The hidden Racism of the Far-Left

page: 7
44
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by Skyfloating
They think that seeing blacks as pathetic and needy idiots who cant lift themselves out of poverty = having a good heart.


Um, that's not Affirmative Action. That's your view on blacks.


How is that MY view on blacks?


"Pathetic and needy idiots who cant lift themselves out of poverty?" There is so much judgement and animosity in that statement. That's not the view of Affirmative Action. Affirmative action is about non-discrimination and not about judgment. What you're describing is more the projected cynical point of view of someone who opposes Affirmative Action.

The words you chose come from your own interpretation of how you imagine people must view those who benefit from Affirmative Action.




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
"Pathetic and needy idiots who cant lift themselves out of poverty?" There is so much judgement and animosity in that statement. That's not the view of Affirmative Action. Affirmative action is about non-discrimination and not about judgment. What you're describing is more the projected cynical point of view of someone who opposes Affirmative Action.

The words you chose come from your own interpretation of how you imagine people must view those who benefit from Affirmative Action.


Well, in my view the affirmative-action proponent subconsciously believes that certain people are inherently weak or inept. But its subconscious so its not widely seen this way.

edit on 21-9-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
"Pathetic and needy idiots who cant lift themselves out of poverty?" There is so much judgement and animosity in that statement. That's not the view of Affirmative Action. Affirmative action is about non-discrimination and not about judgment. What you're describing is more the projected cynical point of view of someone who opposes Affirmative Action.

The words you chose come from your own interpretation of how you imagine people must view those who benefit from Affirmative Action.


Well, in my view the affirmative-action proponent subconsciously believes that certain people are inherently weak or inept. But its subconscious so its not widely seen this way.

edit on 21-9-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



This interpretation of one's subconscious, comes from your own projected subconscious beliefs of what you imagine someone must believe.

This is your view, not the view of those who support Affirmative Action. I think you're hitting a brick wall in your own mind, that you can't imagine a non-resentful view. You're not alone on this, there are many people who share this projected resentment. Is it that you judge yourself when you accept help from someone? Do you feel pathetic or needy? I think the view you're referring to is a cynical view that should not hold sway over helping people.

There are people in this country who see discrimination taking place in the workplace, recognize it as being wrong, and so have set in place measures to try to help level the playing field. Affirmative Action is not racism, it is the response to racism.

It's like you're saying a person who watches another person getting beat up because of their race, who then attempts to help and defend said person, is then guilty of being a racist simply for being able to identify racism.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

This is your view, not the view of those who support Affirmative Action. I think you're hitting a brick wall in your own mind, that you can't imagine a non-resentful view. You're not alone on this, there are many people who share this projected resentment. Is it that you judge yourself when you accept help from someone? Do you feel pathetic or needy? I think the view you're referring to is a cynical view that should not hold sway over helping people.


I get your point. I understand projection. And yes, in my own life I dont like things being done for me because they deprive me of the natural cycles of learning, failure, growth and success. As well intended "fish for free" is, it does absolutely nothing to help the person learn how to fish himself. If he gets too much fish for free it makes him dependent, complacent....poor.



There are people in this country who see discrimination taking place in the workplace, recognize it as being wrong, and so have set in place measures to try to help level the playing field. Affirmative Action is not racism, it is the response to racism.



This is why I say affirmative action is not the right method to combat racism. When someone inherently hates blacks because he's a racist, how is forcing him to employ blacks going to cure his racism?


The cure for racism lies soley in Education and Time/Evolution-of-Intelligence.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
This is why I say affirmative action is not the right method to combat racism. When someone inherently hates blacks because he's a racist, how is forcing him to employ blacks going to cure his racism?


The cure for racism lies soley in Education and Time/Evolution-of-Intelligence.


I agree that ultimately time and education are key... but time moves slow... and sometimes laws must be set to promote a nation's commitment to tolerance and equality.

I hear what you're saying though... this idea of what I would call a negative side effect... Anger or bitterness at the idea of helping someone based on their race and a history of discrimination. The possibility of someone less qualified getting the job over someone more qualified, simply based on race. But to this I say, don't hire either one, wait for a candidate that truly meets the bar of expectations.

I agree that Affirmative Action is not perfect, but to the original argument that it is a form of racism, I completely disagree. That's where the issue is for me. Affirmative Action is not racism, and it is not a cure. It is a response.... Hopefully a temporary one.

Debating whether or not it is the right method I think is a completely fair debate to have. Debating whether or not it is still necessary I think is fair debate. Debating the pros and cons, of course that's healthy discussion. But calling it a hidden form of racism, it is not. Saying proponents are subconsciously racist, and support it to make themselves feel better, I think is a cynical view shared only by people who are consciously or subconsciously opposed to it.




edit on 21-9-2010 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


Fair enough. I mostly agree with the entirety of your last post.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
This is why I say affirmative action is not the right method to combat racism. When someone inherently hates blacks because he's a racist, how is forcing him to employ blacks going to cure his racism?


I didn't think it was so much about stopping the discrimination itself as about stopping that discrimination having an effect on other people.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Well, in my view the affirmative-action proponent subconsciously believes that certain people are inherently weak or inept. But its subconscious so its not widely seen this way.


The argument for affirmative action as I understand it (as a supporter in most cases) is that the people it's designed to help are inherently just as capable as others, but haven't had the same opportunity as yet to develop that capability.

The view (both conscious and, I would argue, subconscious) is that if you give them the opportunity to prove themselves capable they will do so. I fail to see the racism there.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
We might as well ditch affirmative action and legalize discrimination again.


Surely, affirmative action is legalised discrimination ?

Ditching affirmative action would be a big step in the direction of reducing discrimination in society.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rottimer
If 98% of your workforce, or your student body is one ethnicity, then you might consider having a bit of diversity a plus, given the same qualifications.


Or the manager may consider not being so childish, and pick people in the normal way rather than because of some pathetic and arbitrary racial reason.

If 98% of people in a workforce are one particular ethnicity, then so what ?

It's only a problem if people acknowledge and judge people along racial lines, which we should clearly be moving on from.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I've always looked at affirmative action and giving minorities a leg up to be rather racist.

It is obnoxiously patronising. It's as if the proponents of such measures think that blacks, women, gays etc. are incapable of standing on their own two feet and achieving something on their own, without a helping hand from the white, male majority.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Parallex
 


I agree with you, mate.


I don't go in to for all this left/right nonsense, and both extremes are as bad as each other.

I'm against all forms of discrimination along largely arbitrary factors such as race, sexuality etc., and find positive discrimination to be every bit as bad as what you call ''negative discrimination''.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Of course it is racist. How can you determine someone is "inherently" capable when they are not performing at the rate that others are? Why would Colin Powell or Bill Cosby's kids deserve a leg up over the while kid of two working parents? What's the thought process "well, he looks smart, but because he's black did not have the chances so we'll give him a leg up". Great. You have potentially just denied an opportunity to some white kid from a dysfunctional family who has worked his butt off to make good grades and get into the school or get the job.

Thats the point - people are complicated and it is impossible to assess a person from their race. Frankly making assumptions about a person based on their race is offensive.

Race has absolutely no place in these decisions. The question of race should be immaterial from things like college entrance exams.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I actually considered saying something in that post about how socioeconomic factors have become more important than racial or gender factors in the opportunities that people have had, but I wanted to keep it simple. No, I don't think that Bill Cosby's kids or Colin Powell's kids have had less opportunity than their white counterparts. I do think that overall black kids still have less opportunity than white kids. But I think poor kids in general have less opportunity than well-to-do kids.

I was addressing Skyfloating's idea that supporters of affirmative action support it out of some kind of subconscious belief that blacks are inherently less capable than whites, which I took to be the main focus of this thread. That seemed to me to be a ridiculous distortion of how I understand affirmative action programs -- which is that they operate under the assumption that many (not necessarily all) of the beneficiaries will thrive and prove themselves to be just as capable.

The trouble is that we have no reliable way to test whether someone will or won't prove to be capable. Affirmative action recognizes that performance on some of the tests that are typically used to try to predict this reflect cultural biases that make it a lot harder for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to break out of those backgrounds.

In my opinion, some affirmative-action type programs and initiatives have been a lot more successful than others, and it's well worth having a discussion on what does and doesn't work and why. It's also time to reevaluate the need for them and question whether they can be redesigned to better reflect the problems of today's society.

But to suggest that recognizing that someone's background may negatively affect their access to opportunities, and that it is worth trying to mitigate this impact, is the same thing as believing that person is inherently less competent is ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Seeing blacks as oppressed in general is the distortion out of which affirmative action sprung. There are not as many oppressed people out there as is claimed. At least not in the Northwestern World. Ive been around.

A place where affirmative action was really needed was South Africa during Apartheid.

Its unnatural to continually apply different standards to people according to skin colour. Its natural to simply employ someone, regardless of skin color.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


I don't disagree with the notion of socio-economics being more significant than race. There are measures to deal with those issues - they are called scholarships.

The challenge of course is how to determine who is disadvantaged, what disadvantaged means and how to remedy it. The factors that would lead one person to be "disadvantaged" could well be the same factors that push another to achieve, yet by a protocol of assumptions, which is all that affirmative action is, you are guaranteed to disadvantage someone by their application.

Norming outcomes to achieve any kind of demographic balance is simply wrong. It is feel good social engineering and society never benefits from the unfair treatment of its citizens.

I love it when someone in a minority category comes out and states "I'm here because of affirmative action. Affirmative action made it possible for me to be successful". Terrific - who is not on the stage because they were denied an opportunity because a position was given to a minority? Funny how they never even think about that person - but that makes sense because they don't give a rip about that person who was denied an opportunity based on merit.

The minority spoils system has to go. There may have been a place for it in the 50s and 60s but there is certainly no place for it today.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


But seeing blacks in general as oppressed -- whether it's true or not -- is not the same as seeing them as less capable, which is what I understood you were saying. And your assertion that South Africa under apartheid would have been a legitimate setting for affirmative action policies suggests that you understand that distinction. Perhaps I misunderstood, but that was what I was responding to.

Perhaps where we differ is that I don't think that all oppression stems from governmental policy, I think that social factors like lack of access to affordable, high-quality primary education is also oppressive.

I also don't agree that it was a distortion to think that blacks were oppressed when affirmative action policies were introduced.


reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Scholarships help the socioeconomically disadvantaged, absolutely. But if for example growing up in a poor, non-functional school district leads to a student doing poorly on admissions tests for college, they may never get the opportunity to take advantage of that scholarship.

It's a complicated question, and I do think it needs revisiting in light of the huge strides that we have made as a society since affirmative action programs were introduced. In my opinion, we're not at the point where it should be done away with altogether.

As for the question of who misses out if a minority gets a position, there'll always be that question. In any situation where there are more applicants than positions, someone gets left out.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I think that the affirmative action idea came from understanding that racism was not all about people in bedsheets lynching black people. White collar racism effectively stopped the most intelligent and capable people from to interview and possibly even get the job because of a ridiculous concept of skin colour.

Now if we remove this hated law what would happen? Well if this forum is anything to go by it would mean that things would go down hill into revolution. Affirmative action is about giving the so called minorities a chance. It freely admits that racists cannot be outwitted and white collar racism is subtle and insidious. IF two people go for the job and are equal in all key indicators then the black person may possible get the role as it may go to additional interviewing.

It does not mean that the worst candidate gets the job.

Affirmative action will be even more important in the current job crunch.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
The factors that would lead one person to be "disadvantaged" could well be the same factors that push another to achieve,


Good point. I have the hardship I experienced when i was younger to thank for my well-being today.

edit on 22-9-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 


White collar racism?

You've had an African American lead American Express and Merril Lynch - two of the most white-bread institutions in corporate America. Members of minority groups excel in all industries, including finance, entertainment, high-tech.

We've had minority Secretary's of State and Defense, minority Attorney Generals, National Security Advisor, Director of Homeland Security, Health & Human Services. You would be hard-pressed to find a major role in this country that has not been occupied by a minority.

The time for race and gender based criteria for anything in this country is over.

As a hiring manager, all things considered equal I would always give the opportunity to a minority - all things considered equal. Why? Not because I felt that he/she "deserved the break". I would give the minority the job because having a diverse workplace makes the workplace more interesting. Working with different kinds of people is more interesting, and more fun. When folks are in an interesting and fun environment, morale and productivity are improved.

The big difference is that I made the decisions based on my own personal judgement - not because I had to comply with some standard.

I have been on the other end of it though, based on a standard and so has just about every manager in corporate America. If you are told to cut 10% of your staff due to a down-sizing, you need to put together a worksheet which depicts age, gender, race, sexual orientation (if known), length of time on the job, latest performance review. You then rank them and come up with your 10%.

You take the list to HR and they review it. They will then tell you what needs to happen to the list - have to take Joe off the list - he's over 50. OK, now I have to put someone on the list who does not deserve to be on the list and keep Joe, even though he's a slacker. Mary's native American - she needs to come off the list too. OK, I'll switch her out with another white male, despite the fact that shes not very good at her job. Down the list it goes until HR is happy with the "diversity" of who is getting laid off. If anyone is getting hammered on the corporate side of this economic downturn it is young, white men.

Legally in this country you are "protected" if you are:

Over 40
a racial minority
female
homosexual or transgendered
handicapped
sick

Who is not protected? White men under the age of 40.





top topics
 
44
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join