NationStates

Great Sofannia wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
You can't force people to like diversity. As soon as my neighborhood is no longer majority White, I'm leaving to move to Whiter pastures as soon as I can. Nothing personal against other races, but I want to enjoy the company of other White people and not stay where I'm in the minority. I happen to have a Black neighbor across the street and an Asian neighbor the next house down, but for the most part; I'm content with having no further dealings with them than necessary.

How many black people in the United States are criminals?

Counting traffic violations and loitering ?

Saiwania wrote:

greed and death wrote:This seems to suggest your avoiding 1/6 of the community in which you reside. This is not a good thing. Maybe some affirmative action programs are needed to expose you to a wider range of people.

You can't force people to like diversity. As soon as my neighborhood is no longer majority White, I'm leaving to move to Whiter pastures as soon as I can. Nothing personal against other races, but I want to enjoy the company of other White people and not stay where I'm in the minority. I happen to have a Black neighbor across the street and an Asian neighbor the next house down, but for the most part; I'm content with having no further dealings with them than necessary.

Now I'm not racist but: insert alarmingly racist tripe here

See, every time someone says the I'm not racist thing, they are.

Khadgar wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
You can't force people to like diversity. As soon as my neighborhood is no longer majority White, I'm leaving to move to Whiter pastures as soon as I can. Nothing personal against other races, but I want to enjoy the company of other White people and not stay where I'm in the minority. I happen to have a Black neighbor across the street and an Asian neighbor the next house down, but for the most part; I'm content with having no further dealings with them than necessary.

Now I'm not racist but: insert alarmingly racist tripe here

See, every time someone says the I'm not racist thing, they are.

The funny part is that these "White pastures" will most likely be in the middle of nowhere in the Deep South where the majority of the individuals are poor as urban areas increasingly become more diverse.

Now he REALLY can't scream, "I'M NOT RACIST!" Really? You're willing to reduce your standard of living because you're scared of people who are different from you and you aren't racist? That's totally believable.

Mavorpen wrote:

Khadgar wrote:


See, every time someone says the I'm not racist thing, they are.

The funny part is that these "White pastures" will most likely be in the middle of nowhere in the Deep South where the majority of the individuals are poor as urban areas increasingly become more diverse.

Now he REALLY can't scream, "I'M NOT RACIST!" Really? You're willing to reduce your standard of living because you're scared of people who are different from you and you aren't racist? That's totally believable.

I live in Daviess County Indiana, 97.52% white in 2000. I grew up down in Pike County which is 99.10% white. It's entirely possible to go to white bread USA and stay in what is a nominally northern state.

Khadgar wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:The funny part is that these "White pastures" will most likely be in the middle of nowhere in the Deep South where the majority of the individuals are poor as urban areas increasingly become more diverse.

Now he REALLY can't scream, "I'M NOT RACIST!" Really? You're willing to reduce your standard of living because you're scared of people who are different from you and you aren't racist? That's totally believable.

I live in Daviess County Indiana, 97.52% white in 2000. I grew up down in Pike County which is 99.10% white. It's entirely possible to go to white bread USA and stay in what is a nominally northern state.

You...do realize I wasn't being literal, right?

The Electoral College wrote:It is dissapointing that some would indeed leave an 'open door' to both races, <snip>

Both?

Khadgar wrote:See, every time someone says the I'm not racist thing, they are.

I never said that I wasn't racist, just that I don't see my reasons for not wanting much racial diversity in my life as being from any personal hatred of non-Whites. Granted, I never got along with Black people but did just fine with Asians.

greed and death wrote:No but I can force you to sit in a class with 1/6 black population.

I'm so fortunate then to be done with K-12. So far as college classes go, I don't care who attends. If I paid for the course, I'm going to it no matter what to get the most out of that investment.

Saiwania wrote:I never said that I wasn't racist, just that I don't see my reasons for not wanting much racial diversity in my life as being from any personal hatred of non-Whites. Granted, I never got along with Black people but did just fine with Asians.

Ah yes, the old, "I'm not racist! I have friends who are minorities!"

Mavorpen wrote:

Saiwania wrote:I never said that I wasn't racist, just that I don't see my reasons for not wanting much racial diversity in my life as being from any personal hatred of non-Whites. Granted, I never got along with Black people but did just fine with Asians.

Ah yes, the old, "I'm not racist! I have friends who are minorities!"

Or the newer "I'm not homophobic! I have friends who are gay!"

Mavorpen wrote:Ah yes, the old, "I'm not racist! I have friends who are minorities!"

To be accurate, I had one friend who was Vietnamese American. But no, I don't have any friends in real life anymore. My only concern right now is finishing college and getting a car.

Saiwania wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:Ah yes, the old, "I'm not racist! I have friends who are minorities!"

To be accurate, I had one friend who was Vietnamese American. But no, I don't have any friends in real life anymore. My only concern right now is finishing college and getting a car.

You can practically hear the jaws dropping!

Ifreann wrote:

The Lone Alliance wrote: Since those groups usually are poor people, it seems to average out.

Average elimination of discrimination isn't really good enough, is it?

Nope, there's no point in eliminating Racial discrimination if you're just going to do class discrimination instead. That's still promoting bigotry. I can't see why it's impossible not to do both.
Poverty and homelessness are two thing that promotes racism, because it leads to scapegoating.

Ifreann wrote:

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

I wonder how I could again tell you again something I've never before said.

I asked the question before, you didn't answer it.

And seeing this response below I think the answer to my question is you saying yes.

Ifreann wrote:

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

And if you have money and are none the less discriminated against on some bullshit basis like race, that's still a bad thing.

Did you perhaps think "why" they are?

Did you perhaps think that one reason they are discriminated by race because people automatically assume that the only reason they got the money in the first place is because of AA and not because of hard work or effort? Because I have literally heard that argument coming from several racists, who in turn use that as an excuse to discriminate....

Ifreann wrote:

*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.

It being hard does not convince me that we should not work to stop discrimination against gays and trans people.

What a person does in their bedroom or their personal self image should not be a basis for hiring period. I don't believe companies go around asking about people's sex lives... I hope

Besides, historically both groups weren't oppressed because in the 'old days' neither group 'existed' in the public eye because of the closet.

Ifreann wrote:

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

Since some people are bigoted against gypsies(I suppose Romani would be the more correct term). See also: Irish Travellers.

Under that term, where "Every single group that faces bigotry" requires AA then I guess that means everyone needs it.

The Lone Alliance wrote:Did you perhaps think "why" they are?

Did you perhaps think that one reason they are discriminated by race because people automatically assume that the only reason they got the money in the first place is because of AA and not because of hard work or effort? Because I have literally heard that argument coming from several racists, who in turn use that as an excuse to discriminate....

What an utterly stupid conclusion.

Anyone stupid enough to believe that is almost certainly racist in the first place. Entertaining their racism by getting rid of AA and essentially giving them free reign to brag, "SEE!? I was right!" is downright idiotic. These same fucking people would whine and complain that a black man who owns a fancy car in the 1940s must have stolen it. Should we ban black people from owning cars or else it might incite racial tensions? Oh, what about the white supremacist groups that have grown since Obama's election? Should we ban black people from becoming president?

What a pathetic idea.

Mavorpen wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Yes, any policies favoring one race over another need to be ended

Which isn't Affirmative Action.

http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/summ ... rt7p1.html

Supreme Court Upholds Use of Race in Admissions Decisions

In a closely watched decision on affirmative action, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that universities may take race into consideration as one factor among many when selecting incoming students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:Which isn't Affirmative Action.

http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/summ ... rt7p1.html

Supreme Court Upholds Use of Race in Admissions Decisions

In a closely watched decision on affirmative action, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that universities may take race into consideration as one factor among many when selecting incoming students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

...And?

Mavorpen wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/summ ... rt7p1.html

Supreme Court Upholds Use of Race in Admissions Decisions

In a closely watched decision on affirmative action, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that universities may take race into consideration as one factor among many when selecting incoming students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

...And?

Upholds use of RACE!!! Using race in your decision making is racial discrimination.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:...And?

Upholds use of RACE!!! Using race in your decision making is racial discrimination.

No, it isn't.

It's discrimination, but not racial discrimination.

Mavorpen wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Upholds use of RACE!!! Using race in your decision making is racial discrimination.

No, it isn't.

It's discrimination, but not racial discrimination.

Fits the definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... rimination

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:No, it isn't.

It's discrimination, but not racial discrimination.

Fits the definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... rimination

You definitely need glasses.


Or you need to understand that "discrimination" has multiple definitions.

Great Sofannia wrote:You should accept everyone who meets the qualifications. No racial shit, no class size limits, none of that. No limitations. Everyone is welcome.

Ignoring scarcity.

Mavorpen wrote:You definitely need glasses.


Or you need to understand that "discrimination" has multiple definitions.

We discriminate against criminals, for example, by locking them into prison cells so that they are segregated from the general population for a predefined period of time. At this point in time, the Supreme Court considers this wholly constitutional. Of course, they could be a den of clandestine racists...

Evraim wrote:

Great Sofannia wrote:You should accept everyone who meets the qualifications. No racial shit, no class size limits, none of that. No limitations. Everyone is welcome.

Ignoring scarcity.

Mavorpen wrote:You definitely need glasses.


Or you need to understand that "discrimination" has multiple definitions.

We discriminate against criminals, for example, by locking them into prison cells so that they are segregated from the general population for a predefined period of time. At this point in time, the Supreme Court considers this wholly constitutional. Of course, they could be a den of clandestine racists...

No, criminals get in via their merits (or lack of) while racial discrimination means accepting someone of lesser merits because the happen to have been born with a different race and/or color of skin.

Merits and ability to pay should be the only factor for admissions into university.

Freiheit Reich wrote:No, criminals get in via their merits (or lack of) while racial discrimination means accepting someone of lesser merits because the happen to have been born with a different race and/or color of skin.

That's not Affirmative Action, so why is this relevant?

Freiheit Reich wrote:Merits and ability to pay should be the only factor for admissions into university.

Why do you hate the constitution?

Freiheit Reich wrote:No, criminals get in via their merits (or lack of) while racial discrimination means accepting someone of lesser merits because the happen to have been born with a different race and/or color of skin.

Merits and ability to pay should be the only factor for admissions into university.

I was discussing discrimination generally.

You do realize that a student who grew up in an economically disadvantaged household in a neighborhood with poor access to quality education would find it far more difficult to recognize their full potential than a middle-class student who grew up in suburban luxury with more than adequate access to the finest educational institutions in the nation, yes? Why then should we treat these two distinct individuals precisely the same when considering university admissions when one student may not have reached their full potential? There are arguments against affirmative action, but I have no intention of making those arguments for you at this point.

Evraim wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:No, criminals get in via their merits (or lack of) while racial discrimination means accepting someone of lesser merits because the happen to have been born with a different race and/or color of skin.

Merits and ability to pay should be the only factor for admissions into university.

I was discussing discrimination generally.

You do realize that a student who grew up in an economically disadvantaged household in a neighborhood with poor access to quality education would find it far more difficult to recognize their full potential than a middle-class student who grew up in suburban luxury with more than adequate access to the finest educational institutions in the nation, yes? Why then should we treat these two distinct individuals precisely the same when considering university admissions when one student may not have reached their full potential? There are arguments against affirmative action, but I have no intention of making those arguments for you at this point.

Sure, the person born with the silver spoon in his mouth has an advantage. It is not fair for the govt. to try to punish him for this fact. The govt's job is to have equal policies for everybody with admissions. Best merits and ability to pay wins.

A poor person could have studied at the library (which is free) and worked hard in school (also free). If he didn't than that was his choice. It is not the govts. job to show compassion and sympathy and punish the wealthier applicant to favor the poorer one.

Besides, we were talking about race, not income. There are wealthy and middle class blacks. Race has nothing to do with wealth. If you tell me more blacks are poor I will point to Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordon, Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Hank Aaron, Dave Winfield, Kobe Bryant, and Dr. Walter Williams (among hundreds of famous and successful blacks I can name). The fact they are black did not stop them from becoming wealthy.

Freiheit Reich wrote:If you tell me more blacks are poor I will point to Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordon, Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Hank Aaron, Dave Winfield, Kobe Bryant, and Dr. Walter Williams (among hundreds of famous and successful blacks I can name).

Wouldn't surprise me since you seem to be incapable of actually addressing people's arguments.