• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

How about a doo-rag and pants falling off your ass. Talk about creating an interviewer attitude problem.

you seem to be ignoring the findings that they cannot GET an interview as often as White applicants.

Yeah I know- its terrible to confuse with actual facts that encroach on your self imposed belief system..
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

you seem to be ignoring the findings that they cannot GET an interview as often as White applicants.

Yeah I know- its terrible to confuse with actual facts that encroach on your self imposed belief system..
I wonder why that is. Oh yes, it's the employers fault.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

you seem to be ignoring the findings that they cannot GET an interview as often as White applicants.

Yeah I know- its terrible to confuse with actual facts that encroach on your self imposed belief system..

Perhaps that's because of the Gangsta Rap, the pants around the ass, Flash Mobbery, and the bad attitude many Blacks have. This is a problem pointed out by Bill Cosby (among many others) and, more recently, the mayor of Pittsburgh, and it reflects badly on the reputation of all Black people.

Of course that's completely unfair but it nonetheless makes it more difficult for many in the Black community to advance when these images are so widespread. We don't get those same images of Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, etc. so they probably share the same hiring rate as Whites, if not better in many instances. That does not mean anyone likes these people more, it just means, from the employers point of view, they're likely to be less hassle. And thats what we all want.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

I wonder why that is. Oh yes, it's the employers fault.
Are you saying that employers aren't responsible for their own actions?
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

So you're saying that employers discriminate against black employees because they fear lawsuits. That may be true. It still certainly doesn't make it legal or moral though, and a white employee could do exactly the same thing- sue with no case and settle. So the misunderstandings or stereotypes that may make some employers imagine that hiring a black person is legally riskier are no excuse for discrimination.

Every company is different, but they are all variations on the same base line and its all very structured


Lets say, you have to rank 100 employees in a stack. Top of the stack is the highest performing employees, bottom is the lowest (dragging their ass) performing employees. So the management team gets in a huddle and spends a day creating this stack. This stack has serious implications. In any pay for performance, the top ~20% of the employees will receive raises, while the bottom 5% (sometimes up to 20% depending on business conditions) will be placed in some version of corrective action. Also lay-offs, when necessary will come from the bottom of the stack. Now after all that, you have to identify the protected classes (a black woman as an example) in the stack and redistribute the stack so you don't have any protected classes in the bottom 20% and so that they are well represented in the top 20% of the stack.


This sort of thing goes on when determining pay, lay-offs, contract allocation, pretty much anything that has anything to do with differentiating employees or even companies bidding on a contract. It's huge and it's just the way business is done. The objective is to play it so ****ing safe that a protected class individual (or company owned by a protected class individual) doesn't have any reason to sue your company.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Every company is different, but they are all variations on the same base line and its all very structured


Lets say, you have to rank 100 employees in a stack. Top of the stack is the highest performing employees, bottom is the lowest (dragging their ass) performing employees. So the management team gets in a huddle and spends a day creating this stack. This stack has serious implications. In any pay for performance, the top ~20% of the employees will receive raises, while the bottom 5% (sometimes up to 20% depending on business conditions) will be placed in some version of corrective action. Also lay-offs, when necessary will come from the bottom of the stack. Now after all that, you have to identify the protected classes (a black woman as an example) in the stack and redistribute the stack so you don't have any protected classes in the bottom 20% and so that they are well represented in the top 20% of the stack.


This sort of thing goes on when determining pay, lay-offs, contract allocation, pretty much anything that has anything to do with differentiating employees or even companies bidding on a contract. It's huge and it's just the way business is done. The objective is to play it so ****ing safe that a protected class individual (or company owned by a protected class individual) doesn't have any reason to sue your company.

Who knows, I'm sure some businesses do that, but if they do, it's moronic for lots of reasons. First off because that isn't what a protected class means. For example, "black" isn't a protected class, "race" is the protected class. Meaning you can't discriminate against anybody on the basis of their race whether they are white, black, asian, hispanic, whatever. Now, in theory, somebody could argue that a minority is more likely to win a lawsuit because juries would find it more plausible that an employer was discriminating against a black person than a white person, but if you honestly aren't discriminating it is basically impossible to lose a discrimination lawsuit. Most the times a company loses a discrimination lawsuit it is because somebody said that they were discriminating outright either to the person they targeted, to a co-worker, or in an email that was dug up during discovery. So, that doesn't seem like a reasonable approach at all and it certainly hasn't been my experience that companies do anything like that.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Perhaps that's because of the Gangsta Rap, the pants around the ass, Flash Mobbery, and the bad attitude many Blacks have. This is a problem pointed out by Bill Cosby (among many others) and, more recently, the mayor of Pittsburgh, and it reflects badly on the reputation of all Black people.

Of course that's completely unfair but it nonetheless makes it more difficult for many in the Black community to advance when these images are so widespread. We don't get those same images of Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, etc. so they probably share the same hiring rate as Whites, if not better in many instances. That does not mean anyone likes these people more, it just means, from the employers point of view, they're likely to be less hassle. And thats what we all want.

You are making judgments about people based on bigoted racial stereotypes.

We do not even live in the same reality.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

You are making judgments about people based on bigoted racial stereotypes.

We do not even live in the same reality.

That's just what people do, whether we want it that way or not.

And it's not just me pointing this out, many Black people are now doing the same.

I'm not aware of what reality you might live in, but I'm talking the real world.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

There are lots of things that could be done. On the broadest level the most important thing we could do would be to tackle poverty in general head on. Thicker safety net, free college, better public schools, more job programs, etc. Reducing poverty indirectly reduces a lot of the factors that prop up discrimination.

As expected, a liberal cornucopia of big government, big spending "solutions' which don't work. If Vietnamese boatpeople refugees could make it in a land that had just fought a brutal war against their communist brethren, then anyone can make it, so screw the thicker safety net which just increases dependency. Free college is a worthless gesture because the returns to education, when we control for cognition, are minimal. Employers are not paying for an applicant's skill level in analyzing the hegemonic oppression of race in rural New Mexico, circa 1955, nor are they paying for any of the other "skills" learned in Wymyn's Studies, Afro-American studies, Art History, sociology, etc. Better public schools - you want those then you have to be prepared to give in order to receive. I'd go for a uniform state grant to every child in the state and the elimination of local funding of schools so long as we implement a total charter system. Every student gets the same money and every student can apply to any school that they wish and any school can accept or reject the students that apply. Here you have eliminated all government variation in how much schools spend per student. Every school gets the same amount of money from State Government. They can supplement by charging parents for the difference. As for jobs programs, they're mostly useless.

If you want to achieve your goals you're never going to get buy in from the rest of society when you package them up with big government delivery systems. You need to marry your goals to conservative delivery systems. Liberals comprise only 20% of the electorate compared to 40% for conservatives. You're not going to get everything you want. Find ways to achieve the same goals without traveling down the socialist road. This advice also applies to environmentalists and their big government schemes.

For employment discrimination directly, there are two tools for fighting it- discrimination suits and affirmative action. For discrimination suits a few things would help. First, reduce the pleading standards.

**** That. This is exactly the tack that the Brits took with the issue of there not being enough rape convictions. The set out to reduce the evidenciary standards needed to secure a conviction. You're not going to get any buy-in with your jack-boot stomping on freedom and liberty. You've already gutted the Constitution on the issue of free association, so now that we've seen how anti-liberty your vision is, I can't imagine that people will allow you to erode even more liberty.

At present you basically need to be able to prove that discrimination occurred before you can even pass the pleading stage, so you can't do discovery.

That's too bad, but designing equal outcomes is just not worth upending legal standards. If people are not overtly discriminating, then you're left with the SUGGESTION that there is covert discrimination taking place. Targeting innocent people based on suggestions is too intrusive of a tactic.

Third, in my opinion, the individual who discriminated should face jail time, not just a criminal fine or civil damages from the employer.

That doesn't surprise me at all. You play right into the jackbooted leftist authoritarian stereotype. I'd love to see you explaining to women that they are being arrested for discriminating against male OB/GYNs because they prefer having female OB/GYNs looking at their private parts. Discrimination on the basis of gender, right?

Instead, first, I would push for more extensive review of the explanations employers give.

Are you trying to send even more jobs overseas? Now employers have to justify why they hired the people they hired and this to someone like you working in a government overseer's office.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

That's just what people do, whether we want it that way or not.

And it's not just me pointing this out, many Black people are now doing the same.

I'm not aware of what reality you might live in, but I'm talking the real world.

Thank you for admitting your own shortcomings. It does not excuse them and I hope you work to overcome them and conquer them.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Perhaps that's because of the Gangsta Rap, the pants around the ass, Flash Mobbery, and the bad attitude many Blacks have. This is a problem pointed out by Bill Cosby (among many others) and, more recently, the mayor of Pittsburgh, and it reflects badly on the reputation of all Black people.

Of course that's completely unfair but it nonetheless makes it more difficult for many in the Black community to advance when these images are so widespread. We don't get those same images of Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, etc. so they probably share the same hiring rate as Whites, if not better in many instances. That does not mean anyone likes these people more, it just means, from the employers point of view, they're likely to be less hassle. And thats what we all want.

Being black, I suppose that makes me an Uncle Tom for agreeing. Also, I hate the ghetto behavior and the degradation of women.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Here's another man who's pointing to shortcomings and trying to conquer them.

Mayor Nutter Strongly Condemns Mob Attacks - YouTube

And here's a woman.

Getting Over Race - Magazine - The Atlantic

So do you hate black people, or just the gangsta/Wangsta sub culture?

Since I'd remind you the degradation of woman, the "Pants around the ass" and all that is not exclusive to black people.

But please, don't let me get in the way of your faux outrage, since there has been a hatred of every sub culture in every age going... once rockers with long permed hair were seen as the scourge of society.

There will always be things like this and I don't like it either but I'm not one to judge...
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Being black, I suppose that makes me an Uncle Tom for agreeing. Also, I hate the ghetto behavior and the degradation of women.

Yeah, you'll be called an Uncle Tom and me a bigoted Racist, but it seems we are both people who can rise above that kind of talk.

Thanks.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

So do you hate black people, or just the gangsta/Wangsta sub culture?

Since I'd remind you the degradation of woman, the "Pants around the ass" and all that is not exclusive to black people.

But please, don't let me get in the way of your faux outrage, since there has been a hatred of every sub culture in every age going... once rockers with long permed hair were seen as the scourge of society.

There will always be things like this and I don't like it either but I'm not one to judge...

Seems to me you're doing a fair bit of judging in this post.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Yeah, you'll be called an Uncle Tom and me a bigoted Racist, but it seems we are both people who can rise above that kind of talk.

Thanks.

Well...

I don't think you're a racist grant :shrug:

But I do think you have a veiled form of bigotry that tries to justify itself with intelligence and well formed sentences, and so doesn't even realise the level of its own bigotry.

And its actually not even on this subject, I don't think you hate black people, but to say you have a chip on your shoulder about muslims and an extremely unrealistic and black and white view of the world and particular the left/right wing divide. Believing that if someone is a liberal, they support and are accountable for every single action and result of others claiming to be liberal or thought to be "leftist".
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

The Tea Party doesn't give a rats rear about race, but those opposed to the Tea Party sure are mired in Race.

that, sir, is absolutely correct. the actual racists here are the ones attacking the Tea Party, not the TP'ers themselves.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Are you saying that employers aren't responsible for their own actions?

no, he's pointing out that the employers are wisely allocating their limited time and resources to focusing on the candidates they feel are most likely to become the best workers. that is what smart employers (who do not wish to be destroyed by their competition) do - allocate resources effectively.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

As expected, a liberal cornucopia of big government, big spending "solutions' which don't work.

It does work. That's why countries with decent poverty amelioration programs have high intergenerational income mobility and ours is the worst in the first world.

**** That. This is exactly the tack that the Brits took with the issue of there not being enough rape convictions. The set out to reduce the evidenciary standards needed to secure a conviction.

PLEADING standards, not evidenciary standards. Pleading standards are just how much proof you need in order to be able to do discovery. Discovery is basically the investigation. If the pleading standard is too high then you can't even investigate to find out whether there was discrimination or not. About 4 years ago they radically raised the pleading standards to the point where you basically need proof of discrimination before you can even investigate. That doesn't make sense. Raising pleading standards doesn't have anything to do with who wins, just whether they can investigate.

You're not going to get any buy-in with your jack-boot stomping on freedom and liberty. You've already gutted the Constitution on the issue of free association, so now that we've seen how anti-liberty your vision is, I can't imagine that people will allow you to erode even more liberty.

So the alleged victim of discrimination- the private citizen- is a jackbooted thug, but the alleged aggressor who is allegedly attacking the victim and stripping him of is liberty is not? That's just crazy talk all around.

That's too bad, but designing equal outcomes is just not worth upending legal standards. If people are not overtly discriminating, then you're left with the SUGGESTION that there is covert discrimination taking place. Targeting innocent people based on suggestions is too intrusive of a tactic.

You don't understand. They could be overtly discriminating. How would you know before you even investigate?
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

It does work. That's why countries with decent poverty amelioration programs have high intergenerational income mobility and ours is the worst in the first world.

One must always control for population variance. Poverty in Sweden is not the same as poverty in America.

PLEADING standards, not evidenciary standards. Pleading standards are just how much proof you need in order to be able to do discovery. Discovery is basically the investigation.

Are liberals going to tick a box on their tax returns which activates a 5% income tax surcharge and have this money go into a fund which compensates companies for the expenses that they must incur from being subjected to discovery under relaxed standards? Who is going to pay the companies for these expenses?

If the pleading standard is too high then you can't even investigate to find out whether there was discrimination or not. About 4 years ago they radically raised the pleading standards to the point where you basically need proof of discrimination before you can even investigate. That doesn't make sense.

It makes absolute sense. If you have evidence, then proceed. If you don't, then you have no case.

So the alleged victim of discrimination- the private citizen- is a jackbooted thug, but the alleged aggressor who is allegedly attacking the victim and stripping him of is liberty is not? That's just crazy talk all around.

Liberty is not you forcing your association on someone who doesn't want to associate with you. This is fundamental stuff. Freedom of association, I know, I know, it's not something that liberals believe in, but it really is a fundamental right and you guys have gutted it like a fish.

You don't understand. They could be overtly discriminating. How would you know before you even investigate?

Overt discrimination is detectable, that's why it's overt. Covert discrimination is not detectable, that's why it's covert. Make sense? If there is no evidence of discrimination then all you're left with is a suggestion that it has occurred. When you're dealing with suggestions then there are always other plausible factors that can explain outcomes, one of which is coincidence. The burden of proof is on you to prove discrimination, not on the employer to prove their innocence.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

One must always control for population variance. Poverty in Sweden is not the same as poverty in America.

Every first world country spend more on their safety net and every one of them has better intergenerational income mobility than we do, so it isn't some Sweden fluke. It includes more diverse countries than the US, less diverse countries than the US, poorer countries than the US, richer countries than the US, etc.

Are liberals going to tick a box on their tax returns which activates a 5% income tax surcharge and have this money go into a fund which compensates companies for the expenses that they must incur from being subjected to discovery under relaxed standards? Who is going to pay the companies for these expenses?

The courts can just limit discovery if cost is a big issue. Usually it isn't except in massive corporate-to-corporate lawsuits.

Liberty is not you forcing your association on someone who doesn't want to associate with you. This is fundamental stuff. Freedom of association, I know, I know, it's not something that liberals believe in, but it really is a fundamental right and you guys have gutted it like a fish.

This is the crux of it I guess. You feel that a nation where people are allowed to discriminate is better than one where they aren't. No point continuing to debate really, you just have different values than I do. To me, the more discrimination there is going on the less free we are. The freedom to discriminate just isn't as important as the economic freedom discrimination takes away from its victims to me.

Overt discrimination is detectable, that's why it's overt. Covert discrimination is not detectable, that's why it's covert. Make sense? If there is no evidence of discrimination then all you're left with is a suggestion that it has occurred. When you're dealing with suggestions then there are always other plausible factors that can explain outcomes, one of which is coincidence. The burden of proof is on you to prove discrimination, not on the employer to prove their innocence.

Huh? The point of discovery is to see whether or not there was overt discrimination. For example, maybe the hiring manager emailed a buddy saying he wouldn't hire black people or whatever. That's overt, but you can't find it until discovery. The only kind of discrimination you can really have firm evidence of without discovery would be the case where somebody flat out tells the person that they didn't hire them because of their race. Obviously that practically never happens, so if that is the only kind of discrimination the system addresses then the system isn't working.

As for the burden of proof, nothing we're discussing changes the burden of proof, so not sure where you're coming from on that.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

The courts can just limit discovery if cost is a big issue. Usually it isn't except in massive corporate-to-corporate lawsuits.

The moment any discovery effort begins it produces costs for the company which must submit. You wanting to look at something is not sufficient reason to burden others with costs. You "voting" to shift costs onto innocents so that you can advance your equal outcomes agenda is, frankly, immoral. If you want to advance this scheme then you need to find a way for liberals to pay for it without burdening innocent people and that effort only gets you to the table where we discuss the trade-off of liberties against your goal, for even if you compensate these companies for their time, you're still trampling on their liberty.

The freedom to discriminate just isn't as important as the economic freedom discrimination takes away from its victims to me.

The freedom to discriminate is something that we all enjoy. Ask the woman who discriminates against male OB/GYNs if she like the freedom to choose her own physician. Taking away that freedom, or restricting it further, means that associations are FORCED onto people who don't want them. Why? To satisfy your ideological agenda of creating equal outcomes across society. This sounds like the reasoning behind "We need to destroy the village in order to save the village."

Obviously that practically never happens, so if that is the only kind of discrimination the system addresses then the system isn't working.

The system is working as it was designed to work. This is precisely what the originators of these laws set out to stop - "No Blacks Need Apply." Now you liberals are on a complete diversity destroying bombing run and intruding deeper and deeper into affairs that government has no business involving itself in. That's the creeping road to totalitarianism - throwing people into jail because they're exercising rights to free association.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Covert discrimination is not detectable, that's why it's covert. Make sense? If there is no evidence of discrimination then all you're left with is a suggestion that it has occurred. When you're dealing with suggestions then there are always other plausible factors that can explain outcomes, one of which is coincidence. The burden of proof is on you to prove discrimination, not on the employer to prove their innocence.

The evidence is sound, many minorities do not get hired at the same rate for the same work with the same qualifications as their counterparts. I don't see what else you need. Might I possibly play a broken record for you. Feel free to wriggle your way into another argument.
 
Last edited:
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

The evidence is sound, many minorities do not get hired at the same rate for the same work with the same qualifications as their counterparts. I don't see what else you need. Might I possibly play a broken record for you. Feel free to wriggle your way into another argument.

The researchers should then submit to the EEOC the identities of the companies that were involved in this test and let the law deal with them. Problem solved.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Feel free to wriggle your way into another argument.
The researchers should then submit to the EEOC the identities of the companies that were involved in this test and let the law deal with them. Problem solved.

Congrats. :roll:

Yet the problem does not reside with any single company its endemic to society itself, also to adress the issue every company would basically have to be consulted on instituting its OWN affirmative action plans to prevent themselves legal issues.

round and round we go... whats next...?
 
Back
Top Bottom