[Terez]

Silencer;325150 said:

Terez, beside your incorrect point about the white majority not getting to decide things (it IS a democracy after all - rule by the people, based off a majority)

People often misunderstand me when I make that sort of statement. I'm not ignorant of the way things work - I'm just saying, this is how it should work, and here's why.

Quote

I can see what you are saying. However, what some people are trying to say here is that AA does NOT make things equal - it does the very opposite.

I agree that AA doesn't make things equal - it obviously doesn't, because it's been in place for a long time and things still aren't equal - but I definitely disagree that it does the opposite.

Quote

Think about it, if one person gets favored based off of race, does that make the system equal or biased?

The system is biased so that society can be made equal, not in the sense of pure socialism, but in the spirit of a true meritocracy.

Quote

I can understand why AA exists, but surely it should just be a system to make sure that someone is not-not-hired because of their race

That's exactly what it's for.

Quote

rather than making sure that people of a certain race ARE hired because of their race?

What you're not recognizing is that quotas are the only way to make this happen in a world where racism is still a reality. Extreme racism might be more rare than it once was, but latent racism is obviously still rampant. Minorities continue to suffer from it, so until society gets over the race issue, AA is necessary. You're saying it's harmful to non-minorities and degrades minorities. I'm saying, let the minorities decide when they're being degraded, and as for the first bit, just get over it, because as has been said quite truthfully many times in this thread, you benefit from white privilege every day whether or not you recognize it.

Quote

Also, leaving the decision of when something is enough to the people being benefited by it does not seem particularly smart to me

I anticipated that it would not, didn't I?

Quote

how do you draw the line on this?

I don't draw the line - our lawmakers do. Our lawmakers are usually relatively levelheaded about this sort of thing, even if I don't always exactly agree with what they agree on.

Quote

Is it when a vocal minority say it's enough? Is it when a polled majority says it is enough?

It's when the vocal majority of the minority in question says it's enough, in a way that convinces our lawmakers that it would not be a social injustice to change the laws. With so much racism still in the US, I am not in the least bit surprised that blacks in general are not yet comfortable without those laws. That's why it's up to the white majority to be aware of latent racism, and to combat it, and why it's up to the white majority to turn the other cheek as much as humanly possible when they encounter racism from minorities, because we should all as educated citizens realize that this racism is the product of a lot of cultural baggage, and that responding to racism with racism isn't productive, and that just because someone else does it, doesn't make it justified.

Quote

What if it's never enough because some people are insecure and want a higher chance of a job?

As I said before, I have faith that the majority of minorities that are protected by AA are scrupulous. It may be one day that I will be proven wrong, but as it stands now, changing these laws in fear of that possibility is ridiculous.

Quote

What about the people that see racism around every corner?

Sometimes it's hard not to see racism around every corner when you encounter real racism on a daily basis. It's up to each of us, no matter what race, to change that. Bitching about AA laws isn't helping the situation at all.

Quote

Of course, I don't have any other suggestions....I think polled majority is the best option, but even that seems a bit unlikely to happen.

The reason why a polled majority is a bad idea in the US is pretty obvious - the majority doesn't stand to benefit, and is quite likely to be biased. I don't believe that white people are given the shaft because of AA very often at all in the US. People hear about cases of it, and think that it's the norm, but they fail to realize how extremely uncommon it is. I can't find the link to it right now, but I've posted a study on another board that shows that a vast majority of students who are admitted to universities without meeting the qualifications are white kids whose parents donate money to the school or had some other kind of connection. A similar study of the workforce would probably show (and probably has shown) that the white privilege connection dominates there as well.

[Silencer]

Very good post there, Terez!
In regards to the "polled majority" I mentioned, I didn't actually mean the entire population - just those concerned, i.e. black people, other minorities.
I'm off to bed but I'll (try) and respond to your other points later.

[Terez]

Silencer;325172 said:

In regards to the "polled majority" I mentioned, I didn't actually mean the entire population - just those concerned, i.e. black people, other minorities.

Ah...I interpreted it that way because you didn't seem to think that would be a good idea, and you seemed to be suggesting that "majority rules" would prevail despite logic sometimes suggesting that it shouldn't.

edit: I now realize that this might be a bit off:

Terez said:

The system is biased so that society can be made equal, not in the sense of pure socialism, but in the spirit of a true meritocracy.

Because I'm not really sure there's much difference between pure socialism and a true meritocracy...

[Danyah]

As a matter of fact, current day democracy isn't really the best system there is... A majority gets to decide what is good for entire population? A better system would be that minority groups had a voice too in the system, I'm talking racial and religious minorities, the poor, the handicapped, youth, elderly. If not on national level, then at least at regional level or in the specific places of legislation making (subcommitees or study groups). Nowadays, one majority can decide what is good for everybody without knowing the specifics of each sub-group, resulting in ineffective or counter productive legislation.

And quota for private firms isn't really manageable. Imagine some racist security company being obliged to hire coloured people. But in government branches (senate, police, jurisdiction...) it should be obliged. 50/50 men/woman, proportionate representation of races and accepted religious groups, age...

As for meritocracy (starting chances are equal), it doesn't work, equal starting chances will rarely be achieved (handicapped people, less intelligent people), so that stands in total opposition of socialism (outcome is equal).

[Terez]

Danyah;325201 said:

As for meritocracy (starting chances are equal), it doesn't work, equal starting chances will rarely be achieved (handicapped people, less intelligent people)

That's why I used the words "in the spirit of a true meritocracy.

Quote

so that stands in total opposition of socialism (outcome is equal).

What about the true meritocracy? Try to suspend disbelief temporarily.

[Danyah]

But what is true meritocracy? Genetic engineering to eradicate all genetic flaws? Putting all kids under a Brave New World educational system? Ok, this sounds over the top, but what is true meritocracy? If you are (sexually) abused by your parents, your starting chances are diminished, but how are you going to achieve a world where that doesn't happen? If they die, and you grow up in an orphanage or in a foster family, your chances are diminished (there are enough studies reporting higher probabilities in pedagogic problems in case of adoption). So can't assure equal starting chances IMO, so you have to strive for equal outcome which is in contrast to meritocracy.

[Cause]

Danyah;325201 said:

As a matter of fact, current day democracy isn't really the best system there is... A majority gets to decide what is good for entire population? A better system would be that minority groups had a voice too in the system, I'm talking racial and religious minorities, the poor, the handicapped, youth, elderly. If not on national level, then at least at regional level or in the specific places of legislation making (subcommitees or study groups). Nowadays, one majority can decide what is good for everybody without knowing the specifics of each sub-group, resulting in ineffective or counter productive legislation.

And quota for private firms isn't really manageable. Imagine some racist security company being obliged to hire coloured people. But in government branches (senate, police, jurisdiction...) it should be obliged. 50/50 men/woman, proportionate representation of races and accepted religious groups, age...

As for meritocracy (starting chances are equal), it doesn't work, equal starting chances will rarely be achieved (handicapped people, less intelligent people), so that stands in total opposition of socialism (outcome is equal).

We dont have true democracies, we have representational democracies. The majority picks a candidate based on his platform and once in office he does what he likes including changing his platform.

I belong to a minority myself and even I think that PC gives them too much power sometimes. Their are basic human rights and than their are privilages. I think the line is blurring. Jews and muslims in 80% by population christian countries have a right to a goverment free from religeion. They have the right to be irritated by ubiquitous christmas trees but the country should not have to take down its trees on their behalf

[Danyah]

Cause;325238 said:

We dont have true democracies, we have representational democracies. The majority picks a candidate based on his platform and once in office he does what he likes including changing his platform.

I belong to a minority myself and even I think that PC gives them too much power sometimes. Their are basic human rights and than their are privilages. I think the line is blurring. Jews and muslims in 80% by population christian countries have a right to a goverment free from religeion. They have the right to be irritated by ubiquitous christmas trees but the country should not have to take down its trees on their behalf

That's what I am saying. Take poverty legislation, I think the poor should be consulted when it comes to welfare legislation and quality examination of welfare institutions. Same for other minorities.

The christmas tree problem, that's different. In my country they were taken down by the government as a preventive action in case muslims got angered by it. No muslim asked for it, the government was just being overly, annoyingly politically correct.

Ther was a case in australia, where muslims asked to build a school, and the community started rallies to prevent them from doing it. The application was denied by the council on the basis of errors in the form, but they could reapply. The community however clearly stated they didn't want muslim schools in their community. That's racist. Why should ther be catholic private schools, but no muslim ones. Either you abolish all religious intended private schools, or you accept them, given that they follow general school legislation.

It' can't be that an all white mojority decides it doesn't want muslim schools. They were rejected on procedural mistakes, but it is racist for a community to try and stop it because of the given "muslim". That's racism of the majority, that's why minorities should have some advisory or voting power within legislation...

Here's the link

[Terez]

Danyah;325215 said:

But what is true meritocracy? Genetic engineering to eradicate all genetic flaws? Putting all kids under a Brave New World educational system? Ok, this sounds over the top, but what is true meritocracy? If you are (sexually) abused by your parents, your starting chances are diminished, but how are you going to achieve a world where that doesn't happen? If they die, and you grow up in an orphanage or in a foster family, your chances are diminished (there are enough studies reporting higher probabilities in pedagogic problems in case of adoption). So can't assure equal starting chances IMO, so you have to strive for equal outcome which is in contrast to meritocracy.

This is the thing you seem to be missing...I never said that a true meritocracy was any more realistically feasible than pure socialism. In the spirit of a true meritocracy, we employ socialistic principles in order to attempt to level the starting chances.

[Danyah]

I'm not going to answer that, because a pointless semantic yes/no argument would follow. I guess you're right then, if we are discussing a utopic cross-breed of ideologies. Have rep (pos ).

[Cause]

Danyah;325265 said:

That's what I am saying. Take poverty legislation, I think the poor should be consulted when it comes to welfare legislation and quality examination of welfare institutions. Same for other minorities.

The christmas tree problem, that's different. In my country they were taken down by the government as a preventive action in case muslims got angered by it. No muslim asked for it, the government was just being overly, annoyingly politically correct.

Ther was a case in australia, where muslims asked to build a school, and the community started rallies to prevent them from doing it. The application was denied by the council on the basis of errors in the form, but they could reapply. The community however clearly stated they didn't want muslim schools in their community. That's racist. Why should ther be catholic private schools, but no muslim ones. Either you abolish all religious intended private schools, or you accept them, given that they follow general school legislation.

It' can't be that an all white mojority decides it doesn't want muslim schools. They were rejected on procedural mistakes, but it is racist for a community to try and stop it because of the given "muslim". That's racism of the majority, that's why minorities should have some advisory or voting power within legislation...

Here's the link

Well freedom of religeon is one of the basic human rights I think so that ones covered. Got no problem with muslim schools. I went to a jewish one after all.

What Im saying however is you have a constitution, freedom for all, rights to water and sanitation, freedom or religeon and right to life etc. After that minorities should need no further protections or Im missing something

[Terez]

What you're missing has been pointed out several times in this thread already. You seem to be ignoring it on purpose.

[Cause]

I think this thread has branched out alot from just racism and affirmative action. The right to equality exists and is fair. Im fine with that. Afirmative action is not equality, but this I think is no longer what were discussing. Just apart of it. Im now discussing minorities, the portections they are afforded and what I understood to be Danyah saying Minorities should have the power to affect laws out of proportion to their size. It seems this is not what he meant entirley but if it is Im against it.

As I said earlier I think basic human rights are blurring, people are wanting more and more. People who kill people lose the right to freedom, now Im not saying we should torture criminals. But a prison guard being screamed at by a prisoner that his yard time was cut short by five minutes hes got his rights is something I think should never happen. Your a prisoner you lost your rights, having more than one meal type at lunch is a privilage not a right. 18 month maternity leave for women and than coming back and having your promotion waiting should be a privilage not a right. Education should be a right, employment a privilage

[Silencer]

@Cause, you have to admit it would be bloody hard to keep this thread on track though.
I, too, think that the lines between privilege and right have been blurred. At the same time I can see Danyah's point about the whole majority problem. The issue with this is that if every person has equal power, a majority of like-minded individuals will always win. However, if you start giving more power to the minorities to make them equal with the majority, that defeats both the purpose of having a majority, and the current incarnation of democracy. It would lead to a rule by a minority, where the lesser amount of people control the country. In a way, this happens when people bow down to minorities because it is assumed that they are discriminated against, when that's not necessarily the case.

@Terez....still going to get back to you, but I only had 5 minutes to post.....

[Tristan]

I have always found racism and its history to be such a complicated and embarrassing mess that full understanding of it and how to deal with the problems of the past escapes the best of us. As an African-American, reading about what happened to people of my grandfather's generation and before that fills me with despair. I read about the victims of India's caste and a thousand other similar but different tales and feel the same thing, and so on. Fixing problems that festered for centuries takes time and almost inhuman effort and not everyone is going to be reasonable about it. As for Affirmative Action, I always wonder what my grandfather and others could have done if opportunities had be available to them that were to me. AA is a bad idea, but what else can be done for a population that has been denied integration for so long? There is no easy answer or a way to appease everyone. In Europe the governments took a hands off approach to dealing with immigrants and darker skinned peoples and that has led to embarrassing and dangerous situations like the much publicized racist chants during soccer games and the street riots and immigrant terrorist cells. I think too many people take what came before and act as if it is some holy relic to be protected. AA is not a firm solution, and in America something like that can be refined and changed to reflect a new era in American history. A further racially integrated world is inevitable and terrorist groups have unfortunately given the blueprint for expressing displeasure violently and all too effectively. Not listening to knuckleheads and ideologues is the first step and understanding the nature of the beast we are fighting is the a close second.

[Shinrei]

I'm going to become the annoying little elf that pops up every 3 pages and whispers:



The problem is, the pessimist in me thinks that no one is ever going to have the guts, visionary ability AND the political power to really enact change and overhaul the education system the way it desperately needs it. So in the meantime, we get to argue over sloppy hacks like AA.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Shinrei no Shintai;327496 said:

I'm going to become the annoying little elf that pops up every 3 pages and whispers:

That would be great and be a step in the right direction, but here's the rub. Even if minorities get a great free education, it will do them no good if no one will hire them because they are a minority, regardless of the fact that they are educated and fully qualified.

[Terez]

I definitely think that both approaches are necessary for now. Shin's point is very valid, because people with good educations tend to be less prejudiced, so it's all win there. But early education, which is the most important part, is in many ways shaped by the parent(s) and the household income, so even if education is made perfect now, the statistical disadvantages that we see today won't be overcome for at least a generation or two.

[Shinrei]

Well, as Terez said, part of the idea is that good education will address diversity and work against prejudice. And I remain firm in my belief that highly qualified blacks ARE getting positions higher in government, business, education etc, so to say it would still be impossible is being far too pessimistic.

[Terez]

Oh, I'm not saying that blacks aren't getting good positions even now...just that they're still disadvantaged. It's a statistical thing.