NationStates

Ralkovia wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:Interesting.

So, do you have any evidence that this is due to your "familiarity affect" outside of baseless conjecture?

Just posted the article earlier.

"White Names" are more common, because white names are based on traditional English names that we've been exposed too, countless times.

Unique Names or Foreign Names aren't liked because they are unfamiliar or hard to read. Your name decides a lot. Hence why I'm for a traditional name registry.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/2595831 ... n-boys-bad
http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/figlio/sue.pdf

And that's evidence of...nothing to do with my link.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Two things I must say first: What American calls college "uni"?

...

I do.

Ifreann wrote:

Alien Space Bats wrote:Yes, we have. Save us, Batman.

We'll look up and cry "Save us!", and he'll look down and whisper "You couldn't afford it"

I love you so god damned much right now.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Two things I must say first: What American calls college "uni"?

...

I do.

Yeah me too. I've heard other Americans do it as well.

Disserbia wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:...

I do.

Yeah me too. I've heard other Americans do it as well.

Well...no shit?

Huh. Here I was thinking I was just making fun of British people. Didn't realize that was a thing here in the States. The more you know, I guess.

Disserbia wrote:Socio-economic status is all that should matter. Absolutely nothing else.

More or less this, or at least it needs to take that into account, Affirmative action should push for class mobility, not just race or gender mobility.

Mavorpen wrote:

Ralkovia wrote:
Just posted the article earlier.

"White Names" are more common, because white names are based on traditional English names that we've been exposed too, countless times.

Unique Names or Foreign Names aren't liked because they are unfamiliar or hard to read. Your name decides a lot. Hence why I'm for a traditional name registry.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/2595831 ... n-boys-bad
http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/figlio/sue.pdf

And that's evidence of...nothing to do with my link.

Critical thinking helps you get through life.

You say it's based on race.

My sources say that it's not "Blacks" that are discriminated against, just untraditional names. Guess what most "black names" fit under.

Ralkovia wrote:
My sources say that it's not "Blacks" that are discriminated against, just untraditional names. Guess what most "black names" fit under.

Yes, of course, people aren't being discriminated against because they're black. They're just being discriminated against because their names make people think they're not white!

Fucking pathetic.

Ralkovia wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:And that's evidence of...nothing to do with my link.

Critical thinking helps you get through life.

You say it's based on race.

My sources say that it's not "Blacks" that are discriminated against, just untraditional names. Guess what most "black names" fit under.

I agree. And it seems you're not doing much of it.

I'm aware that "blacks" aren't the only ones being discriminated against. I didn't say anything otherwise. My own source even states that there's a socioeconomic factor there, where they may discriminate against you based on your neighborhood. However, guess what? This might surprise you. But, the effect on your call-back based on your race is also independent of your background. Crazy, right?

If your source specifically addresses whether "black" names are discriminated against because they're black, quote it. Otherwise, your source doesn't address anything.

Neo Art wrote:

Ifreann wrote:
We'll look up and cry "Save us!", and he'll look down and whisper "You couldn't afford it"

I love you so god damned much right now.

And it's like the batman/robin meet-up all over again, with the same end result: a sidekick that wears no pants.

Neo Art wrote:

Ralkovia wrote:
My sources say that it's not "Blacks" that are discriminated against, just untraditional names. Guess what most "black names" fit under.

Yes, of course, people aren't being discriminated against because they're black. They're just being discriminated against because their names make people think they're not white!

Fucking pathetic.

"That name doesn't sound white."

"What ethnicity would you think it is attached to?"

"African Americans."

"SEE!? They're just discriminating based on how familiar the name is!"

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:

So you're saying it's good for race to be a factor in how you treat people? Keep in mind I will likely tag your response for future reference.

Of course. I mean it's bad when white people do it, but it's ok if it benefits minorities. I mean enough white people have gone to college and have jobs. I say increase the ratio required of minorities to whites to like 75% or even a million.

Or you know, keep it the way it currently is by including diversity as an additional factor.

So y'know, if it's mostly nonwhites, than a white person would get the edge.

I should read the rest of threads before I reply.

I agree with affirmative action for groups of people who have been wronged in some way by the hands of their government. Once that race or nation or whatever has recovered to economic numbers nearly equal to other races then there is no more need for such policies for that race.

I understand that some people will say "why should we care for something that happened 50 or 150 years ago?" and the answer, to me is simple. The goal of any family worth speaking of is to leave their children in a better place then the parents could normally achieve. If a people was oppressed and generations of people couldn't have the same sort of opportunity to leave their children in a better place by design (because of slavery or genocide or whatever), then the government that allowed such policies has a moral obligation to do it's best to correct whatever it did wrong.

As far as Affirmative Action just to insure diversity, that to me is a bunch of hogwash. Every minority when they enter a country or society, starts at the bottom step on the ladder, as long as their climb has been a fair one, they have to climb to the top just as anyone else.

Disserbia wrote:Socio-economic status is all that should matter. Absolutely nothing else.

Yeah, who cares if people won't hire blacks, women, gays, trans people, foreigners, gypsies, etc? What really matters is poor people getting hired.

I remember that 10% scheme... it's pretty bloody stupid. I mean, it's possible for one school to do so much better than another school that the other school's top student might not make the top 10%. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to use a 10% scheme make it the top 10% of applicants.

I do not see any problems in using diversity as a factor when trying to decide who outside of automatic admission gets in.

Des-Bal wrote:

Frisivisia wrote:RAVERS RSISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!1!!!11!1eleven!!!1!1!!one!!!11!1!

The fact of the matter is that racism is still a problem and having a work environment that fits actual demographics is good.

Irrelevant. Race is being used as a factor in decision making. That is bad. Regardless of the spirit that is bad.

"Race is being used a decision in hiring. We should end affirmative action, so people don't have to hire blacks if they don't want to."

Forsher wrote:I remember that 10% scheme... it's pretty bloody stupid. I mean, it's possible for one school to do so much better than another school that the other school's top student might not make the top 10%. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to use a 10% scheme make it the top 10% of applicants.

I do not see any problems in using diversity as a factor when trying to decide who outside of automatic admission gets in.

The top 10% was not so bad, I attended a magnet school, where arguably everyone was top 10%. Also keep in mind Texas has an unique ranking system for its students ( or at least it did when I was in). An A in a remedial course is a 3.0, An A in regular course was a 4.o, an A in an honors course was a 5.0 and an A in a AP course was a 6.0 if you got college credit or a 5.0 if you did not.

So after much complaints from students and parents alike about being cheated out of the top 10% the principle created a solution we would transfer to our local schools for the last semester, and still attend B block day classes at the science and engineering magnet, and still walk with us.

I did not do it, because I was more interesting in blowing stuff up in the army.

greed and death wrote:The top 10% was not so bad, I attended a magnet school, where arguably everyone was top 10%. Also keep in mind Texas has an unique ranking system for its students ( or at least it did when I was in). An A in a remedial course is a 3.0, An A in regular course was a 4.o, an A in an honors course was a 5.0 and an A in a AP course was a 6.0 if you got college credit or a 5.0 if you did not.

This still holds true.

I have been a long time lurker, but I feel as if I should post.
First to clarify-a social majority does not mean numbers.
It refers to the group (Cultural, racial, or gender) that controls the majority of the resources in society.
This is why in South Africa during apartheid the Caucasians were the majority, but in pure numbers, were the minority.
They controlled the vast majority of the resources of the country at that time.
In the U.S, the vast majority of CEO's are white males. Thus, even if the other ethnic groups outnumber the Caucasians in number, Caucasians will still be the technical majority-due to those fat cats on Wall Street.
---Now, to my point----
To everyone who feels as if they are discriminated against, you probably are.
AA was a necessary and good part of our system, and has slowly evolved, like any other social system.
Case in point, the quota system no longer being a requirement. This lasted perhaps longer than needed, but like any
other social program, takes outrage and a series of lawsuits to change.
At least it didn't take bloody marches and countless dead to enable this change, and that overall
gives me hope for the American culture.
AA is and was needed, even if it has become a tool of the wealthy elite.
Much like the two party system, it is a way to get the various groups in America to fight and not watch what the elite are up to.
Not saying all the elite are evil( That is a self serving conspiracy) but there are many rich and powerful people willing
to do underhanded things to increase their own power.
Don't believe me? Look up Vanderbilt from the early 1900's to see how depraved and entitled people can get.
Back on topic, although AA is needed in some form, and may be slightly damaging, overall, it is still beneficial to America.
It will change, albeit slowly, as needed.
In fact, poor Caucasians are the only group SLIGHTLY damaged by this.
And guess what, the fat cats do not care.
Let me illustrate.

Cheers

Mavorpen wrote:

greed and death wrote:The top 10% was not so bad, I attended a magnet school, where arguably everyone was top 10%. Also keep in mind Texas has an unique ranking system for its students ( or at least it did when I was in). An A in a remedial course is a 3.0, An A in regular course was a 4.o, an A in an honors course was a 5.0 and an A in a AP course was a 6.0 if you got college credit or a 5.0 if you did not.

This still holds true.

Glad to see things stay the same Texas land.

greed and death wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:This still holds true.

Glad to see things stay the same Texas land.

On the bright side, they got rid of TAKS.

greed and death wrote:

Forsher wrote:I remember that 10% scheme... it's pretty bloody stupid. I mean, it's possible for one school to do so much better than another school that the other school's top student might not make the top 10%. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to use a 10% scheme make it the top 10% of applicants.

I do not see any problems in using diversity as a factor when trying to decide who outside of automatic admission gets in.

The top 10% was not so bad, I attended a magnet school, where arguably everyone was top 10%. Also keep in mind Texas has an unique ranking system for its students ( or at least it did when I was in). An A in a remedial course is a 3.0, An A in regular course was a 4.o, an A in an honors course was a 5.0 and an A in a AP course was a 6.0 if you got college credit or a 5.0 if you did not.

So after much complaints from students and parents alike about being cheated out of the top 10% the principle created a solution we would transfer to our local schools for the last semester, and still attend B block day classes at the science and engineering magnet, and still walk with us.

I did not do it, because I was more interesting in blowing stuff up in the army.

That's just demonstrating the problem with the 10% idea as it stands. You might have found a solution but it's just exploiting the very flaw I pointed out.

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I am a citizen -born and raised- of the U.S.
I love my country, believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and ALSO the need of the government to register those weapons.
I am also of the lighter complexion(Not that it should matter), and am a true, devout practitioner of my faith.
I do not believe capitalism and freedom are one and the same.(It was the biggest lie ever told by the fat cats)
I am educated on a college level, and am open to discussion.
However, I will not check back every day on this, and will not engage in trolling.
Although, I find trolling to be hilarious if clever and effective.
I think that qualifies me to speak my mind.
Wait.
My freedom qualifies me to speak my mind.
Go figure, no wonder I love my country.(No hate on other countries, most are awesome, I just love my brand of crazy and free we have in this land )

Zweite Alaje wrote:Affrimative Action is bad from a purely economic viewpoint, so is minimum wage.

A purely economic viewpoint is bad from a human viewpoint, however.

Ifreann wrote:

Disserbia wrote:Socio-economic status is all that should matter. Absolutely nothing else.

Yeah, who cares if people won't hire blacks, women, gays*, trans people*, foreigners, gypsies**, etc? What really matters is poor people getting hired.

Since those groups usually are poor people, it seems to average out.

Again tell me again how much more privileged the white trash homeless child is over Barrack Obama's daughters.

There's one privilege that overrides all others, and that is money.

*Last I checked there was no affirmative action for these groups.
It would be so easy to cheat that system, everyone would just say they were gay or a pre-op trans and you wouldn't be able to prove otherwise. It's not like you're going to go snooping into their bedrooms to make sure after all.

**Since when are Gypsies requiring AF? I mean are you talking about the Gypsy race or someone who practices the Gypsy culture?