The topic of affirmative action has come up again in comments and, as it usually does, made me chuckle. Bring up affirmative action in a group of conservatives and be prepared for an onslaught of wordy squirts. They will scream and stomp their feet about how liberals are racist because they support quotas...screwing themselves into a monumentally deep chasm of denial of their own racism. They completely fail to see that the reason why affirmative action laws were made in the first place were to insure that non whites got the same opportunity for education and jobs as whites. Back in the day, people didn't want niggers and chinks working at their place of business or going to their schools. So, they wouldn't hire them and thus we started to see these laws.
But things are different now. No doubt, there still are plenty of people who discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, or skin color. As I mentioned yesterday, if you are one of these people, chances are that you are a Republican. More than likely, you are one of the people I mention above who scream and stomp their feet about how it's liberals, not conservatives, that are racist because of affirmative action.
A funny thing happened, though, on the way to equality. There is a small but growing number of liberal organizations in liberal states that have figured out a much better way to combat racism. The states of California, Michigan, and Washington, certainly not known as conservative strongholds, have banned school admissions and hiring practices based on gender, race or sexual orientation. At first glance, this may seem like an affirmative action ban. It's actually not.
In fact, it's fucking brilliant.
In each of these states, it is now ILLEGAL to not hire someone because they are black, for example. People must hire other people solely based on their qualifications and nothing more. So if the Acme Warehouse in Tacoma, WA refuses to hire someone who is black, they are subject to state prosecution. They have to prove that they have hired the most qualified candidate if any issue of racial bias comes up. In essence, they are forced to look past skin color and that's exactly the way it should be.
Schools and universities must admit students based on their grades and test scores alone. California schools noticed no drop off whatsoever of non white admissions after this law was enacted. Kids work hard and they get into school. That's just the way it should be but that's not even the best part.
The best part is that liberal organizations in these states have figured out a way to eliminate yet another "tap into your inner rage" issue from the Cult and render it moot. By hiring the best possible person for the job, there is nothing with which to have a ten year old temper tantrum. Yea!!! (clap clap:)) And anyone that won't hire Spics at their place of business is going to get a rectal probe by state authorities.
So, Notes From the Front is calling on all states to enact similar laws. Make it illegal to not hire someone based on their gender, sexual orientation, or skin color. Hire the best possible people for each job. Admit the hardest working students.
And show the Cult that their narrow vision is getting even smaller.
25 comments:
I would have to examine such laws very carefully before I could endorse them. In particular, there are issues of language, corporate culture and personality. When someone cannot make themselves understood or cannot understand others, or cannot get along with their coworkers, their qualifications are moot.
Mistakes happen all the time when everyone speaks English equally well. But the problem is only magnified when there's a language barrier. Poor language skills create a disincentive for communicating, and lack of communication is the cause of many serious problems.
It gets tricky when someone's command of English is excellent, but their accent is non-standard. I've known Indians who write and speak perfect English, but their word choice, accent and intonation are difficult for most Americans to understand at first. If the primary function of the job is verbal communication it's reasonable to not hire them -- a telephone receptionist or a salesman, for example -- but it shouldn't disqualify them from working as a programmer, engineer or accountant.
The moral of the story is this: you may be the best roofer in the world, or the best lawyer, or the engineer with the highest GPA in your class. But if you can't express yourself clearly, or cannot make yourself understood to coworkers and customers, you can't expect to get the job.
Similarly, if your religion forbids you from touching women, you can't expect to sell women's shoes for a living. Or if your religion prevents you from transporting alcohol, touching pork products, performing blood transfusions, or selling birth control pills, you can't expect to be a cab driver, a cashier at a supermarket that sells meat, an EMT, or a pharmacist.
Finally, many personality quirks can be grounds for not hiring someone. If you're a man who blurts out inappropriate things -- say, sexist jokes during your interview -- you can't expect to get a job dealing with women.
That gets into a gray area. Not hiring a Muslim woman because she wears a headscarf and would "project the wrong image" is not the same as not hiring a Muslim cab driver because he refuses to carry passengers who have alcohol. If you can and will do all the facets of the job that are required, your skin color, dress and accent should not matter.
Then there's the whole "I don't think we can get along with this guy" problem. Managers can usually tell when someone just isn't going to fit into their workplace. Most of the time this isn't an issue because both parties feel the same way. But when you start having laws that dictate hiring practices at a minute level you're inviting abuse of the courts.
So, while laws are still needed to deal with hiring issues they need to be good ones.
Let me see if I have this straight.
Racist Nazi conservatives are against affirmative action. Presumably, those Stalinist hate-mongers would prefer that people are hired based entirely on their qualifications. But now that some "liberal organizations" are against affirmative action, it is a blow to the conservatives? Do I have that right?
You need to explain to my thick conservative skull how getting rid of current "lawful" race based discrimination is NOT getting rid of affirmative action.
Or is it just because you say so?
Side note, I say "lawful" specifically in derision of the United Steelworkers vs. Weber SCOTUS decision that ignored the wording of the actual law to allow affirmative action. It's an interesting story and worth exploring for those who wish to read about judicial activism. See also, Dred Scott vs. Sandford and Wickard vs. Filburn.
dw
LOL, this has got to be the best post ever!! Mark, you can't even get your basic positions on the issues correct which makes this hilarious!
"The best part is that liberal organizations in these states have figured out a way to eliminate yet another "tap into your inner rage" issue from the Cult and render it moot. By hiring the best possible person for the job, there is nothing with which to have a ten year old temper tantrum. Yea!!! (clap clap:))"
No, the BEST part is that this is the argument against affirmative action all along which the "Right" has been pushing FOREVER. And now you are trying to claim it as a liberal win?! Classic!! What a maroon!
It is a liberal win, 6Kings because times have changed. 50 years ago, quotas were the way to go because bigotry and racism were more prevalent. This is no longer the case.
Racism is simply not accepted any more which is why you see the Right falling all over themselves to say that they are not racist. They have to be subtle about it. Their beef against affirmative action is born out of racism. But states like Washington, Michigan and California have discovered a way to combat racism and shut up the Right. So your comment smacks of disappointment.
dw, under the laws in these states, an employer can't hire someone due to their color of their skin. They also can't not hire them because of the color of their skin. Skin color is not allowed to enter into the equation. It's qualifications, only. A company can't hire a Chinese person who is less qualified than a white person just because they are Chinese and would fill federal quotas. The complaint from the dittoheads has now been rendered moot.
They are going to hire the best people for the job. And, as result, there's going to be a lot of unhappy Cletus McYokels. Any guesses as to why this is the case?
Yeah, I'm forced to ask why this is the case. Because what you are saying is so ludicrous I can't believe even you are saying it. So go ahead.
dw
>It is a liberal win, 6Kings because times have changed. 50 years ago, quotas were the way to go because bigotry and racism were more prevalent. This is no longer the case.
Ok, I can see how you might think that if I were to accept the same initial premises that you do, which is apparently that righties just fall all over themselves looking for ways to discriminate against anyone who isn't the right skin hue. Unsurprisingly, I think your initial premises are idiotic, so no, I can't say I agree that it's a liberal win.
>Their beef against affirmative action is born out of racism.
Really? You can't think of an objection to affirmative action that isn't racist? Here's mine - if the desire is to remedy historical discrimination on the basis of skin color, you are unlikely to succeed by.. discriminating on the basis of skin color. The concept itself makes no sense. What you are more likely to do is cause a bunch of problems, one of which I will list: AA mismatches people with positions. From kids who end up in schools that they don't have the preparation to succeed in, to adults who end up in jobs that they don't have the skills to succeed with, affirmative action sets people up for failure. And why? So people like Mark can stroke their their egos about how morally superior they are compared to those icky racist righties.
I have to say, it's comedy gold seeing you say, "Yeah! This is totally a win for my team!" at having conservative's preferred policy put into place. Also comedy is seeing you sprinkle your commentary with things like this:
"They will scream and stomp their feet "
and
"there is nothing with which to have a ten year old temper tantrum."
Uh huh. Fortunately, after watching you get your ass kicked for three years straight at TSM, we are well aware of your penchant for replacing reasoned argument with slogans and attempts at arguing from authority. It must be hard for a guy like you - used to being in a classroom, where your word is largely unchallenged. You still haven't gotten used to it, have you?
As a final note, here's something for you to chew on. You assert that righties are much more likely to be racist than anyone else. You are of course projecting your wishes about how you want things to work onto paper, as it were, but lets assume for the moment that you are correct. Let's also assume that righties are very greedy, a proposition that I somehow doubt you'll disagree with much. Now, a hypothetical - I'm a business owner, and I want to hire an employee. Let's say that I interview two candidates - one white, one black. The black one is more skilled than the white one, and will thus create more revenue for me at the same labor cost. However, as per your wishes, I'm a racist. So I hire the white candidate. I have just made a decision that hurts my own business, in order to feed my racism. A competing business is likely to hire the black candidate, and thus be better off than my business. Now, in a world like you've described in your post, where merit is the only criteria for making hiring decisions, there is a conundrum for a lefty such as yourself - in order to posit widespread racism, you have to posit that a lot of employers make decisions that are *against* their financial interest, only so that they can maintain that racism. I'm curious how lefties square that circle.
In other words, "It's not racist when we do it!"
Okay... this is rather convoluted, so check me to see if I have this straight:
1. Yours and your party's racism isn't really racism and never was ("It's not rape rape"), because you did it for the purpose of ending racism.
2. Now that you've ended racism, you can discontinue the 30+ years of racism you used to end it and claim victory, since your racism wasn't really racism in the first place.
3. However, your political opponents, who espoused the identical reasons for ending it that you are only now espousing, were racist for espousing them and will continue to be racist whether it has the result they said it would or not. This is the crucial point, you suddenly claiming the very same thing they have claimed for decades makes you suddenly non-racist and never were, and them still racist and always were, thus making the victory for their reasons your victory, not theirs.
4. Even though racism is officially ended, and of course you were never really racist in the first place, nonetheless a white male who disagrees with your politics is "probably a racist" simply by virtue of his skin color, his gender and the fact that he disagrees with your politics.
In each of these states, it is now ILLEGAL to not hire someone because they are black, for example. People must hire other people solely based on their qualifications and nothing more. So if the Acme Warehouse in Tacoma, WA refuses to hire someone who is black, they are subject to state prosecution.
So if the New Black Panther Party declines to hire someone who is white, they are subject to state prosecution.
If the Jewish Anti-Defamation League declines to hire a Nazi, should they be subject to state prosecution?
If a local gay bar declines to hire a straight person, should they be subject to state prosecution?
If N.O.W. declines to hire a male, should they be subject to state prosecution?
If a political organization dedicated to strong law enforcement declined to hire an illegal immigrant, would you applaud them or accuse them or racism or what? Should they be subject to prosecution?
Can wide open, worms everywhere.
Thread killed.
Last, why are you such an asshole? Seriously, you are complete fuck head. I respond to stuff all the time on here and then get accused of "not responding" because the "argument was won" by your ilk. If you want to know why people don't continue threads, it's because of this bullshit and your iron headedness.
I don't know which anonymous I am addressing but Mark has stated repeatedly that the Democrats have a longer history of racism than the Republicans. Quotas are not racism except as defined by the people who are against them. They are policies that are in effect because there was a trend in this country to not hire people because of their skin color. That has changed now somewhat for the better so laws like we see in Washington are easier to enforce.
I am physical therapist. I work at a hospital in Missouri. Even as recently as 15 years ago, some managers would not hire people who were black. A couple that I talked to when I first started said that black people were criminals and were lazy. Then quotas started being enforced on a regular basis and things changed. How else would blacks have been able to be hired? There was no serious law to enforce this.
I'm curious as to what your solutions would be to racially biased hiring practices. I'd imagine that they have no practical application in reality because there are no racists in your world except all the non white ones. What a bunch of lying ostriches!
haha, that can of worms is still open donald. didn't want to answer those questions did you? why do you need solutions to racism and quotas, markadelphia just got done saying they have solved the problem.
This will be my second response in this thread. I wonder how many I will have to make before this thread is declared not dead and not won by naysayers. Five? Fifty?
1. Racism is defined as follows:
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
I would agree that the Democrats were like that until 1964 and then they switched parties. They are your problem now. Deal with them.
In addition, the goal behind AA is not racist as we can all clearly see from the above definition. Peddle your paranoia elsewhere and stop insulting my intelligence.
2. Historically, AA really started in 1961 with Executive Order 109225 which stated government contractors "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" as well as 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"
That's basically what the new laws say now in WA, CA, and MI. The difference between then and now is
a. Racism is not as tolerated today as it was back then.
b. Quotas have given non whites more opportunity so that they are now on more equal footing
c. States have the muscle and the will of the people to go after businesses that have unfair hiring practices.
c. Thankfully, Cletus McYokel is a dying breed which is the main reason we have the divisiveness we have now.
3. My political opponents have a large base of fucking racists that give them power. That is the only reason why they are against AA and use the language they use. For example, they will never come out and say the word "nigger" so they use other words which let their followers know where they stand.
4. I have stated repeatedly on here that I have a horrible bias against Muslim men. In fact, I believe that Middle Eastern and South Asian men are inferior in the way they treat women. That is racist. I struggle with this every day.
Now admit your own bias or go fuck yourself.
Next comment,
The Black Panthers disavow the New Black Panthers so I'm not sure how legitimate this organization is.
Nazis are not a race, religion or gender so they would be within the law to not hire them. How would you tell, though?
Yes, that bar would be subject to prosecution.
N.O.W. employs men on a regular basis. It was founded by men and women. Richard Graham was founding vice president.
The immigrant is illegal so therefore that organization would be subject to criminal charges. Whether or not they would be prosecuted is a different matter.
Next?
1. Racism is defined as follows:
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
In addition, the goal behind AA is not racist as we can all clearly see from the above definition. Peddle your paranoia elsewhere and stop insulting my intelligence.
This makes everything clear.
Racism by the above definition is completely unrelated to actions. Any action whatsoever, regardless of how obviously or egregiously it rewards one group at the expense of another, is automatically not racist if it is done for the "correct" reasons. Any action whatsoever, regardless of how obviously it promotes actual equality under the law, automatically is racist if it is done for the "wrong" reasons. Since you define "right" and "wrong" as "agrees with you" or "disagrees with you", of course it follows that anything anyone who disagrees with you does can be taken as evidence of racism.
Okay, I understand now.
the Democrats were like that until 1964 and then they switched parties.
Do you have any tiniest scrap of actual evidence to back that statement, or is it just more of the same "It's so because I say it is"?
And don't point at your map. I can show you a map that shows television prevents AIDS, but that doesn't make it so.
>This will be my second response in this thread. I wonder how many I will have to make before this thread is declared not dead and not won by naysayers. Five? Fifty?
Wow. Impressive. You actually stayed around for one response instead of running away. You deserve a cookie.
>1. Racism is defined as follows:
You know, this happens over and over again. You seem to think that you can choose a definition for a word and your choice the only correct one - you did the same thing at TSM. m-w.com says:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
So no, neither 'hatred' nor 'intolerance' is required in order for racism to exist. So clearly, AA, since it engages in discrimination based on skin color, can be fairly described as racist. Now, to some extent, that is a minor semantic quibble, since what really matters is what effects AA has had. The argument I and other conservatives are making is that it has made minorities worse off than they would have been if left alone. The "goals" of AA are irrelevant.
>stop insulting my intelligence.
Heh.
>Quotas have given non whites more opportunity so that they are now on more equal footing
This is the assertion that you have yet to defend. How exactly do quotas based on skin color give someone more opportunity? If they are otherwise unqualified for that position, how exactly does that help them? If I get a job because of my political connections, my coworkers would unsurprisingly suspect my competence for the job. Do you really think it helps someone to put them in a position because of their skin color, rather than their skillset? (This is, incidentally, one of the reasons the left gets accused of racism - what kind of respect could you possibly have for a person when you advance them based on their skin tone, rather than their merit?)
>For example, they will never come out and say the word "nigger" so they use other words which let their followers know where they stand.
More "reality is what I say it is" nonsense. Do you have any evidence of this that doesn't rely on you spectacularly missing the point of whatever it is the speaker is saying? I recall blk making a especially good howler a few weeks ago, where "states rights" equals something along the lines of putting non white people in their place. Once again, when you make up what other people think, it's mighty easy to argue against them.
>Now admit your own bias or go fuck yourself.
Ah yes, "I'm right no matter what you say." What a pathetic, pseudo-intellectual charlatan you are.
"it has made minorities worse off than they would have been if left alone."
And your data for this is where, exactly?
I look around and see people of color having more opportunities than ever before. Our society has become more equal in a variety of ways. I think your problem may be this fact. Sorry, but our culture is becoming less and less white. To riff off of this comment
"Cletus McYokel is a dying breed which is the main reason we have the divisiveness we have now."
It's not a coincidence that much of the anger we see right now is coming from old, white people. Our culture is becoming more blended and diverse in ways that extend beyond skin color. All diversity and change is evil for the Cleti of the world.
"If they are otherwise unqualified for that position..."
This would be an example of the code that Mark talks about above. So, all minorities who get jobs because of quotas are unqualified? That's certainly the gist of what those against AA are saying. What a load of shit. I work in the medical field with a wide variety of minorities who got their jobs because of quotas AND because they were qualified.
I don't know you so I can't tell if you are racist or not for certain but the comments that you make hear seem terribly narrow minded and not grounded in any sort of real world environment at all.
Thanks Donald. I am an asshole. "Thread killed" does not equal "argument won", it's just the norm on here. I was just baiting you all and it worked. Check out the comment sections of the following posts...
the latest News On The March
Where exactly?
All is forgiven
The rove
the cults prayer
the list
two words
give this man a microphone
They came armed...
how we win
whither the gop
show me your papers jew
Questions were asked of "your side" and no answers were given, and that's just April and May.
I've been called racist on here before several times. A thought popped into my head...I decided to look at the friends list of myself and Mark on facebook. He has (approx) 14 people on his friends list that are non-white and I know Carey W and Tony B. I have 24 people on my friends list that are non-white. I'm more diverse - deal with it! haha Look at my dance partner in my salsa video real close on this blog too. Yeah, real racist. ...and my other buddy, originally from St. Louis who walked into the studio during that lesson, what color was he again? Mark knows.
Like you care about my solutions. You guys are supposed to be the smart ones and I remember reading on here that if liberals were in charge we would have solutions to all these problems. Quit asking questions and solve the problem already.
Sheesh you guys are mad. Calling me an asshole, a fuckhead, telling me to peddle my paranoia elsewhere, saying that your political opponents have a large base of fucking racists, then telling me to go fuck myself. Pipe down.
"It's qualifications, only." - that's been the argument of the opponents of AA for years.
Good posts anonymous, love it.
>"Cletus McYokel is a dying breed which is the main reason we have the divisiveness we have now."
Where did you come up with this premise. This is retarded and contradictory. This dying breed with dwindling numbers is causing historic levels of anger and divisiveness? Really?!
>It's not a coincidence that much of the anger we see right now is coming from old, white people."
You see anger but unfortunately it isn't ascribed to anything you are talking about. It isn't racism that is driving this huge swell of anger, not even a little bit.
>Our culture is becoming more blended and diverse in ways that extend beyond skin color. All diversity and change is evil for the Cleti of the world.
Sorry to burst your bubble but America is founded by blending and diversity. Maybe you forgot or never knew that. Your entire premise is based on some minute racist strawman drummed into your head by whoever you listen to and magnified way beyond reality. Sure, some don't like diversity but they aren't even a blip on the mainstream radar.
>"If they are otherwise unqualified for that position..."
>"This would be an example of the code that Mark talks about above."
No, it is exactly what it says. What, are you some kind of conspiracy kook? You see racism with every phrase? You are sad.
>So, all minorities who get jobs because of quotas are unqualified?
That's certainly the gist of what those against AA are saying. What a load of shit.
Yep, what you said is a load of shit. It doesn't mean that at all but it leaves open the possibility of looking at the person who was hired as unqualified. Why? Because race is a factor of employment which it shouldn't be. AA codifies racism into law and why this has to be explained is beyond me. Not only that, it puts hiring managers in a very difficult situation because now if the person doesn't get hired, managers have to spend huge amounts of time and effort defending decisions.
>I work in the medical field with a wide variety of minorities who got their jobs because of quotas AND because they were qualified.
Well, whoopty frickin' doo! Guess what? There are qualified minorities out there and people actually hire them. Take the quotas out and what happens? They still get hired! Merit works and is economically feasible for businesses, racism is not.
The funniest part about this is watching you all champion a conservative ideal and swear up and down it isn't.
Let me guess, Cletus McYokel is the typical poster at TSM in your eyes markadelphia?
last-
You have more non white facebook friends than mark so that makes you not a racist? Really not getting it.
Your list would be an example of threads not pursued for reasons of futility. Most of the time when your scribe something on here it's so obtuse that even a few exchanges is a waste of my time. Some days I have 12 patients and can't honestly spare the time. Today my first appt. is at 11am so I hit the blogs I read for a few minutes and that's it. At night, I spend time with people. Catch me on a day when I am sick and you might get more out of me or if I can see that might change your mind and admit error. Otherwise, it won't be happening.
"It's not a coincidence that much of the anger we see right now is coming from old, white people."
Iowa is older and whiter than the rest of the US. Those racist bastards voted Obama over Hilary, just to watch a black man fail.
I hate Iowa Nazis.
dw
Of course you could never prove it is obtuse, you just assume people think that while ducking out of the discussion. Is it futility or refusing to answer one question? Hell I even just asked you to give us your thoughts on the stimulus bill or the cap and trade bill in an above comment thread and you chose to ignore the question.
Don't hate because Mark is keepin things pretty white on facebook! I'm not trying to prove anything to you - any of you could come out to the salsa clubs with me any weekend in Minneapolis and you will see folks of all backgrounds dancing and talking with me.
The band Elwood! The band!
OK, I apologize for not getting this discussion back on track with my last comment. It was irresistable.
Mark:
You say that the "goal" of AA is the key to non-racism. But, I say that a common liberal fallacy is to presume that your "goals" are benevolent enough to claim success simply by showing your altruism. I say that your ambitious "goal" was not met by AA, but by the gradual recognition that racism is stupid. Everyone (by now, I hope) has met a black/white/yellow man that they respected. That should be enough for an intelligent man to discard racism.
dw
Good point, dw. There has been a gradual recognition that racism is stupid. Our society has moved along enough that affirmative action isn't really needed anymore. Anyone that discriminates based on skin color, gender, or sexual preference isn't going to do very well financially. There are areas of the deep south that probably still do but for the most part, every state should have laws like MI, CA, and WA.
I said a lot more than just 'racism is stupid'.
And, every state does have a law like MI, CA, & WA. It is called the Civil Rights Act. The state laws reflect the federal law already in place. Until SCOTUS blatantly disregarded the law to allow AA, the Civil Rights Act codified judging a man solely by the content of his character.
dw
Post a Comment