Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood

[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.

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

If anything the, long term effects will be a more racist society, due to the fact that not only are any disadvantaged whites being given less assistance, but also because government policies like that legitimise the idea that it's ok to treat people differently based on their race.

[Osama bin Bambi]

*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.

To the best of my understanding, in the United States, Affirmative Action is the policy of picking the minority applicant over the non-minority applicant if both are otherwise equally qualified and equally desirable. (Basically, if you can't choose, pick the minority.)

Though there are some people who seem to be under the impression that Affirmative Action is about racial quotas (which are now illegal in the U.S.) or giving people "bonus points" on college applications for being a minority (which has been ruled unconstitutional). ("Oh, you're black? +20 points!") There are some other countries (like Brazil and Israel) that do use quotas.

[Lt. Fred]

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.

Sure, there's the glibertarian justification- capital, not democracy, should run society. It's not your only justification.

Yes, white people fucked over basically every minority in US history. No, that doesn't mean their descendants have to be looked over for a position they are qualified for just because someone else who is equally qualified happens to be a minority. If it really gets down to the point where you have to pick between a white applicant and a black applicant, and both are equally qualified, and you want to be fair, flip a damn coin.

Too costly for white people, who shouldn't have to pay.

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!" [/quote]

Propaganda. Government does not 'impose freedom', it allows it. This is a good example of the emptiness and silliness of glibertarian 'philosophy'. Like your false dichotomy between law based in 'opinion' and faux-Natural law, based entirely in fact. All law is based in opinion, all law is legislated morality.

It's 'glib', not lib because libertarian philosophy (Proudhon, Bakunin and so on) is the opposite to glibertarianism, not similar.

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.

Essentially, glibertarianism excludes a lot of government action (taxation, heavy regulation, Keynesian counter-cyclical policy) that is absolutely necessary for a working society. Look at glibertarianism is action- somewhere like Chile, which has moved from one economic collapse to another, with the economy barely holding together at all. Glibertarianism is wrong because it's impossible. You can't have 'small government', to use the derogatory phrase for good government. It doesn't work.

[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.

If anything the, long term effects will be a more racist society, due to the fact that not only are any disadvantaged whites being given less assistance, but also because government policies like that legitimise the idea that it's ok to treat people differently based on their race.

Complete bullshit.

[Art Vandelay]

If anything the, long term effects will be a more racist society, due to the fact that not only are any disadvantaged whites being given less assistance, but also because government policies like that legitimise the idea that it's ok to treat people differently based on their race.

Complete bullshit.

...That's all you've got to say then?

[Lt. Fred]

If anything the, long term effects will be a more racist society, due to the fact that not only are any disadvantaged whites being given less assistance, but also because government policies like that legitimise the idea that it's ok to treat people differently based on their race.

Complete bullshit.

...That's all you've got to say then?

Ending racism isn't a form of racism.

[Cataclysm]

It's not ending racism, it's creating more racism. If you can't refute this, you shouldn't respond.

[Art Vandelay]

Ending racism isn't a form of racism.

Basing forms of government assistance on race and only race with no thought to other circumstances will not end racism, it just perpetuates it.

[Lt. Fred]

Ending racism isn't a form of racism.

Basing forms of government assistance on race and only race with no thought to other circumstances will not end racism, it just perpetuates it.

A strawman. This is not an accurate description of Affirmative Action.

[Art Vandelay]

A strawman. This is not an accurate description of Affirmative Action.

In its current form, it basically states that when you have two or more equally qualified would-be employees, you must hire a minority over a white. If that's not race-selective government assistance, I don't fucking know what is.

Now are you going to actually address the fact that it just assumes any given person is disadvantaged or not based only on race, or that it legitimises the idea that people of different races should be treated differently, or are you just going to argue semantics?

[Lt. Fred]

Basing forms of government assistance on race and only race with no thought to other circumstances will not end racism, it just perpetuates it.

Strawman.

Now are you going to actually address the fact that it just assumes any given person is disadvantaged or not based only on race,

Strawman.

or that it legitimises the idea that people of different races should be treated differently, or are you just going to argue semantics?

Trying to treat people the same is not the same as treating them differently.

[Art Vandelay]

Basing forms of government assistance on race and only race with no thought to other circumstances will not end racism, it just perpetuates it.

Strawman.

Now are you going to actually address the fact that it just assumes any given person is disadvantaged or not based only on race,

Strawman.

Do elaborate.

or that it legitimises the idea that people of different races should be treated differently, or are you just going to argue semantics?

Trying to treat people the same is not the same as treating them differently.

Saying you must hire someone over someone else because of their race is not treating people the same, genius.

[Lt. Fred]

or that it legitimises the idea that people of different races should be treated differently, or are you just going to argue semantics?

Trying to treat people the same is not the same as treating them differently.
[/quote]
Saying you must hire someone over someone else because of their race is not treating people the same, genius.
[/quote]

Currently, society hates black people, treating them differently as a result. Trying to end that is not the same thing as it. Ending a practice is not the same as the practice.

[Art Vandelay]

Currently, society hates black people, treating them differently as a result. Trying to end that is not the same thing as it. Ending a practice is not the same as the practice.

So your solution to the problem of treating people differently based on race... Is even more race-based differing treatment that is this time enforced by the government. Are you seriously not seeing the flaw in that logic?

I notice you also failed to justify why my other points are strawmen. Just sayin'.

[Lt. Fred]

Currently, society hates black people, treating them differently as a result. Trying to end that is not the same thing as it. Ending a practice is not the same as the practice.

So your solution to the problem of treating people differently based on race... Is even more race-based differing treatment that is this time enforced by the government. Are you seriously not seeing the flaw in that logic?

The answer to people kidnapping other people... is even more kidnap, this time enforced by the government. The answer to another country invading yours and killing people... is even more killing. The answer to an overdose of drugs... is even more drugs.

Yes, discrimination is sometimes justified. Affirmative action is justified discrimination. Racism is unjustified. That's the difference.