Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood

[Osama bin Bambi]

Frankly nothing good could come of a thread that implicitly states that anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action is stupid and a hater of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Zachski, I'm going to have to politely disagree with you here. I think that Art asking Fred to answer his question and clarify his answer further is perfectly warranted. Art has already shown that Fred did not really address his question.

As for the "bullying" charge, If Fred wanted to make clear that he planned to answer Art's question later when he could think about it more, he could have simply said so. Instead, he avoided the question while answering other questions instead, including my own. When a person gets reported to the mods for not answering a question, the typical result is not an instaban, but a polite reminder to answer the question or provide some other indication if they will or will not answer and why. Art himself was trying to remind Fred several times that he is obligated to at least address his question without resorting to the mods. At that point, nothing about Art's requests were harassment in any form. (I am not defending his later, more insulting posts towards you, however. That is rude, and it is harassment.)

I actually used that as an example but I'm sure I could find a case of hiring discrimination http://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/424.html

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer's lack of discriminatory intent.

Thanks for the link, kef. I'm not opposed to this (for public institutions). If a state government, for instance, requires its governor to profess a belief in God, that is against the law because belief in God has no bearing on whether or not the person is qualified as governor. To the best of my knowledge, high school diplomas are not really necessary to be a firefighter, so I agree with this document in that a public fire station should eliminate that requirement from its hiring criteria.

But in a private organization, even if you institute laws to say you can't refuse to hire someone because of their race, they will still find a way around it. Sometimes it is very hard to tell the difference between a misguided requirement (i.e., driving distance to work, number of children, presence of tattoos) and a bigoted requirement (i.e., being white, being Christian, being straight, etc.)

[Witchyjoshy]

Frankly nothing good could come of a thread that implicitly states that anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action is stupid and a hater of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Zachski, I'm going to have to politely disagree with you here. I think that Art asking Fred to answer his question and clarify his answer further is perfectly warranted. Art has already shown that Fred did not really address his question.

As for the "bullying" charge, If Fred wanted to make clear that he planned to answer Art's question later when he could think about it more, he could have simply said so. Instead, he avoided the question while answering other questions instead, including my own. When a person gets reported to the mods for not answering a question, the typical result is not an instaban, but a polite reminder to answer the question or provide some other indication if they will or will not answer and why. Art himself was trying to remind Fred several times that he is obligated to at least address his question without resorting to the mods. At that point, nothing about Art's requests were harassment in any form. (I am not defending his later, more insulting posts towards you, however. That is rude, and it is harassment.)

Then we are going to have to continue to politely disagree.  If he had said "Again, this is a direct question, and I would like you to address that", this is one thing, even if it wasn't as polite as I had put it, but to say "Answer this or I will report you to the mods" crossed the line and raised red flags for me.

I still feel as though Fred's answer addressed the question and was not question dodging.

Thank you for being reasonable about this, though.

[Art Vandelay]

Then we are going to have to continue to politely disagree.  If he had said "Again, this is a direct question, and I would like you to address that", this is one thing, even if it wasn't as polite as I had put it, but to say "Answer this or I will report you to the mods" crossed the line and raised red flags for me.

I'm not going to constantly be treading on eggshells in discussions that have nothing to do with you just because you've got a hair trigger sensitivity. Simple as that.

[kefkaownsall]

Frankly nothing good could come of a thread that implicitly states that anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action is stupid and a hater of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Zachski, I'm going to have to politely disagree with you here. I think that Art asking Fred to answer his question and clarify his answer further is perfectly warranted. Art has already shown that Fred did not really address his question.

As for the "bullying" charge, If Fred wanted to make clear that he planned to answer Art's question later when he could think about it more, he could have simply said so. Instead, he avoided the question while answering other questions instead, including my own. When a person gets reported to the mods for not answering a question, the typical result is not an instaban, but a polite reminder to answer the question or provide some other indication if they will or will not answer and why. Art himself was trying to remind Fred several times that he is obligated to at least address his question without resorting to the mods. At that point, nothing about Art's requests were harassment in any form. (I am not defending his later, more insulting posts towards you, however. That is rude, and it is harassment.)

I actually used that as an example but I'm sure I could find a case of hiring discrimination http://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/424.html

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer's lack of discriminatory intent.

Thanks for the link, kef. I'm not opposed to this (for public institutions). If a state government, for instance, requires its governor to profess a belief in God, that is against the law because belief in God has no bearing on whether or not the person is qualified as governor. To the best of my knowledge, high school diplomas are not really necessary to be a firefighter, so I agree with this document in that a public fire station should eliminate that requirement from its hiring criteria.

But in a private organization, even if you institute laws to say you can't refuse to hire someone because of their race, they will still find a way around it. Sometimes it is very hard to tell the difference between a misguided requirement (i.e., driving distance to work, number of children, presence of tattoos) and a bigoted requirement (i.e., being white, being Christian, being straight, etc.)

The company is a privite one.  I get that but lets agree that you can sue if the company outright says we take no blacks

[Osama bin Bambi]

Frankly nothing good could come of a thread that implicitly states that anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action is stupid and a hater of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Zachski, I'm going to have to politely disagree with you here. I think that Art asking Fred to answer his question and clarify his answer further is perfectly warranted. Art has already shown that Fred did not really address his question.

As for the "bullying" charge, If Fred wanted to make clear that he planned to answer Art's question later when he could think about it more, he could have simply said so. Instead, he avoided the question while answering other questions instead, including my own. When a person gets reported to the mods for not answering a question, the typical result is not an instaban, but a polite reminder to answer the question or provide some other indication if they will or will not answer and why. Art himself was trying to remind Fred several times that he is obligated to at least address his question without resorting to the mods. At that point, nothing about Art's requests were harassment in any form. (I am not defending his later, more insulting posts towards you, however. That is rude, and it is harassment.)

Then we are going to have to continue to politely disagree.  If he had said "Again, this is a direct question, and I would like you to address that", this is one thing, even if it wasn't as polite as I had put it, but to say "Answer this or I will report you to the mods" crossed the line and raised red flags for me.

He actually did just that, initially. The first time he reminded Fred to answer the question, he simply said that answering all direct questions addressed to you is in the rules. He did not say that he would immediately involve the mods, or attempt to get Fred banned. When Art did not have his question addressed after that reminder, then he brought up the mods.

And my point was that even if Art did report Fred to the mods or even meant it as a threat, the actual consequences would be basically harmless. The mods we have right now on these FSTDT forums aren't like the ones over at CARM, who will ban you without warning for the most minor of offenses. In previous situations like this, the mods have simply come into a thread to remind the posters to calm down and answer the questions. Threats of the banhammer are not issued right away, they are a last resort. Even if Art had called the mods on Fred, it would not have had any consequences for Fred, provided that he answered the question, or gave some other indication that he did or did not plan to answer it.

In a situation where I am not answering someone else's question, for whatever reason, I would rather have that person (politely) cite the rules or the possibility of involving moderators to me, instead of alerting the mods immediately without even attempting to remind me first.

I still feel as though Fred's answer addressed the question and was not question dodging.

I don't mean to toot my own horn (oh what am I saying, of course I do), but I am a person who prides herself on her reading comprehension ability, and even I'm confused as to how Fred's response answered Art's question. If you've seen something in his response that I've missed, please point out where Fred specifically addressed the questions Art posed.

Thank you for being reasonable about this, though.

Yes, you're welcome. Actually, my original response was full of all sorts of angry reactionary butthurt, but I only realized it when I came back from the dinner table. Then I rewrote the whole thing, and trimmed it down considerably. Funny what taking a break to chill out can do to your attitude.

EDIT: Trying not to double post.

The company is a privite one.  I get that but lets agree that you can sue if the company outright says we take no blacks

If a private restaurant, for instance, outright refuses to hire or serve black people, and there are anti-discrimination laws in place that say it is a crime, then there is legal justification to sue them because we know beyond a reasonable doubt that their practices are based off of racism.

I do not agree with the restaurant on moral and financial grounds. Refusing to serve an entire group of people for bigoted reasons can hurt your business in the long run. It eliminates potential consumers, and not just from the group being discriminated against. It can also lead others to boycott your business if they disagree with its practices.

There are some situations where discrimination makes sense. If a Jewish deli sees a bunch of neo-Nazi skinheads walk in, the owners have reason to fear for their safety and the safety of their customers, and have every right to kick them out. And if I own a gay bar and Fred Phelps walks in, I have every right to throw him out into the streets on his bony ass.

[Lt. Fred]

Art: What's the difference between a duck? Yes or no answer, or I report you.

I believe it's your face.

You didn't answer. It has to be a yes or no or it doesn't count.

Well then, it'll go with yes.

Did you get it? Sometimes a yes or no answer is meaningless, or less meaningful than a longer response, a response I gave.

In other words, I've answered your hypothetical. It's fair and rational for a business to pick the white candidate, which is why the government should step in.

Disagreeing with affirmative action =/= not trying to solve racial problems in other ways.

But on what basis do you disagree with AA? It's to costly for the beneficiaries of a legacy of racism- you and I- who, you believe, should not bear the burden of ending that legacy. You didn't argue against AA on the basis that it wouldn't work, you argued against it on the basis that white people would have to pay, and shouldn't.

Also, silly glibertarianism:

But there is no grounds to force someone to pick an equally qualified applicant over me because of my skin color.

Also, on the last part I bolded. You might not think that my views are acceptable, but that is just your opinion, and there is nothing intrinsically better about your opinion that makes it acceptable to impose it on everyone else through law.

Then there can be no law. All law is based in opinion.

Government should get out of the business of telling private companies and organizations who they can and cannot hire.

That's not an option.

Why?

Glibertarianism is far too costly to be sustainable.



Edit for the record: I don't much care about Art's threat. I think he's an asshole for making it, but then I thought that before hand.

[Keiro Dreamwalker]

It's like this. Imagine there are two candidates for a nondescript job. One has a $300 000 mortgage, a spouse and two kids to support and very rapidly dwindling savings. The other has no kids, no mortgage and is able to fall back on their significant other's income. Now, with that in mind and assuming both are equally qualified, which one do you think (from a purely ethical standpoint) should get the job? Would you change your mind if either one or the other were white and the other a minority?

I'd just like to remind you that you're kind of required to respond to this, Freddy. Rules state you must at the very least acknowledge direct questions.

Not valid. It only applies if you directly address the person and directly says the question is meant for that person. Since that wasn't the case, the person can choose not to respond.

[Fpqxz]

We could argue until the cows come home about the alleged merits and drawbacks of Affirmative Action, but we need to ask ourselves:  why do we still have a such a policy in the first place?

In my opinion, if we could actually do something about the prevalence of urban decay, the decline of of the American economy, and the ever-spiraling cost of education, it would make Affirmative Action largely obsolete.

I recognize that government cannot, and will not, make everyone equal in all ways.  But we could at least acknowledge and attempt to remedy the underlying roots of the problem.  Remember that there is a huge White underclass in the USA too.  They are at least as disadvantaged as the Black and Hispanic underclass, but Affirmative Action does nothing for them.

Affirmative Action is the legal equivalent of taking Aspirin for a toothache.  It may get rid of the pain for a little while, but it won't halt the progress of the infection.

[RavynousHunter]

Aye, and let's not forget, legislating morality does not automatically make evil people good.  In fact, morality laws can be easily abused by evil people to achieve evil ends while still remaining within the letter of the law.  Also, I agree with Fpqxz, while racism is still a problem, we have lots of problems that contribute to that, chief among those being massive urban decay.  I mean, fucking staggering.  I forget exactly where it was posted, but I remember someone posting a video about Detroit basically being ground zero for the recession, and exploring all the decaying buildings, the half-finished homes, the failed attempts at gentrification.

But, I don't even need to go to Michigan to see this, its happening in my own state, Arkansas.  Pine Bluff.  It used to be one of the better cities in my state, it had steel mills, paper mills, it was a large rail hub, even had a pretty good mall and a fair bit of decent suburban living space.  But, just within my lifetime, Pine Bluff has gone from one of the better examples of Arkansas' urban areas to a dying, abandoned city populated only by people who can't afford to leave, and is rife with extreme gang violence.  Its gotten so bad that the gangs use firebombings as a rite of passage.  No joke, I saw the fucking aftermath of one.  The Pines Mall, once one of the better malls in the state, is almost totally dead.  In fact, just a few years ago, the last time my brother and I were there, the only place that was open in there that was worth anything was a Mexican restaurant in the food court, almost every single shop there was closed down.

Pine Bluff is dead, and the gangs are cannibalizing what's left of the town.  The steel mills are all closed down, there's only one active paper mill left...I think, and the police have pretty much given up on enforcing the law.

I've witnessed urban decay for myself, and its horrible.  We need to fix this before it becomes an epidemic that we can no longer control.

[Art Vandelay]

Did you get it? Sometimes a yes or no answer is meaningless, or less meaningful than a longer response, a response I gave.

In other words, I've answered your hypothetical. It's fair and rational for a business to pick the white candidate, which is why the government should step in.

So basically, that's a candidate one deserves the job, and it would stay that way regardless of his race, aye?

Though how you can both claim that affirmative action is something other than "fair and rational" and still vehemently support it is beyond me.

[Osama bin Bambi]

Disagreeing with affirmative action =/= not trying to solve racial problems in other ways.

But on what basis do you disagree with AA? It's to costly for the beneficiaries of a legacy of racism- you and I- who, you believe, should not bear the burden of ending that legacy. You didn't argue against AA on the basis that it wouldn't work, you argued against it on the basis that white people would have to pay, and shouldn't.

Again, I do believe that white people bear the burden of ending racism. Where you get this idea that I am some sort of anti-activist, I have no idea. I have no problem with Affirmative Action except when it is forced on private businesses and instituted in public institutions where race shouldn't be a factor. I've said several times in this thread that if an employer wants to run its own Affirmative Action policy, that should be their right. Hell, the ones that do might get more minority applicants because of it.

Also, silly glibertarianism:

But there is no grounds to force someone to pick an equally qualified applicant over me because of my skin color.

Also, on the last part I bolded. You might not think that my views are acceptable, but that is just your opinion, and there is nothing intrinsically better about your opinion that makes it acceptable to impose it on everyone else through law.

Then there can be no law. All law is based in opinion.

If you are only going to dismiss my views out of hand as "silly" and insult them for no reason, then there is clearly no purpose in continuing this discussion with you.

You cannot impose a freedom on anybody. Does it make sense for a government to say, "Hey, I'm going to force you to have the freedom to follow whatever religion you want!"

Government should get out of the business of telling private companies and organizations who they can and cannot hire.

That's not an option.

Why?

Glibertarianism is far too costly to be sustainable.

Explain, please. And stop insulting my views and dismissing me with unfunny puns in lieu of actual arguments.

[Radiation]

Since Keiro has addressed about the direct question thing I am going to move on from that.

However, this is FSTDT and it does get heated and people will get under each other's skin during contentious debates and this is a very open and laid back forum which is why I love it. Though things do get too heated and it is the job of the mods to keep things under control. So everyone just calm down and go continue the discussion at hand in a civilized manner.

[Fpqxz]

I've witnessed urban decay for myself, and its horrible.  We need to fix this before it becomes an epidemic that we can no longer control.

You're preaching to the choir here, buddy.  I live in New Jersey.  I've seen what has happened to cities like Paterson, Newark, Trenton, and Camden...once hubs of industry, now contaminated, decayed, crime-ridden hellholes.

It's easy--simplistic, in fact--to blame the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Jews, [fill in ethnic group here] for the problem, when the root cause is the deindustrialization brought on by the neoliberal policy of "free trade and deregulation, no matter the cost."  Just as African-Americans were winning the civil rights battle in the 1960s and 70s, the jobs were already beginning to move overseas.  Thus, it is my own personal theory that deindustrialization has probably done at least as much harm to the Black community as racism/Jim Crow has.

There has been some recovery in these communities, particularly Newark and Paterson.  Part of this has been the result of political pressures on the NJ state government (a corrupt and inefficient beast in the best of times), but much of it, interestingly, has been the result of immigration.  Many of the more enterprising immigrants, especially those from India and Central/South America, have come in and set up businesses.  Of course, the economics of immigration is itself a controversial topic, and is best left for another thread.   

[Lt. Fred]

Did you get it? Sometimes a yes or no answer is meaningless, or less meaningful than a longer response, a response I gave.

In other words, I've answered your hypothetical. It's fair and rational for a business to pick the white candidate, which is why the government should step in.

So basically, that's a candidate one deserves the job, and it would stay that way regardless of his race, aye?

Though how you can both claim that affirmative action is something other than "fair and rational" and still vehemently support it is beyond me.

The government isn't like a private business. Also, short-term utility isn't synonymous with long-term.

[TheL]

*Ban Affirmative Action, as it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act

Saw this on another thread, noted the obvious bullshit nature.

Obviously Affirmative Action is not a violation of the Civil Rights Act (as with all conservative propaganda, the claim that affirmative action is racist is false). Why do people believe this? Affirmative action requires society to act in a non-racist fashion- to hire qualified black (or Asian) applicants even if the racist employer would prefer to hire unqualified white employees. How is this racist? What is your alternative anti-racist policy?

As a kid, I was told that AA required every company to hire at least one black person.  If there were no qualified black applicants for a job, therefore, AA meant you had to hire pretty much the next black person to apply for a position whether zie was qualified or not.  I've also heard the "quotas" variation, where allegedly the percentage of employees who are black HAS to match the percentage of black people in the local population.

I'm betting that most of the people who oppose AA are similarly misinformed.