It is 64-bit
-
@dhromed said:
black worker vote; a large, previously idle
Did you just call black voters large and idle?
-
@dhromed said:
If I've said obviously ridiculous things (moreso than usual, I mean) because I don't actually live in the USA, don't be ashamed to flame me, though I prefer gentle discourse and explanations!
I don't think what you said was ridiculous, except that a lot of rich people are Democrat voters, and they sure didn't vote for Romney (for that matter, via his wife, McCain was almost certainly richer than Obama in 2008). But none of your explanations explain how we'd all be exposed as super racists if we didn't vote for Obama, or how he even got to be a top tier candidate in the primary with such a lightweight resume for a presidential candidate. Next someone can explain how Hillary Clinton didn't get to where she is by being married to her husband and call me sexist for pointing that out, too.
-
@boomzilla said:
I dunno...maybe he thought he didn't really benefit from affirmative action but just believed everyone thought he did. I don't think it really weakens my previous points, and I think it certainly covers me as far as not making random accusations with no evidence.
It doesn't really cover you, if Thomas is complaining about people unfairly believing that his achievements are due to affirmative action if you then turn around and unfairly believe that his achievements are due to affirmative action.
-
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
I dunno...maybe he thought he didn't really benefit from affirmative action but just believed everyone thought he did. I don't think it really weakens my previous points, and I think it certainly covers me as far as not making random accusations with no evidence.
It doesn't really cover you, if Thomas is complaining about people unfairly believing that his achievements are due to affirmative action if you then turn around and unfairly believe that his achievements are due to affirmative action.You're not even trying any more. That strawman is way too obvious.
He said he believed he got into Yale because of his race. And I never said that his achievements were due to affirmative action, except for apparently having some role in his admission. I'm not aware of what explicit or implicit policies were in effect, nor do I know what actually went into his admission decision. I'm taking his statements at face value. If I had sat in on the decision meetings, and heard someone say something like, "We need another black guy, how about this Thomas fellow?" then we'd have a smoking gun. But since that all happened behind closed doors in private, we don't have that.
OTOH, the election of Barack Obama to the Office of the President happened pretty much out in the open. And looking at the process and determining that his race was a positive factor in an affirmative action-like manner is different than trying to divine what went on in a decision process behind closed doors. And you have to use your imagination to convert that into a statement that no black person ever succeeded without affirmative action because they're all poopie heads. I'm not denying that people have actually believed that and expressed it to you (how the hell would I know?). But it's an unreasonable conclusion from the statement alone (no matter how much flabdablet wants to validate your personal experience).
-
@Snooder said:
if you then turn around and unfairly believe that his achievements are due to affirmative action.
@Snooder said:What your statements imply is that you see any African American in a position of power, despite whatever actual accomplishments or merits they have and assume that Affirmative Action was responsible for getting them there. When you say shit like "to whatever degree getting his foot in the door at Yale relied on affirmative action, he rose to the challenge and succeeded", you aren't just inadvertently invoking a knee jerk reaction to past offenses, you are actually actively engaging in that same offense.
Emphasis added. It seems to me that you're trying to remove all qualifications from boomzilla's argument before you invoke it. When he says "to whatever degree getting his foot in the door at Yale relied on affirmative action," this is clearly not an unqualified statement that affirmative action was responsible for getting him there.
-
@boomzilla said:
I'm taking his statements at face value.
Interestingly, after some Wikipedia reading, I learned that he is a textualist, which I learned means that when interpreting law he seeks to "...hear the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words."
"We ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used ... We do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statutes mean."
So, looking at the actual words he used and not trying to infer additional meaning is something of which he would likely approve.
-
@Snooder said:
It doesn't really cover you, if Thomas is complaining about people unfairly believing that his achievements are due to affirmative action if you then turn around and unfairly believe that his achievements are due to affirmative action.
You've made this type of claim multiple times in this thread and I'm beginning to suspect projection is involved. Let's say boomzilla and conservatives in general really do believe that Thomas's achievements were only possible because of affirmative action. Where might they have gotten that idea? The answer to that question is related to the answer to this question: what would happen if we no longer had affirmative action?
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@Snooder said:
It doesn't really cover you, if Thomas is complaining about people unfairly believing that his achievements are due to affirmative action if you then turn around and unfairly believe that his achievements are due to affirmative action.
You've made this type of claim multiple times in this thread and I'm beginning to suspect projection is involved. Let's say boomzilla and conservatives in general really do believe that Thomas's achievements were only possible because of affirmative action. Where might they have gotten that idea? The answer to that question is related to the answer to this question: what would happen if we no longer had affirmative action?
I don't think you've really been paying attention to the full discussion, which actually started in a completely different thread over a month ago. Back in that thread I suggested that a great deal of the reason why the Republican party does not have the support among minority voters that the Democratic party does is because the Republican party has a perception of being racist. I further stated that the perception is, in large part, due to many members of the Republican party saying or doing racist things and being tolerated by the rest of the party. To support that statement, I used a few examples of mildly racist things that I've heard conservatives say. Things like a guy taking a picture of a gorilla at the zoo and comparing it to Obama. Or some guy calling Obama an "Affirmative Action president."
Boomzilla then replied by saying that he doesn't see anything at all wrong with calling Obama an "Affirmative Action president" and furthermore stated that he thinks Obama is completely unqualified and incompetent, so he had to have been pushed into Columbia, Harvard and the presidency just because he's black. He included the incredibly dumb assertion that nobody really knows how well Obama did in law school. I pointed out, with facts, that Obama's qualifications are actually pretty much the same as any other candidate for the office of president in the last half century. I also pointed out, since Boomzilla apparently was completely ignorant of this, that being editor of the harvard law review requires a great deal of academic achievement, so it's not really possible to say "I don't know how well he did" in relation to someone who was editor of the law review.
This is not, and has never been a discussion about Affirmative Action. Nor was it ever a discussion about any liberal or conservative politician or his policies. Nor was it about whether liberals are more or less likely to be racist than conservatives. It has always been, and continues to be, about whether saying that a black politician (or female or asian, or gay, or any other minority) has only achieved the things that he has because of he's black is appropriate when that politician has documented evidence of his personal achievements that weren't race based.
-
@Snooder said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@Snooder said:
It doesn't really cover you, if Thomas is complaining about people unfairly believing that his achievements are due to affirmative action if you then turn around and unfairly believe that his achievements are due to affirmative action.
You've made this type of claim multiple times in this thread and I'm beginning to suspect projection is involved. Let's say boomzilla and conservatives in general really do believe that Thomas's achievements were only possible because of affirmative action. Where might they have gotten that idea? The answer to that question is related to the answer to this question: what would happen if we no longer had affirmative action?
I don't think you've really been paying attention to the full discussion, which actually started in a completely different thread over a month ago. Back in that thread I suggested that a great deal of the reason why the Republican party does not have the support among minority voters that the Democratic party does is because the Republican party has a perception of being racist. I further stated that the perception is, in large part, due to many members of the Republican party saying or doing racist things and being tolerated by the rest of the party. To support that statement, I used a few examples of mildly racist things that I've heard conservatives say. Things like a guy taking a picture of a gorilla at the zoo and comparing it to Obama. Or some guy calling Obama an "Affirmative Action president."
Boomzilla then replied by saying that he doesn't see anything at all wrong with calling Obama an "Affirmative Action president" and furthermore stated that he thinks Obama is completely unqualified and incompetent, so he had to have been pushed into Columbia, Harvard and the presidency just because he's black. He included the incredibly dumb assertion that nobody really knows how well Obama did in law school. I pointed out, with facts, that Obama's qualifications are actually pretty much the same as any other candidate for the office of president in the last half century. I also pointed out, since Boomzilla apparently was completely ignorant of this, that being editor of the harvard law review requires a great deal of academic achievement, so it's not really possible to say "I don't know how well he did" in relation to someone who was editor of the law review.
This is not, and has never been a discussion about Affirmative Action. Nor was it ever a discussion about any liberal or conservative politician or his policies. Nor was it about whether liberals are more or less likely to be racist than conservatives. It has always been, and continues to be, about whether saying that a black politician (or female or asian, or gay, or any other minority) has only achieved the things that he has because of he's black is appropriate when that politician has documented evidence of his personal achievements that weren't race based.
See this gorilla?
He's just like Obama. They both believe in socialized healthcare and share 95-99% of their DNA.
-
@Snooder said:
I don't think you've really been paying attention to the full discussion, which actually started in a completely different thread over a month ago. Back in that thread I suggested that a great deal of the reason why the Republican party does not have the support among minority voters that the Democratic party does is because the Republican party has a perception of being racist.
Of course, originally it was about accusations of racism that had absolutely nothing to do with race. I will grant you that at least the things you brought up had something to do with race, and some of it was definitely racist, even if others like affirmative action have a plausibly non-racist explanation (which is to say that someone who is and means it to be racist could use it as part of their racism).
@Snooder said:
Boomzilla then replied by saying that he doesn't see anything at all wrong with calling Obama an "Affirmative Action president" and furthermore stated that he thinks Obama is completely unqualified and incompetent, so he had to have been pushed into Columbia, Harvard and the presidency just because he's black.
WTF. What the fucking fuckety fuck fuck?
@Snooder said:
I pointed out, with facts, that Obama's qualifications are actually pretty much the same as any other candidate for the office of president in the last half century.
Bullshit. Bullshit times bullshit plus infinity. Damn it, now you have me sounding like blakeyrat.
@Snooder said:
I also pointed out, since Boomzilla apparently was completely ignorant of this, that being editor of the harvard law review requires a great deal of academic achievement, so it's not really possible to say "I don't know how well he did" in relation to someone who was editor of the law review.
I'm aware that supposedly the top students get there. And I'm pretty sure I admitted it was a proxy for scholastic success. But it's not a replacement for releasing a transcript. It's more telling that he gets things so consistently wrong regarding the law, including the parts where he was a lecturer. There are a lot of conclusions one could make from that, none good.
@Snooder said:
This is not, and has never been a discussion about Affirmative Action.
You're right. It's a demonstration of either your bad faith or poor reading skills. It's like the game with fortune cookies where you add "...in bed" to the end of the fortune, except you misinterpret everything I say.
-
I was in college in 2008. The vast majority of other students I talked to admitted they didn't know ANY of the election issues, and simply voted for Obama because he was black and they thought it would be cool to have a black president.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
Boomzilla then replied by saying that he doesn't see anything at all wrong with calling Obama an "Affirmative Action president" and furthermore stated that he thinks Obama is completely unqualified and incompetent, so he had to have been pushed into Columbia, Harvard and the presidency just because he's black.
WTF. What the fucking fuckety fuck fuck?
That may have been a bit strong. I apologize. I meant to point out what your statements about Affirmative Action being the only possible explanation for such an incompetent person getting into the presidency pretty much boiled down to.
@boomzilla said:@Snooder said:
I pointed out, with facts, that Obama's qualifications are actually pretty much the same as any other candidate for the office of president in the last half century.
Bullshit. Bullshit times bullshit plus infinity. Damn it, now you have me sounding like blakeyrat.
What bullshit? I distinctly remember pointing out that the length of Obama's prior political career was about the same as other presidential candidates, with an exhaustive list comparing the timespan between his first elected office and when he ran for president and the same timespan for Nixon, Bush the elder, Reagan, etc. You disagreed on the basis of it not being "executive experience." We agreed to disagree on whether "executive experience" is of paramount importance, or if simply having a similar long experience as a politician was good enough.
-
@Snooder said:
I don't think you've really been paying attention to the full discussion, which actually started in a completely different thread over a month ago.
I did read both threads, but you're right that I wasn't paying attention. It wasn't a very interesting discussion.
@Snooder said:This is not, and has never been a discussion about Affirmative Action.
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Can I answer that with another question?
-
@flabdablet said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Can I answer that with another question?Why would you do such a thing?
-
@dhromed said:
Jest for the halibut.@flabdablet said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
Why would you do such a thing?We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Can I answer that with another question?
-
@dhromed said:
Isn't this a free country?@flabdablet said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Can I answer that with another question?Why would you do such a thing?
-
That depends on what country you are talking about. Most likely the answer will be a resounding "no".
-
@joe.edwards said:
@dhromed said:
Isn't this a free country?@flabdablet said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Can I answer that with another question?Why would you do such a thing?
Which country?
-
@boomzilla said:
@joe.edwards said:
@dhromed said:
Isn't this a free country?@flabdablet said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Can I answer that with another question?Why would you do such a thing?
Which country?
Are there any such countries left?
-
@boomzilla said:
@joe.edwards said:
Wait, there's more than one?@dhromed said:
Which country?
Isn't this a free country?@flabdablet said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
Why would you do such a thing?We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Can I answer that with another question?
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
@joe.edwards said:
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
Isn't this a free country?@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Can I answer that with another question?Why would you do such a thing?
Which country?
Are there any such countries left?
Is Sealand a country?
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@Snooder said:
This is not, and has never been a discussion about Affirmative Action.
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Fine, if you want to go there, I think it's a more complicated discussion than the current treatment of it in the political discourse demonstrates.
See, on the one hand, you first have to define what Affirmative Action is and isn't. Is it any time a minority candidate, even one who is otherwise perfectly qualified, has his minority status considered when being picked for a position? Is it only when an otherwise unqualified candidate on paper is given a boost in his qualifications which brings him above better qualified non-minority applicants? Is it somewhere in middle with qualified candidates being picked over better qualified candidates? And how do you determine when his minority status is and isn't being considered? What about when minority applicants aren't directly chosen over non-minority applicants, but are given encouragement in the form of scholarships or increased recruitment efforts?
Second, you have to consider the purpose of the so-called "Affirmative Action." Is it meant to "uplift" the minority applicant? Is it intended to counter-act a history of discriminatory practice? Is it intended as a measure from higher authority to create better oversight and thus prevent current discriminatory practice by the people directly choosing applicants?
Third, you have to measure the means and methods by the which the policy is practiced and enforced. Is it a rigid quota that forces the choosing of unqualified candidates over qualified ones? Is it a stated policy? And unstated one? Is it simply a "hey, let's make sure we take a second look at all the minority guys" instead of tossing everyone in the bin. Is it a point system that gives weight to different factors in the candidate's application, and simply includes minority status as one of those factors? How much are the points worth? There is a difference between making minority status worth .5 points in a 100 point system and making it worth 20 points.
The simple truth is that you cannot ever say that race didn't play a factor at all. Why? Because everything plays a factor. Maybe you wore a blue tie instead of a red one to your interview. Maybe you had a New York accent in a meeting with people from Louisiana. Maybe you are a poli sci major applying for a law school that's full up on poli sci majors and wants to get some engineers in there to round out the class. Maybe your uncle's second cousin's niece is in the admission's office. Maybe you slept with the admission's secretary's daughter. Maybe the admissions guy is white and racist. Maybe he was a high school athlete and liked that you were on the football team. Maybe you are dyslexic and she has a developmentally disabled child herself. Maybe one of a thousand factors is the thing that puts you that little bit over the edge.
-
@boomzilla said:
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
@joe.edwards said:
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
Isn't this a free country?@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Can I answer that with another question?Why would you do such a thing?
Which country?
Are there any such countries left?
Is Sealand a country?
It's a paradox.
-
@Snooder said:
No, I meant this question: what would happen if we no longer had affirmative action?@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@Snooder said:
answer to someone else's question snippedThis is not, and has never been a discussion about Affirmative Action.
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
-
@boomzilla said:
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
@joe.edwards said:
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
Isn't this a free country?@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
Can I answer that with another question?Why would you do such a thing?
Which country?
Are there any such countries left?
Is Sealand a country?
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
what would happen if we no longer had affirmative action?
If affirmative action as deliberate policy were to disappear entirely tomorrow, then we'd all suddenly find ourselves living in a wonderful, completely fair, totally unbiased meritocracy where nobody ever has a reason to doubt that the job has been awarded to the best available white male Republican.
-
@flabdablet said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
what would happen if we no longer had affirmative action?
If affirmative action as deliberate policy were to disappear entirely tomorrow, then we'd all suddenly find ourselves living in a wonderful, completely fair, totally unbiased meritocracy where nobody ever has a reason to doubt that the job has been awarded to the best available white male Republican.What about states where you don't register for a party? CHAOS!
It's not really fair asking someone like flabdablet for a serious opinion. He's learned that they're indefensible, so he just trolls for newsletter subscriptions.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@Snooder said:
No, I meant this question: what would happen if we no longer had affirmative action?@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@Snooder said:
answer to someone else's question snippedThis is not, and has never been a discussion about Affirmative Action.
We're posting on a thread about 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. Staying on topic was out a long time ago. So how about answering the question?
And as I replied, you have to first define a bunch of different things before even beginning to answer that question.
For one thing, if you define Affirmative Action is a rigid quota based system that prioritizes unqualified minority applicants, I'd answer that we don't have Affirmative Action at all in this country and haven't had it for decades. That method of choosing applicants has been deemed unconstitutional since 1978.
-
Fortunately an accurate answer to the question isn't relevant to the point I was trying to make. An answer that corresponds to current perceptions will suffice. So I'll rephrase the question: what do proponents of affirmative action think would happen if whatever forms of it we currently have went away?
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
Fortunately an accurate answer to the question isn't relevant to the point I was trying to make. An answer that corresponds to current perceptions will suffice. So I'll rephrase the question: what do proponents of affirmative action think would happen if whatever forms of it we currently have went away?
And, again it still depends on how you define things.
Let's say we are defining "Affirmative Action" the way it was intended when JFK signed Executive Order 10925 which requires government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." Well, in that case we would have several different results.First, we would either have a series of lawsuits under the Civil Rights Act against governmental agencies for instituting discriminatory practices, or nothing much at all would change. Since the point of that "Affirmative Action" is simply making sure that people get a fair shake.
Second, we would rapidly see an exodus of qualified African American applicants and employees from universities in the South. A lot of southern colleges have a current and on-going perception problem with regards to racism and discrimination. Recently, they've been having success with combating this by trying various programs to increase minority enrollment. Why would this be bad? Well, first, when the college is percieved as racist, that makes it harder to find competent professors. Leaving aside the direct impact with minority professors, there's also the indirect impact. The nobel prize winning chemistry professor with an African American wife is not particularly likely to decide to go said college, now is he? And having a drastically smaller pool of professors makes it harder to compete with other colleges for prestige. Second, it also makes it harder to attract applicants. A bright young black guy isn't going to go a college that he thinks might be racist unless there's a really compelling reason. Nor is a bright young white guy who isn't racist want to go there either.
Third, a lot of people who are currently racist, but aren't allowed to exercise it because the company, college or other institution that employs them has a well-defined system to backstop any discriminatory practices, would have a much freer rein to be racist. Leading, back to the first point re: lawsuits.
Look, a lot of "Affirmative Action" policies exist primarily as a measure to allay suspicions of discrimination in organizations with a history of it. What do YOU think would happen if that measure goes away? Sometimes the discrimination itself would return and sometime the suspicion alone would come back. Either of those is a pretty serious problem.
-
@Snooder said:
Look, a lot of "Affirmative Action" policies exist primarily as a measure to allay suspicions of discrimination in organizations with a history of it. What do YOU think would happen if that measure goes away?
This isn't relevant to my point, but since you ask, affirmative action in general doesn't make as much of a difference as either side thinks it does, and is primarily here to give us something to fight about (divide et impera from Macchiavelli). That said, proponents of affirmative action say that without it hiring and college enrollment of minorities would decrease because of discrimination. But because the other side is in favor of equal opportunity for the most part, they ignore the "because of discrimination" part. So they've effectively been told that without affirmative action, fewer minorities would be hired for jobs and admitted to college. Instead of attacking them for the logical (based on how they understand what they've been told) conclusion that at least some minorities are only getting jobs because of affirmative action, why not address the disconnect I mentioned? There is a case to be made that equal opportunity isn't enough, but there needs to be a better job done of making that case.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@Snooder said:
Look, a lot of "Affirmative Action" policies exist primarily as a measure to allay suspicions of discrimination in organizations with a history of it. What do YOU think would happen if that measure goes away?
This isn't relevant to my point, but since you ask, affirmative action in general doesn't make as much of a difference as either side thinks it does, and is primarily here to give us something to fight about (divide et impera from Macchiavelli). That said, proponents of affirmative action say that without it hiring and college enrollment of minorities would decrease because of discrimination. But because the other side is in favor of equal opportunity for the most part, they ignore the "because of discrimination" part. So they've effectively been told that without affirmative action, fewer minorities would be hired for jobs and admitted to college. Instead of attacking them for the logical (based on how they understand what they've been told) conclusion that at least some minorities are only getting jobs because of affirmative action, why not address the disconnect I mentioned? There is a case to be made that equal opportunity isn't enough, but there needs to be a better job done of making that case.
I was going to berate you for not reading the parts of my post where I addressed exactly what you are talking about, but looking back at my points I realize now that I starting writing one thing and switched to another. Which is a problem when the terms we are discussing are so ambiguous. I apologize for the vagueness and I'll try to pare down my thoughts a bit.
1) My overall point was that discrimination is both a problem of actual practice and of public perception. Yes, it is true that we've come a long away since the 50s and 60s, so it is substantially less likely for actual discrimination to happen without the checks and bounds that Affirmative Action policies are intended to provide. However, we haven't come all that long a way, and there are still enough racists out there for it to be a problem. In addition, even if there isn't any actual discrimination, when an institution has a history of it, it takes a really long time for memories to fade. Affirmative Action policies work as a way of "proving" that a given institution is no longer racist, even though people remember them being so in the past. All of which means both people suing after being denied based on unfair discrimination, and people suing after being denied simply because they thought there was unfair discrimination.
2) My secondary point, which kind of got mixed in there, was using the example of college admissions in the south to show how lack of Affirmative Action policies would affect both enrollment and faculty hiring. Again, it's the issue of perception alone that means it's more likely for hotly sought after black professor to choose a college that he feels is less likely to be racist. Even if we posit that enough time has passed for the administrators at the school to be less racist in practice than their predecessors, the reputation still lingers on. And beyond the issue of perception, racists still exist in America, and sometimes those racists are in the admissions department. It doesn't take a great deal of foresight to predict that without anything to keep them from being racist, they'll take advantage of the opportunity to do so.
3) I find it interesting that you are making a distinction between "equal opportunity" and "Affirmative Action." Which leads back to my point about definitions being important. Affirmative Action is really just any policy that is designed to enforce and encourage "equal opportunity." Unless you define Affirmative Action more narrowly than that, you cannot honestly say that you support "equal opportunity" while opposing "Affirmative Action."
-
@Snooder said:
I find it interesting that you are making a distinction between "equal opportunity" and "Affirmative Action." Which leads back to my point about definitions being important. Affirmative Action is really just any policy that is designed to enforce and encourage "equal opportunity." Unless you define Affirmative Action more narrowly than that, you cannot honestly say that you support "equal opportunity" while opposing "Affirmative Action."
This would be another perception problem. At least partially because of the history of it, the man on the street absolutely thinks affirmative action is not the same thing as equal opportunity. And you yourself make a distinction between the two when you say that affirmative action is any policy that is designed to enforce and encourage equal opportunity. "Designed to" might be part of the problem as well because when thinking about public policy, considering the stated goals of a policy instead of the results is the surest way to make sure the results don't happen.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@Snooder said:
I find it interesting that you are making a distinction between "equal opportunity" and "Affirmative Action." Which leads back to my point about definitions being important. Affirmative Action is really just any policy that is designed to enforce and encourage "equal opportunity." Unless you define Affirmative Action more narrowly than that, you cannot honestly say that you support "equal opportunity" while opposing "Affirmative Action."
This would be another perception problem. At least partially because of the history of it, the man on the street absolutely thinks affirmative action is not the same thing as equal opportunity. And you yourself make a distinction between the two when you say that affirmative action is any policy that is designed to enforce and encourage equal opportunity. "Designed to" might be part of the problem as well because when thinking about public policy, considering the stated goals of a policy instead of the results is the surest way to make sure the results don't happen.
The only distinction to make between "Affirmative Action" and "Equal Opportunity" is that the former is a policy or set of policies, while the latter is a goal or aspiration. And I would disagree with you about what the "man on the street" thinks, as well as disagreeing that it matters when it comes to making real, substantive decisions. This is why I started by saying that definitions are important.
1) Not everyone thinks of "Affirmative Action" in the way that you hypothetical "man on the street" does. To supporters of it, Affirmative Action is exactly what I outlined. And under the law, that's what it is as well. That some people have a different definition simply means that those people are mistaken or being deliberately obtuse.
2) When it comes to public policy making, it shouldn't actually matter what the man on the street imagines is true about "Affirmative Action." When discussing whether or not to continue "Affirmative Action" we aren't discussing some vague and nebulous idea. We are talking about very specific programs and policies. We shouldn't be talking about a rigid quota system if we are trying to decide whether or not to continue an urban outreach program. We should be looking at the individual program or policy in question. And I find it very disingenous that opponents of Affirmative Action often do precisely that.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
the man on the street absolutely thinks affirmative action is not the same thing as equal opportunity.
This.Whether the perception is accurate or not, Affirmative Action is widely perceived to be "reverse" discrimination based on race, which, if true, is just as racist as "traditional" racial discrimination. Companies that advertise they "actively seek to increase diversity in the workplace," rather than simply hiring the most qualified available candidate, do not improve the perception. Maybe they are only actively seeking to find qualified candidates among underrepresented people groups, which is fine, but it is often perceived as meaning preferential hiring.
-
Is this still the Monty Hall thread?
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
the man on the street absolutely thinks affirmative action is not the same thing as equal opportunity.
This.Whether the perception is accurate or not, Affirmative Action is widely perceived to be "reverse" discrimination based on race, which, if true, is just as racist as "traditional" racial discrimination. Companies that advertise they "actively seek to increase diversity in the workplace," rather than simply hiring the most qualified available candidate, do not improve the perception. Maybe they are only actively seeking to find qualified candidates among underrepresented people groups, which is fine, but it is often perceived as meaning preferential hiring.
Widely percieved among who? Let's say that a company says "we actively seek to increase diversity in the workplace" and then manages to hire 1 black guy or 1 woman among 50 white guys. It would be absolutely fucking ridiculous to term that as "reverse discrimination" in any way at all. And the person who thinks that it is really, really needs to examine their thought process and wonder what exactly makes them so fucking bitter and resentful that seeing a single guy get a spot gets their goat to that extent. Especially if the company's hiring policies are well established and don't have a quota or anything that has been judged to be unconstitutional discrimination.
I agree with Boomzilla that just because someone percieves something to be true, does not make it true. Where we differ is that I think it's important to try to understand why they think it's true and see what evidence is out there that informs their belief. When it comes to Affirmative Action policies, there really isn't as much evidence of wildly unqualified people getting picked for spots. So when the belief is that widespread but doesn't have a basis in history or personal experience to inform it, you have to start wondering what about the personal ideology and beliefs of the person who sees things that way makes them predisposed to believe that an Affirmative Action policy is selecting unqualified minorities.
Which is what makes any discussion of this so fraught with hyperbole and hard to steer toward reasonable and useful discourse. One guy persists in percieving Affirmative Action wrongly, often through the lens of crap he's heard from various pedagogues. The second guy hears the first guy, has a completely different perception and concludes, perhaps wrongly, that the first guy is racist if his thought process is so clouded that he sees reverse discrimination where it obviously doesn't exist. And so by not defining things carefully, and refusing to understand the frame of reference the other side is bringing to the conversation, we end up a bullshit discussion that says nothing, means nothing, and advances society not at all. All it does is create talking points for politicians and pundits.
-
Btw, here's a very recent real world example to illustrate some of the things I'm talking about. I find it particularly interesting because it involves my Alma Mater.
A little background here, UT is a fairly prestigious university in the US. Consistently top ranked in lots of lists, massive endowment, famous alumni, world-renown professors, all that jazz. UT has a system of automatic admission for anyone who graduates in the top 10% of their high school class in Texas. About 80% of people in UT get in that way. The chick who sued in this case was white and graduated at the top 12% of her high school with a 3.59 GPA and a 1180 SAT. She didn't get in. She then had the almighty gall to sue on the basis of racial discrimination because UT also leaves some admissions spots open for people who don't make the top 10% and includes race as one of many factors when filling out those extra spots.
Now, personally, as a guy who went to UT after graduating in the top 10% of his high school class with a 3.8 gpa and a 1520 SAT, it is fucking infuriating to hear someone who, quite honestly, was barely qualified to go there complaining because she thinks a black person snuck in ahead of her. And it is really hard to hear anyone defend her bullshit while listening objectively to their arguments.
And, for the record, the Top Ten Percent program itself was instituted as an Affirmative Action program intended to increase representation from students with more diverse backgrounds. Just to show how complex the whole thing is, there's been some debate about it lately from both suburban white parents complaining that the program unfairly penalizing their kids for going to rigorous high schools AND from university administrators who want greater flexibility in their admission criteria. The parents are mostly trying to get more white suburban kids in, the administrators are mostly trying to stop having to admit massive numbers of suburban white kids.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
Instead of attacking them for the logical (based on how they understand what they've been told) conclusion that at least some minorities are only getting jobs because of affirmative action, why not address the disconnect I mentioned? There is a case to be made that equal opportunity isn't enough, but there needs to be a better job done of making that case.
To anybody who knows what they're on about, affirmative action is nothing more nor less than enforceably equal opportunity.
People who prefer to think of it as the goddam darkies getting all the fucking breaks are going to hold onto that spurious resentment no matter how good a case you make to them, because they are irredeemable fuckwits immune to anything even vaguely resembling reason on the topic of racism.
The fact that neither your vote nor mine counts for more than that of any such irredeemable fuckwit is one of democracy's unfortunate little misfeatures.
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
Depends. You gonna switch or not?Is this still the Monty Hall thread?
-
@flabdablet said:
@RTapeLoadingError said:
Depends. You gonna switch or not?Is this still the Monty Hall thread?
You are required to open at least one door with a black person.
-
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
@RTapeLoadingError said:
Depends. You gonna switch or not?Is this still the Monty Hall thread?
You are required to open at least one door with a black person.
Monty Hall was replaced with Wayne Brady in 2009. Objection addressed.
-
-
@PJH said:
@Snooder said:
I always find it funny when someone, in a fit of trying not to offend anyone anywhere, manages to massively offend the person they're talking to anyway. It shows the talker up as an idiot, and that's usually useful to know.African American
I wish people would stop using that term. It's bollocks..The flip side is that some people try to offend, and that's also not good. The best approach seems to be to just regard people as being ordinary human beings and to assume that they are worthy of respect in themselves (instead of because of whatever labels someone else is waving around), at least until they prove otherwise.
-
@Snooder said:
When it comes to Affirmative Action policies, there really isn't as much evidence of wildly unqualified people getting picked for spots.
I think that in general, you're right about this. However, there are some notable exceptions. Higher education is one area. Administrators have been coming up with ever more clever ways to use race in admission policies, and the continuing litigation over this demonstrates it. I think it's not as much of a problem private sector employment, but public sector is another ball of wax. For instance, the recent case about firefighters and the low percentage of minorities who passed the aptitude test (or whatever it was). Of course, that was a case of the litigants trying to get the less qualified people (wildly unqualified? I wouldn't go that far without more specific knowledge). Then, of course, there are the lowered standards for women in physically demanding jobs. Such as the recent Marine decision to reduce the number of pull ups required. It's not necessarily a matter of "wildly unqualified," but it may be doing a specific harm to particular individuals, whatever other good may come of it institutionally, and that's not something to be taken lightly in any public policy.
I was born and grew up after the major battles of the civil rights movement, and have always taken seriously the idea that we should be judging on character, not skin color (or whatever). And I know that it's not as simple as that, but there's a lot of truth in what the Chief Justice said, that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. It feels that in some ways we're moving towards the perpetual cycle of grievance and revenge that we all love to disparage in the Balkans or the Middle East.
-
@flabdablet said:
To anybody who knows what they're on about, affirmative action is nothing more nor less than enforceably equal opportunity.
You mean that's what it should be or that's what actual policies are? Of course, you aren't American, so your'e probably not familiar with disparate impact. To be fair, I think we're getting past the worst of that (like in the case of the firefighters I mentioned previously).
I've often thought that disparate impact would be an interesting way to approach abortion.
-
@boomzilla said:
Of course, you aren't American, so your'e probably not familiar with disparate impact.
In United States employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.
How is that not enforceably equal opportunity? Does "disproportionate" mean something different in Murican?
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
Of course, you aren't American, so your'e probably not familiar with disparate impact.
In United States employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.
How is that not enforceably equal opportunity? Does "disproportionate" mean something different in Murican?
Cross cultural communication always complicates things. Does opportunity equal outcome where you're from?
Allow me to translate: If you always have the opportunity to put a shrimp or a steak on the barbie, because your sheila keeps both around, but you always put steak because you're allergic to seafood, how many Fosters are required to anesthetize getting hit upside the head with a cricket bat?
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
Of course, you aren't American, so your'e probably not familiar with disparate impact.
In United States employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.
How is that not enforceably equal opportunity? Does "disproportionate" mean something different in Murican?
I didn't make it terribly explicit, but the concept of disparate impact is reasonable, so long as you include the caveat that whatever is causing it is not important to the job at hand. That's part of the letter of the law, but it doesn't mean that's how it actually works. Like with the firefighters. The promotion test was explicitly about proficiency on the job, but the city worried that they would get in trouble for disparate impact. I'm sure that imperfectly executed and applied laws translate to other languages and cultures, and I probably should have made it clearer.
Fisher v. University of Texas - Wikipedia
