because customers are just more comfortable discussing figures with a man'), then it's just tough noogies."And you don't see the inherent bigotry? When you enter the public sphere, you don't get to do anything you want anymore.

quote:

---

However, as you claim that AA doesn't influence the selection process this example is totally pointless and out of place.

---

Huh? A process that ensures that people who aren't white and aren't male have equal consideration compared to those who are is "pointless"?

quote:

---

err..so...like I've been saying all along AA is a policy

---

No, it's a body of laws. "Policy" would be how one implements the laws and that isn't included.

quote:

---

a direction

---

No, it's a body of laws. "Direction" would be how to implement those laws and that isn't included.

quote:

---

a mindset

---

No, it's a body of laws. A "mindset" would be how to implement those laws and that isn't included.

quote:

---

a culture if you like.

---

No, it's a body of laws. A "culture" would be how to implement those laws and that isn't included.

quote:

---

There is a very complex set of regulations that enforce AA, yes.

---

No, there's is a very complex set of regulations that enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Quotas are not part of it and, at least in the United States, are expressly illegal (see the Bakke decision.)

---

​

Nobody said they are part of it or that they are legal.

---

Oh, really? Message 59: Message 65: Message 74: And then there's you: Message 64: Message 75: You're all arguing that AA goes to quotas.

quote:

---

I said that quotas are a natural consequence of following AA policy.

---

Huh? Quotas are expressly outlawed. If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is that my fault?There is a system that looks out for race and sex and protects white males just as much as it protects those who are not. It is just as illegal to discriminate against white males as it is to discriminate against those who are not.So how is this policy "racist" or "sexist" since everybody has recourse to counter discrimination without regard to race or sex?This is the same bone-headed logic people use to whine against hate crimes legislation, claiming that "shooting a white male" is somehow allowed. The legislation doesn't say anything about blacks but instead refers to "race." Thus, hate crimes against white people are just as protected as hate crimes against black people. That such crimes against white people aren't nearly as common has to do with the behaviour of criminals, not any silliness regarding the law being racist.The same laws that are there to ensure that those who aren't white and aren't male are given equal opportunity are there to ensure that those who are white and are male are just as protected.How does a system that protects everyone regarding their race or sex get branded "racist" or "sexist"?

quote:

---

Crudely put, if your objective is to help disadvantaged people overcome their disadvantage what better way to do it than to set aside some employment spaces for them?

---

Because that would defeat the purpose of achieving equal opportunity and is why it is expressly illegal.If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is that my fault?

quote:

---

I've now given you three concrete examples of AA application

---

Two of which were expressly illegal under the very laws you are complaining about and one that wasn't exactly as you described it and at any rate hasn't been resolved from what I can tell.I'm still waiting for the example of AA requiring quotas. If the examples of quotas keep getting show down as illegal, isn't that precisely what we want to have happen? Don't we want the policies that we have in place that protect those who aren't white and aren't male to also protect those who are?You're complaining that a policy that protects white males is somehow discriminatory against them.

quote:

---

You've already dismissed one as having nothing to do with AA.

---

Incorrect. I've dismissed as completely counter to your claim: The very laws that you are complaining about are the ones that protected the white males. AA specifically outlaws quotas. The reason why the UofM policy was struck down was precisely because of AA.You're complaining that a policy that protects white males actually had the gall to protect them.

quote:

---

All three examples adversely affected people because of their race or colour.

---

Huh? Two were expressly denied as being illegal under the very laws you're complaining about and the third was not as you described and hasn't been resolved.

quote:

---

You -on the other hand- have stuck to referring to legislation and have yet to produce a single example where AA actually helped to produce something positive or useful other than exclude people because of their race or colour.

---

Logical error: Shifting the burden of proof.I'm not the one making the claim. You are. Therefore it is not my repsonsibility to justify AA. You're the one saying that it's a racist, sexist policy. Therefore it is your responsibility to justify that claim. All I have to do is show that you haven't met your burden of proof.I am not required to show that two and two make for in order to show that they don't make five.

quote:

---

The sad irony is that you're actively advocating a policy that takes a person's race or colour as employment criterion yet have the gall to accuse me of racism.

---

Contrary to your claim, AA doesn't take a person's race or sex as an employment criterion. In fact, it expressly forbids it. If you find that it has happened, then you are entitled to injunctive relief.You're complaining that a system designed to protect white men has the temerity to actually protect them.

quote:

---

Blessed are the self-righteous.

---

And may the self-deluded join them.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But your very claim is destroyed by this: The process was struck down as illegal. Therefore, it wasn't the result of the application of AA. It was the result of a misapplication

---

​

BZZZT! Causal Paradox fallacy.

---

(*chuckle*) It helps if you actually know what the terms you are using mean. "Causal paradox" is a time-travel concept, not a logic concept.

quote:

---

Just because the means were struck down as illegal doesn't mean that the end is justified.

---

Indeed. But the end has already been justified. And since the ends don't justify the means, the specific method by which it is carried out matters. And certain types of methods, like quotas, are expressly forbidden.So since affirmative action isn't racist or sexist, since it actually protects white males just as much as those who aren't white and aren't male, one has to wonder why it is you are upset that a legal process that specifically protects white men actually protected them.

quote:

---

If the effective imposition of a racial quota wasn't the result of trying to follow AA policy and AA guidelines then what was it the result of?

---

Bad planning. AA specifically and directly prohibits the use of quotas. It has been settled law for decades. By your logic, we should scrap the entire legal system because people still break the law.If I tell you not to do something, how is it my fault that you do it?

quote:

---

Do tell, how do you think it went?

---

I'm not going to speculate. And it isn't my responsibility to try and justify what they did. It's illegal under the very laws that you're complaining about. The very law you are saying discriminates against white men is the law that protected them and you seem to be upset about that.

quote:

---

BZZZT! Weak Analogy fallacy.

---

See, if you're going to try and impose logical errors, it would help if you actually knew what they were.A "weak analogy" fallacy is to say that A is like B, B has the property of P, therefore A has the property of P.Affirmative action expressly and directly forbids quotas. If someone then establishes a quota, how is it the fault of AA for them doing it? If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is it my fault? If I add two and two and get five, how is that math's fault?

quote:

---

but I never claimed it was legal. Just a reasonable way of ensuring that under-represented minorities get represented.

---

How can it be a "reasonable way" if it is expressly forbidden?If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is that my fault?

quote:

---

Because the people who setup the quota didn't do it explicitly.

---

So? Isn't that the point of going to the law to make sure? That's precisely the point behind anti-discrimination law: It often isn't blatant and obvious. When the South put forward "grandfather clauses" with regard to voting, it wasn't an explicitly racist law. To require that your grandfather voted in order to be eligible hardly looks at the race of the people, right? But in reality, it is a clearly racist law because for the non-whites in the South, none of their grandfathers were legally allowed to vote. The same thing in "literacy tests" for voting: There's nothing about race in the law, but it is clearly aimed at preventing black people from voting due to the notoriously poor educational system afforded black people.That's why the law refers to things like "disparate impact": It doesn't want to get bogged down in specifics in order to prevent people from trying to game the system. Just like the child who tries to say that he didn't eat the cookie, the cookie fell into his mouth, there are people who will try and twist things in order to do precisely what it is they are not supposed to do (witness the torture memos.)And thus, we see that discrimination law protects against "race" rather than "blacks;" "sex" rather than "women." That's why the law protects the white males just as much as it protects those who aren't white and aren't male. That's why the white men WON THEIR CASE under the very laws you're complaining about!If the problem were AA, the courts would have struck it down. But it didn't. Instead, it pointed out that the policies created were in violation of AA and provided injunctive relief to the white men who were discriminated against in contravention of the anti-discrimination laws.White men were protected by AA law and you're upset about it?

quote:

---

As far as I can see they didn't setup specific percentages to target but instead were awarding extra selection points for black, Hispanic or American Indian students.

---

Which was determined to be a de facto quota system with is expressly and directly forbidden by AA and thus illegal and therefore, the affected students were entitled to injunctive relief.White males were protected by AA law and you think that's a bad thing?

quote:

---

So in their minds they probably weren't doing anything wrong, just adhering to the guidelines of "making sure that under-represented minorities get represented in the university". They were just taking Affirmative Action. As they were being told to.

---

So the fact that they got it wrong is AA's fault why? If a child adds two and two and gets five, that's math's fault?And since the affected students won their case, under the very law you're complaining about, I'm at a loss to understand. By your logic, we should scrap the entire legal system because people still break the law.Your complaint is that AA discriminates against white males but so far, your examples are of white men who were protected by the very anti-discrimination laws you're complaining about.

quote:

---

You're missing the point: it doesn't matter how or why it got rejected

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?If I tell you directly and explicitly that you are not allowed to do something and you do it anyway, you're saying that it's somehow my fault? That it doesn't matter that I directly and explicitly told you not do it? The mere fact that you did it is evidence that the law is bad?The reason why it was rejected is the entire point! The reason why these policies were rejected is because they were against the very laws you're complaining about. You're complaining that a law that protects white men had the gall to protect them.

quote:

---

A reasonable way of ensuring this happened was the points system they set up, which was effectively a racial quota and was deemed to be racist and illegal.

---

How can an expressly illegal process be a "reasonable way"? By your logic, anytime somebody makes a mistake, it's the fault of the rules. We should scrap the entire legal system because people still keep breaking the law.

quote:

---

The fact that it was deemed to be racist and illegal only re-inforces my point that AA is a discriminatory policy/practice/mindset.

---

Huh? It was AA that struck it down. The very law you're complaining about was the justification for why it was illegal. You're arguing to get rid of the law that protected the white males. If there weren't the anti-discrimination laws, how would these affected students have gotten relief?

quote:

---

How and where does everybody agree that racist policies violate the spirit of AA legislation?

---

In the very law itself. Why on earth do you think they were enacted?

quote:

---

Weak Analogy again. Lebensraum.

---

And same refutation. You don't know what the "weak analogy" fallacy is. A "weak analogy" fallacy is to say that A is like B, B has the property of P, therefore A has the property of P.Affirmative action expressly and directly forbids quotas. If someone then establishes a quota, how is it the fault of AA for them doing it? If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is it my fault? If I add two and two and get five, how is that math's fault?

quote:

---

'Nuff said.

---

Good. Don't bring it up again until you learn what it is.

quote:

---

A quota system is one of the most obvious ways of ensuring that under-represented minorities get represented.

---

And it is expressly forbidden by AA. Why are you upset that a law that forbids quota system is actually used to quash quota systems?

quote:

---

It's also racist.

---

And that is why they are expressly illegal. Why are you upset that a racist process is expressly and specifically forbidden by law and that such law provides injunctive relief to those who are discriminated against should anybody attempt to implement one?

quote:

---

It's like being told by the government that by this time next month everyone should be driving a new hybrid car.

---

Huh? Where in the law do you find anything about requiring a specific policy? We've got express restrictions on what you're not allowed to do, but that isn't telling you how to do it.Instead, it's like being told by the government that you need to clean up your act, but you are expressly forbidden from dumping your nuclear, biological, and chemical waste down the sewer drain.So if we find a company that is packaging their NBC waste in cookie dough and then washing it down the drain, claiming that isn't "biological waste" but instead is simply food scraps, we should scrap the law? You were told not to do so. The fact that you screwed up and the law came down on you is somehow the law's fault?

quote:

---

Why is this so hard to see?

---

Because you seem to be upset that the very law you are claiming about as discriminating against white men actually protected them. You are upset that a law that specifically forbids the use of quotas was used to strike down a quota system.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Let me repeat once more: I'm not arguing that the law is wrong because some people broke it. I'm arguing that AA policy is racist because it promotes racist actions. The racial quotas imposed by the U of M was a racist action. The fact that the Supreme Court agrees only serves to validate my point that this was indeed a racist action.Now pay attention coz this is important: The U of M didn't take a racist action despite the law, they took racist action partly because of the law. The prime directive of AA laws is to make sure they represent under-represented minorities. The U of M system did just that. The fact that it was deemed to be illegal on a technicality is really neither here nor there and -if anything- it validates my point that this was indeed a racist action. Their quotas weren't laid out expicitly but they were -in effect- quotas. The fact that they didn't realise/ignore/oversee this point really shows how blinded they were by their zeal to fulfill the directive of AA law. I was referring to the broader (and original) definition of fascism as the tendency to exercise strong autocratic or dictatorial control. Which you're obviously supporting. You tell me to do something but forbid me from using the most obvious and easiest way of doing it. if I go and do it in a way similar, but not quite the same, to the forbidden way and be deemed to have broken the rules is it exclusively my fault or is it that your policy is somewhat flawed?There are many ways to adhere to AA laws and policies. Nearly all of them are discriminatory, dictatorial or both. The shop window view you're presentng here is a sanitised version that for practical intents and purposes is obsolete and redundant. If all AA really tries to achieve is present everyone with the same opportunities then it has no reason for existence as almost everybody is exposed to the same information as everybody else, given the same motivation and drive. The problem today is the bias in the selection process. But you claim that AA doesn't address that, so therefore IMO there's no reason for its existence other than to propagate a feeling of institutionalised inequality and injustice. How so? You're debating with me now but you have no reliable way to know about my colour, race or sex. The internet is wonderfully colour-blind. Plleeeease...10 years ago you might have had a tiny point. Nowadays with computer prices at an all-time low, free computer access in almost every public building, cheap broadband and wi-fi access almost everywhere, propagating the myth of the poor black boy who can't get on the internet to look for work because the white man has all the money doesn't do your cause any good and frankly is stereotypical, racist and demeaning. I call bullshit! Ditto for newspapers. Pathetic.Near where I live we have vast council estates of predominantly white people, all living on the poverty line and relying on state benefits. Even they have access to the internet! Ofcourse if they didn't, then AA laws would come into action to ensure that they get access to the job boards, wouldn't they? Or would they? I keep forgetting that that being white isn't a 'protected' characteristic and you don't get 'disadvantage' points even if you are disadvantaged. Oops, here I go being racist again, where's the thought police when you need it? your posts above are proof of that.

quote:

---

Rrhain writes:

​

Why is it impossible for someone to be qualified but disadvantaged?

Legend writes:

​

It isn't and I never claimed that it was!

Rrhain writes:

​

Did you or did you not say:
"See, the trouble with this is the use of the terms 'disadvantaged' and 'qualified' in the same sentence."
This would seemingly indicate that you think there is a problem with those two qualities existing in the same person.

​

---

...is it that you can't read or is it that you won't read? I've stated twice and -in the same post you're responding to- I even summarised for you: Which of the above do you not understand? I'm taking offence to the fact that the policy requires you to measure people by their 'disadvantage' as well as their qualifications and skills. Do you want me to change the font size or something? No I don't, I never said nor implied this, yet you somehow still manage to think that I do.
I think that if some objective criteria can be applied (e.g. qualifications, skills) let's stick to them instead of start mixing in subjective and politically loaded criteria.Is a Korean applicant who never bothered to learn English disadvantaged? By how much? Is a black applicant more disadvantaged than a Korean? what about a European white applicant who wanted to but never managed to learn English as his family couldn't afford to send him to school? Is he more or less disadvantaged? The answer is whatever you want it to be depending on your politics, background and level of emotional involvement. I rest my case. Really?! So you find my view that an employer should be allowed to recruit the staff they think are best suited to the job inherently bigoted?!It would then be really interesting to know the percentage of gay actors employed in theaters in the LA/San Diego area. I dare say that the figure would be significantly higher than the national average of 5%. Surely then , in the interests of fairness and equal representation, we would have to draft some laws to ensure that heterosexual actors are equally represented.Would you agree with this or would you turn round and say :
"It's the employer's position, so they decide who would be best for it regardless of your approval and if that means that a gay person ('Because in the director's experience gay people are better actors'), then it's just tough noogies."surely you wouldn't support the inherent anti-heterosexual bigotry of this position now, would you?eagerly anticipating your answer.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

{sigh}....no, the example is pointless, the example not the process. You were talking about people being prevented from applying for jobs and your example doesn't illustrate how people were being prevented from applying - it simply illustrated the bias in the selection process. Which nobody denies. Ergo, the example is pointless. No. The government decides on a policy, in this case to help represent under-represented minorities. They decide that this is what they stand for. This is the 'what'. Then they draft laws and legal frameworks that implement the policy, i.e. tell people what they should and shouldn't do and how to do it. This is the 'how'. When the laws are vague or ambiguous enough (like our 'inciting religious hatred' laws) or place the onus on the subject as in the 'Positive Action' law in the Equalities Bill, then the employer will come up with their own regulations and procedures in order to comply with the law.The UK Equalities Bill 2009, clause 152 defines the primary aim of Positive Action as:

quote:

---

enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to overcome or minimise that disadvantage

---

pay particular attention to clause 153 which states:

quote:

---

This clause permits an employer to take a protected characteristic into consideration
when deciding who to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are
at a disadvantage or are under-represented. This can be done only where the candidates are
equally qualified, and the clause does not allow employers to have a policy of automatically
treating people who share a protected characteristic more favourably than those who do not.

---

So:
if I have two equally qualified candidates and I promote the white one because he's white I'm being a racist.
if I have two equally qualified candidates and I promote the asian one because he's asian I'm taking positive action...and you don't think this is problematic at all? ugh? where did I say that. Au contraire, on numerous occasions like the one above I stated that quotas is one sure method of applying AA not that AA = quotas. ?? as I never claimed that AA requires quotas you have a long wait ahead of you.Listen, if you really want me to increase the font size don't be afraid to ask, ok? Yes I know! That's besides the point. The point being that setting up quotas is a surefire way to achieve the objective of AA. Heck, the U of M even did it without knowing it! err..nope, the policy did what it was meant to do: it ensured that minorities had larger representation. If anything protected the whites, it was the good judgement and common sense displayed by the Supreme Court. ...(bwahahaha)... oh stop it now....come on, seriously!Well, I suppose I should be thankful for AA, being a white male. But..hang on...I thought us white males already had a massive advantage in the workplace, as AA proponents claim, so why the need to protect us? And if it does protect us where are my 'protected' characteristics mate?I mean...come on now. To even imply that the motivation -any motivation- behind AA was to protect white males is simply laughable. I mean it's ok to say it for a laugh or as a marketing gimmick but I thought we were having a serious debate here. Just because someone has legal recourse against it doesn't mean that the policy isn't inherently racist or sexist. Simply when it actively encourages discrimination based on race or gender. Don't even get me started on 'hate crimes'. Another messed-up, thought-crime legislation to appease the PC gods. So you somehow believe that the fact that the courts called two direct applications of AA policy illegal destroys my argument?! If anything it amplifies it. The U of M students were racially discriminated against because of AA guidelines. The white firefighters were racially discriminated against because of AA guidelines. If I were you I'd stop bringing that up. Not that I mind. ..ahem...[*cough, cough*]...

quote:

---

This clause permits an employer to take a protected characteristic into consideration
when deciding who to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are
at a disadvantage or are under-represented. This can be done only where the candidates are
equally qualified, and the clause does not allow employers to have a policy of automatically
treating people who share a protected characteristic more favourably than those who do not.

---

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

The fact that the Supreme Court agrees only serves to show that the U of M was in violation of AA law. If AA were not law, what U of M did would not have been illegal, and thus, the very thing you think is reprehensible was stopped by the very law you also find reprehensible. That makes no sense to me. If A is wrong, and law B, which bans A, is wrong, then what are we to do? The U of M took an action in violation of the law. Whatever their misguided thoughts on it, however they tried to defend it, they did something illegal. The law they violated is part of what is called AA. If it weren't for AA, what they did would have been legal. The directive of AA law is to give everyone an equal opportunity to prove their ability. What they did did not fulfill that, and in effect, contradicted that. Thus, by a lawful application of AA, it was found to be illegal. Yay! One win for the good guys! What are you upset about? I tell you to do something, you misinterpret what I told you to do, and then inact a policy that will get you to the goal you erroneously believe I told you to get to without double checking with me to see if that's what I really want, and end up finding that you reached the wrong goal through illegal means. Is that my fault, or yours?What you're arguing about is the "percieved goal" of AA, which is not what the goal of AA is at all. The fact that the debate has gotten twisted by people opposed to it does not mean the rule is wrong, it means the opposition has effectively shifted the conversation onto a strawman and made everyone believe it had cut it to the bone. There is no bone there because what you're arguing against is the opposite of what you think you are.

thanks for the tip but I already know what the term means. I decided to use it as your argument made as much sense as a causal paradox. 'Non-sequitur' just didn't have the same ring to it. Actually, the use of quotas had been prohibited back in 1978 in the Bakke vs Regents case, which found that the use of racial quotas was an unconstitutional means of applying AA. Current AA legislation simply incorporates this decision. To claim that racial quotas are prohibited because of AA laws is disingenuous. Because the AA law didn't by itself protect them, Bakke vs Regents did back in 1978.The very fact that the primary method of applying AA used to be racial quotas should have rung alarm bells even back in 1978. No. The very law which fosters discrimination against white men is barring one method of discrimination. Because it has to. If it wasn't for Bakke vs Regent the anti-quota clause wouldn't even appear in the AA laws.So no, it isn't the AA law that protects white men, it's the good judgement of a judge in a court case 30 years ago. False. They already knew that racial quotas were illegal and had known it for the last 30 years. The crux of the case was to determine if the U of M's point system was effectively a racial quota. THAT's WHAT WON THEIR CASE. The students won their case because of the Bakke vs Regents case. Current AA law simply reflects this case in banning quotas. To claim that the students won their case because of the AA law is disingenuous. Hadn't it been for the Bakke vs Regents case, racial quotas would still be the primary method of applying AA. So let's see:
if A = my "racist policy encourages racist action" argument.
B = your "math is sometimes applied incorrectly" supposition
and P = the "bad application doesn't invalidate the framework" property.you've inferred that A (like) B && B (has) P => A (has) P.well..what do you know...it was a Weak Analogy after all.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

bullshit.

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm arguing that AA policy is racist because it promotes racist actions.

---

But the very law you are complaining about explicitly forbids the "racist actions" you are claiming it promotes.If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is it my fault? How can I possibly be said to be "promoting" what I am explicitly telling you not to do?

quote:

---

Now pay attention coz this is important: The U of M didn't take a racist action despite the law, they took racist action partly because of the law.

---

Since you didn't seem to get it the previous times, let's try this again. Please pay attention because this is extremely important:The law expressly forbid what the U of M did.How can the law be blamed for promoting something it specifically denounces?

quote:

---

The prime directive of AA laws is to make sure they represent under-represented minorities.

---

See, this is where you fall apart because you keep forgetting the big point:You aren't allowed to use just any means to do so. Certain actions, like what the U of M did, are specifically and expressly forbidden. This has been settled law since the 70s.Now, here's where you fall down again: You seem to be of the opinion that there are only two options: AA specifically encourages quotas or the U of M maliciously put one in. There is a third option: AA specifically discourages quotas and the U of M mistakenly put one in.If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is it my fault? How can you possibly say I encouraged it when it's something I specifically denounce? By this logic, anybody who adds two and two and gets five is proof that math is a fraud and actively encourages such an erroneous response. It can't possibly be that the person made a mistake. No, they had to have been actively encouraged to do so or maliciously inclined.

quote:

---

was referring to the broader (and original) definition of fascism as the tendency to exercise strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? You clearly don't know what fascism means. "Fascism" as an ideology comes out of Italy in the aftermath of WWI and the run-up to WWII. While the term is pulled from the ancient Roman symbol of the "fasces" (bundle of sticks...for an example of such, pull out an American "Mercury" dime and look at the back side) which was used by the magistrates, that doesn't make "fascism" anything other than a modern ideology.It is an outgrowth of reactionary conservatism emphasizing a single-party political system headed by a dictator, nationalism to the point of xenophobia, centralized corporatism, etc. After WWII, "fascist" has since been used as a synonym for "dogmatist," but that is hardly the "original" definition.

quote:

---

Which you're obviously supporting.

---

Um, that is simply a re-assertion that I asked you to expand upon. Let's try it again, shall we?Where in my position am I advocating for a corporatocracy, nationalism to the point of xenophobia, and a dictatorial system of government.

quote:

---

You tell me to do something but forbid me from using the most obvious and easiest way of doing it. if I go and do it in a way similar, but not quite the same, to the forbidden way and be deemed to have broken the rules is it exclusively my fault or is it that your policy is somewhat flawed?

---

"Junior, you don't get any cookies. It'll spoil your dinner."You then go off to do something and when you come back, you find a cookie in Junior's mouth:"Didn't I say not to get any cookies?""Oh, but I didn't get this cookie! It fell off the counter and happened to land in my mouth. You didn't say I couldn't swallow cookies that fell in my mouth!"By your logic, the kid's got a point. In real life, though, everybody knows that the kid screwed up.You seem to be complaining that the law that specifically protects white men had the temerity to actually protect them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You seem to think that there is no racial discrepancy with regard to press and internet availability. The internet is a very white place

---

​

How so?

---

Because it is used primarily by white people. Is there some other way to interpret what I said?

quote:

---

You're debating with me now but you have no reliable way to know about my colour, race or sex. The internet is wonderfully colour-blind.

---

Huh? Just because you don't know the general breakdown of internet users doesn't mean nobody else has studied the subject. By and large, the internet is mostly white.A study of computer users in Rhode Island carried out by Brown University found:90% of those earning more than $75K owned a computer.
12% of those earning less than $10K owned a computer.
80% of college graduates owned a computer.
38% of high school graduates owned a computer.
49% of whites owned a computer.
34% of blacks owned a computer.The US Census has 94% of children in a household with a college graduate have a computer while only 47% of those children in a household with less than a high school education had a computer. 47% of children living in households with an income under $25K had a computer compared to 97% of children living in households with an income over $100K. Same for adults: If you're educated, white, Asian, or rich you're more likely to own a computer than those without a degree, black or Hispanic, or poor.The big change that has happened in recent years is that women have become more prevalent.Again, do not confuse your personal ignorance for a universal trait. Just because you haven't looked into the question doesn't mean nobody else has.

quote:

---

Which of the above do you not understand?

---

The part where you responded to my refutation. Simply repeating yourself is insufficient. Your "objective" traits are open to interpretation and your "subjective" traits can be quantified.

quote:

---

I'm taking offence to the fact that the policy requires you to measure people by their 'disadvantage' as well as their qualifications and skills.

---

Huh? Isn't looking at a person's advantages and disadvantages the entire point in determining their qualifications and skills?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have this fantasy that decisions are made purely on objective standards

---

​

No I don't, I never said nor implied this, yet you somehow still manage to think that I do.
I think that if some objective criteria can be applied (e.g. qualifications, skills)

---

And thus, you prove my point: "Qualifications" and "skills" are not "objective criteria."

quote:

---

So you find my view that an employer should be allowed to recruit the staff they think are best suited to the job inherently bigoted?!

---

I think it can be. I know it has been. I am certain it will continue to be. That's the entire point behind anti-discrimination law: Your responsibility as a public employer means that certain behaviours on your part are not allowed. The law isn't so specific as to tell you who to hire, but it will tell you that certain methods of reaching your decision are illegal.As well it should.

quote:

---

It would then be really interesting to know the percentage of gay actors employed in theaters in the LA/San Diego area.

---

Having worked for quite some time in the theatre all over the world, I can tell you that while there is stereotype of the performing arts being filled with gays, it isn't true.

quote:

---

surely you wouldn't support the inherent anti-heterosexual bigotry of this position now, would you?

---

Huh? The performing arts have a big homophobic streak running through them. Realizing that this is an anecdote, it is telling:John Barrowman ("Capt. Jack" from Doctor Who and Torchwood) was the first choice to play Will in Will & Grace but he was dropped in favor of Eric McCormack because Barrowman was thought to play "too straight." The gay man was "too straight" to play a gay man so, of course, they found a straight man to do it.A straight actor playing gay is considered "brave." A gay actor playing straight is considered "risky." After all, the audience "will have a hard time getting past the fact that he's gay."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

In my opinion, affirmative action simply perpetuates the cycle of racism. It creates resentment from whites who feel shafted by these minorities in the system and makes the minorities more suspicious of whites simply because the system is in place.