- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,426
- Reaction score
- 2,219
- Location
- Mecca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Silly me, here I thought you were the black dude.As a black man why are you so worred about how the white man is kept down?
Silly me, here I thought you were the black dude.As a black man why are you so worred about how the white man is kept down?
I love when things are snipped and taken out of context. It's just amusing. The next sentence of the quote was "Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps." The point of affirmative action was never to disallow qualified white applicants, but instead to ensure minorities the same opportunities as white applicants.
There will always be a portion of the white electorate who are upset by this, because it obviously limits some opportunity for white applicants. However, it's disingenuous to portray affirmitive actions inititives as reverse racism, in which white applicants are treated worse then minorities. That's not at all the picture that gets painted when you look at labor statistics.
The employment population statistic for whites is at 59.4% for 2011. Blacks is at 51.7%. Additionally, 34% of employed Black women and 25%of employed Hispanic women worked in management positions. The most striking information I found, was when you look at unemployment, divided by race.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrace2011.pdf
If these affirmative actions laws are so sexist and racist, why are twice as many black men and women unemployed, compared to white men and women?
Unemployment Demographics | Department of NumbersWhite 6.8%
Black or African American 13.8%
Hispanic or Latino 9.6%
Asian 6.1%
Unemployment Demographics | Department of Numbers
now let's look at one of the protected minority groups, asians, when compared to the majority group, whites, regarding unemployment data
notice how the minority group is doing better than the majority group, but the minority group is still a protected class under affirmative action regulations; why?
i have already emphasized portions of your post so allow me to now revise your concluding question and ask you to answer the revised version of your question:
"If these affirmative actions laws are so sexist and racist, why are twice as many black men and women un more asians employed, compared to white men and women?" why should a minority group retain its preference in affirmative action regulations if it is outperforming the majority population. would that not indicate that the need for affirmative action provisions - relative to employment - has ended, recognizing that the asian population surpasses that of the white population in terms of steady employment
Asians were the most likely of the groups to have graduated from college; 57 percent of Asians in the labor force had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 36 percent of Whites, 25 percent of Blacks, and 16 percent of Hispanics.Having a degree will always make you more, and more easily employable.
despite my clumsy effort to reframe your question such that it addressed the apparent asian advantage relative to employment, you saw exactly what i was wanting to address: when does a protected class lose its protection. and i would submit that the asian minority no longer deserves to be protected under the affirmative action provisions. and if we should see the current asian economic advantage disintegrate into a disadvantage, it would then be appropriate to return that asian minority category to those of the protected groups until it can be seen that asians are again playing on a level economic playing fieldI'm honestly having a lot of trouble following your trail here, but I don't want you to think I am avoiding your question. The numbers you provided are a one month picture of statistics. That's fine enough when you are looking at the small picture, but if you are looking at the big picture, to address affirmitive action as a whole, I would think you wouldn't want to look at least a years worth of information. Which was why I liked to the BLS' 2011, comprehensive report.
During 2011, the unemployment rate among Asians was 25.2%, versus Whites who are at 21.7%. When you factor in the margin of error, I can totally see these numbers being nearly the same, so I think I understand your point. If a minority is doing that well, why the protection of affirmitive action? My answer would be, what happens if that affirmative action goes away? How do you know those numbers wouldn't drop without it?
Additionally, since we discussing the 'sucess' of a minority, I would point to another set of statistics. This may have something to with the success of the Asian community specifically. Culturally, I think Asian families value education significantly more then white, black or hispanic families. This is totally an assertion based upon my own person experience and the following statistics.
Asians were the most likely of the groups to have graduated from college; 57 percent of Asians in the labor force had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 36 percent of Whites, 25 percent of Blacks, and 16 percent of Hispanics.
Having a degree will always make you more, and more easily employable.
I still can not figure out why black conservatives such as yourself think it is OK to look down on a person because of their color.
Random audience member says something stupid and gets laughed at. Clearly, all republicans are racist.
Random audience member says something stupid and gets laughed at. Clearly, all republicans are racist.
I do believe CPAC is private so it is not covered under freedom of speech. They probably should have put the guy in a broom closet somewhere.
Your apologetics notwithstanding,"affirmative action" is institutionalized racism & sexism by every sense of the term.
Are you pro-racism and pro-sexism?
despite my clumsy effort to reframe your question such that it addressed the apparent asian advantage relative to employment, you saw exactly what i was wanting to address: when does a protected class lose its protection. and i would submit that the asian minority no longer deserves to be protected under the affirmative action provisions. and if we should see the current asian economic advantage disintegrate into a disadvantage, it would then be appropriate to return that asian minority category to those of the protected groups until it can be seen that asians are again playing on a level economic playing field
in short, retaining asians as a protected group undermines the public's belief in the legitimacy of purpose of the affirmative action programs - and that is unfortunate
As a black man why are you so worred about how the white man is kept down?
i don't see it this way. if there remains data to show discrimination continues, then the protected class should remain protected under the AA program. however, if that class, as in asian employment, evidences that it is at parity - or in this instance better than parity - with the majority, with which it is always compared, then it no longer has basis to remain a protected class in need of further opportunity [to achieve equal standing]. in order to achieve the objectives of AA, there are instances where AA programs can provide a super-priority to the protected group. a sense of fairness should not allow us to then retain a group to be protected which is achieving at a rate surpassing the benchmarks established by the majorityI can totally see your point here, I really can. However, affirmitave action, is not a short term thing, that fixes a problem, and then that problem goes away. Racial inequality is a persistent sociotal problem (totally my opinion there). If you take away affirmative action, you reinvigorate a belief that racial segragation if OK.
and you have again hit upon my paramount concern. if a protected class is allowed to remain in the AA program, despite its achieving success better than the majority counterpart, then the very purpose for the AA program is lost. why have an AA program once parity has been accomplished; there is no further need of it. but for the other minority groups that still struggle without achieving parity, they continue to need AA to level the economic playing field to move toward parity. some more slowly than others. by allowing one group to remain, which group is found no longer to require AA assistance to achieve parity, undermines the support for an AA program otherwise having legitimate purpose. that purpose cannot be found for asians being in AA programs dedicated to elevating economic prosperity. the success of the asian minority group should be cause for celebration that AA works. but if the successful asian minority continues to receive AA assistance, despite its observable economic success, that will cause the majority to question the continued legitimacy of the entire AA program. AA needs to remain to assist the hispanics, blacks, Native Americans, aleuts, women, and the disabled, just as it has already helped the asiansAdditionally, I wonder, what do you think about affirmative action for races that have not been as successful as the Asian community? Clearly those number are still quite low, so is that evidence that affirmative action as been ineffective or should be strengthened?
i do believe AA can be identified as one element of that minority population's economic success. you already mentioned high educational attainment, which is another of an array of factors that got the asian population to its current standingFurthmore, if you believe that the Asisan community has directly benefited from affirmative action, then does that define it as a successful program?
i embrace the AA program but see it poorly managed at the federal level. SC chief justice pointed outA lot of questions, I know, lol. Hopefully you are following my train of thought :lol:
and he is quite right. AA should not have a racial aspect to its criteria for participation in that program; it should be purely based on one's economic conditionThe way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
i don't see it this way. if there remains data to show discrimination continues, then the protected class should remain protected under the AA program. however, if that class, as in asian employment, evidences that it is at parity - or in this instance better than parity - with the majority, with which it is always compared, then it no longer has basis to remain a protected class in need of further opportunity [to achieve equal standing]. in order to achieve the objectives of AA, there are instances where AA programs can provide a super-priority to the protected group. a sense of fairness should not allow us to then retain a group to be protected which is achieving at a rate surpassing the benchmarks established by the majority
and you have again hit upon my paramount concern. if a protected class is allowed to remain in the AA program, despite its achieving success better than the majority counterpart, then the very purpose for the AA program is lost. why have an AA program once parity has been accomplished; there is no further need of it. but for the other minority groups that still struggle without achieving parity, they continue to need AA to level the economic playing field to move toward parity. some more slowly than others. by allowing one group to remain, which group is found no longer to require AA assistance to achieve parity, undermines the support for an AA program otherwise having legitimate purpose. that purpose cannot be found for asians being in AA programs dedicated to elevating economic prosperity. the success of the asian minority group should be cause for celebration that AA works. but if the successful asian minority continues to receive AA assistance, despite its observable economic success, that will cause the majority to question the continued legitimacy of the entire AA program. AA needs to remain to assist the hispanics, blacks, Native Americans, aleuts, women, and the disabled, just as it has already helped the asians
i embrace the AA program but see it poorly managed at the federal level. SC chief justice pointed out and he is quite right. AA should not have a racial aspect to its criteria for participation in that program; it should be purely based on one's economic condition
it would be expected that a greater percentage of the black and hispanic populations would be eligible to participate in AA programs than those percentages of the asian and white populations, but the race-neutral aspect of eligibility should allow members of all races to support a program intended to elevate the economic standing of the underclass, no matter the individual's race, gender, etc
It's good to see a rational post on the sort of thread where the shrieking loons seem to go insane with emotion and ignorant self-righteousness.
I agree that the various classifications seek out their own. When the dust settles in the United States, we will again have neighborhoods divided along ethnic lines. The dirty little secret is that white Liberals seek out their own just as quickly as good old Southern boys.
At the present time, it's very profitable for white Liberals to pretend that they are champions of the less populous races, but they do their pretending from white enclaves.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be around your own, that has been the preference since the beginning of time and always will be, particularly now with the huge 1st world and 3rd world cultural differences.
It's institutionalized dependency. It sends the message that blacks and women don't have to put forth any effort, because the government will tilt the playing field in their favor.
I still can not figure out why black conservatives such as yourself think it is OK to look down on a person because of their color.
I do believe CPAC is private so it is not covered under freedom of speech. They probably should have put the guy in a broom closet somewhere.
Private organizations aren't covered under freedom of speech?
Yup, private organizations are not required to allow you to speak on their property. Congress shall make no law, not private organizations shall make no rule.
I don't understand. Why don't more minorities and more women vote for the GOP? Oh that's right...
Combine this comment with the GOP again saying that it's not their policies, views and stances that hurt them, its just their "messaging". So don't actually change anything, just say it differently. I'll let Albert Einstein comment on this:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Yup, private organizations are not required to allow you to speak on their property. Congress shall make no law, not private organizations shall make no rule.
Actually you're wrong, because it's illegal to violate a person's civil rights and the 1st Amendment is a civil right.
as you can see, the ability to make public attacks you have in a public setting, is not found here... At Debate Politics we see freedom of speech as the right to communicate ideas. With this right comes the responsibility to choose your words carefully and respect the rights of others. Common sense dictates the difference between one expressing themselves and one who is disruptive. If you are focused on contributing to the community, you will not have to be concerned with being a disruption. Disruptive behavior, such as personal attacks, can lead to temporary or permanent revocation of posting privileges.
Is this link supposed to be an example of that?So, instead, vote for the party that thinks you're too weak, or too incompetent to succeed on your own.
Obama USDA met 30 times with Mexican gov't to promote food-stamp use among Mexican immigrants | The Daily Caller
At a panel disussion on race at CPAC, Scott Terry, 30, rose from his seat to question the discussion leader, K. Carl Smith, from the Frederick Douglass Republicans, over the role of race in the GOP. Terry said the growth of diversity in the party and outreach to black conservatives has been "at the expense of young, white, Southern males like myself." "I think my demographic is being systematically disenfranchised," Terry said. Smith responded by telling a story about a letter that abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass wrote to his former slaveowner forgiving him for holding him in servitude. "For giving him shelter and food?" asked Terry, as some members of the audience gasped and others laughed.
Think Progress reported that Terry later said he supports segregation. Terry told Think Progress following the panel discussion that he believed that whites have been “systematically disenfranchised” by the federal government. He also told Think Progress he'd "be fine" with a society with blacks subservient to whites. African Americans, he said, should vote in Africa. He claimed the tea party agrees with him. Terry is not the first Southern Republican in recent months to make comments supporting slavery. Last year, several Republican state legislators in Arkansas endorsed slavery in new books, including one who suggested that the practice "may have been a blessing" for slaves by bringing them to the United States. State GOP leaders pulled support for the candidates.
CPAC Panel On Race: 'Young, White Southern Males' Hurt By Racial Outreach
The real victims in America? White men? Who knew.