Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 220

Thread: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

  1. #181
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,398

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Didn't say or imply either of those but sure. You've been banking on things I didn't argue from the get go.
    Then why did you mention my gender, but recoil when I mentioned hers as response? You assumed it was written by a man, didn't you?
    Would be same as arguing that Earth is flat.
    So you're saying that it is an indisputable fact that women have less control over their own actions than men do. Interesting.

    Not sure how an accessible link changes what I said in the first half there. Something tells me you clearly didn't read the link beyond the title as well.
    I did. Most of the article I don't agree with and is much more aligned with your viewpoint, so one cannot argue that they're framing the data in a way convenient to them, and yet they still presented the same statistic, which addresses the first half of your statement.

  2. #182

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    So you're saying that it is an indisputable fact that women have less control over their own actions than men do. Interesting.
    Well, it is obvious, even indisputable, that women have less control over their own actions. I mean the systemic, institutional and historical sexism has so ingrained oppression into women that where the main effect comes from is not the lower end of the job spectrum with set wages and thus is of little effect, the real picture is seen with higher salaried positions where, horror of horrors, women might have to negotiate. And, you know, negotiation means there is no control over whether or not a woman can accept terms of a deal.

  3. #183
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Correlation does not imply causation. It's not that hard. Learn that statement before you start throwing statistics around. Any proper data miner or statistician knows that simple fact.

    Is there evidence that it's much harder for poor people to climb the social ladder than for the offspring of wealthy people to maintain their status? Heck yes. Especially in the banana states of America.
    But not just there. Success begets success. Failure begets more failure.

    Is there any evidence whatsoever that it's harder for people of colour or for women to climb the social ladder than for white men? None that I have seen.

    The gender wage gap is invented by ignoring a whole load of factors that play into this. Motherhood for example. Want to raise gender equality to Scandinavian levels? Well then you need to introduce day care centers and similar infrastructure to maintain it. And yet you won't eradicate the inequality that comes from different life choices, cultural differences and the likes. And that part is inevitable.

    Similar can be said about racism in the United States. Are the African Americans poor because of racism or are they poor because after winning their freedom they still remained at the bottom of the hierarchy with no education, no money and practically no means to raise to the top?

    This is where the fake out begins. I'm fully on board with trying to alleviate inequality and enable all people to live dignified lives. That's what the left stood for. Then the fake out happened.

    The "positive" discrimination isn't going to harm the rich CEO's son who everyone's imagining when thinking of the evil white man. It's going to harm the white trash who're also at the bottom of the well, but unlike the black community don't even have much of a community.

    I have yet to see anything proving a causational link between skin colour and success (or the lack thereof). I've seen lots of correlations which are a no brainer, but do not prove causation for the reasons stated above.

    If I were particularly snarky I'd joke about a study on social studies people and their level of understanding of statistics, but I'll leave that part out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  4. #184

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Then why did you mention my gender, but recoil when I mentioned hers as response? You assumed it was written by a man, didn't you?
    This have been already explained. If you're not happy with the explanation you're gonna have to live with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    So you're saying that it is an indisputable fact that women have less control over their own actions than men do. Interesting.
    Pretty much, yeah. Its the sad reality we live in.


    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I did. Most of the article I don't agree with and is much more aligned with your viewpoint, so one cannot argue that they're framing the data in a way convenient to them, and yet they still presented the same statistic, which addresses the first half of your statement.
    Not convenient to them but to you. Doesn't really address my statement either.
    The Armenian Issue

  5. #185
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,398

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    This have been already explained. If you're not happy with the explanation you're gonna have to live with it.
    Your explanation was that the explanation is self-evident. I think so too, but clearly the two of us are thinking of different explanations.





    Not convenient to them but to you. Doesn't really address my statement either.
    Yes, it is indeed convenient for me that the source I used supports my claim.
    It does address your statement, because this statistic proves a large part of my point by looking at single women. Once women are married (and even more-so once they have children) they are more likely to devote time to their family than their career (a statistic brought up in the CBS article from earlier) and don't take as much overtime as men do because they have other priorities and a variety of other factors.

  6. #186

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Yes, it is indeed convenient for me that the source I used supports my claim.
    It does address your statement, because this statistic proves a large part of my point by looking at single women. Once women are married (and even more-so once they have children) they are more likely to devote time to their family than their career (a statistic brought up in the CBS article from earlier) and don't take as much overtime as men do because they have other priorities and a variety of other factors.
    It doesn't support your position though. It looks at a very limited group of people; young college graduate women living in cities. It also doesn't have an analysis on men vs women with same experience. Women maybe having other priorities not because they choose to but because they're left with them. Raising a child is still seen as the job of the women with little input by the dad. The state support for paternity leave is nonexistent in USA. Often the women is expected to make the sacrifice. You present that as women's own choice.
    The Armenian Issue

  7. #187
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,398

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    It doesn't support your position though. It looks at a very limited group of people; young college graduate women living in cities. It also doesn't have an analysis on men vs women with same experience. Women maybe having other priorities not because they choose to but because they're left with them. Raising a child is still seen as the job of the women with little input by the dad. The state support for paternity leave is nonexistent in USA. Often the women is expected to make the sacrifice. You present that as women's own choice.
    I'm sorry, but are you saying that the lack of paternity leave is discriminatory against.. women?

  8. #188

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I'm sorry, but are you saying that the lack of paternity leave is discriminatory against.. women?
    Its effect certainly can be.
    The Armenian Issue

  9. #189

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I'm sorry, but are you saying that the lack of paternity leave is discriminatory against.. women?
    Everything is discriminatory against women. Including not being discriminatory against women...

  10. #190

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidel144 View Post
    Everything is discriminatory against women. Including not being discriminatory against women...
    Lack of paternity leave is not being discriminatory against women?
    The Armenian Issue

  11. #191
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    lmao. I'm very much in favour of paternal leave and am happy to live in a country that offers it, but how is men not having the right for that not female privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  12. #192

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    lmao. I'm very much in favour of paternal leave and am happy to live in a country that offers it, but how is men not having the right for that not female privilege?
    Can you paraphrase the question?
    The Armenian Issue

  13. #193
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Ok. How the heck is women having a right and men NOT having the same right discriminatory AGAINST women, and not discriminatory against men?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  14. #194

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  15. #195

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Ok. How the heck is women having a right and men NOT having the same right discriminatory AGAINST women, and not discriminatory against men?
    There seems to be a confusion. Infidel144 presented lack of paternity leave as not being discriminatory against women. As if paternity leave is not given to men not to be discriminatory against women. I was asking how that works.
    The Armenian Issue

  16. #196
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Methinks we’re getting sliiightly away from sex discrimination by the state of California. But yes, if parental leave is given to one sex but not the other, then that is discriminatory.

    I am not one for gay adoption, but I assume it’s a thing in cali. I am curious how much adoption leave for young adoptions there is, and whether both Lesbian and Gay couples get it. If only one did that would be clear discrimination.

    And in the case of Lesbians with surrogate fathers, does only one parent, or both female ‘parents’ get maternity? Confusing indeed.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  17. #197

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Methinks we’re getting sliiightly away from sex discrimination by the state of California. But yes, if parental leave is given to one sex but not the other, then that is discriminatory.

    I am not one for gay adoption, but I assume it’s a thing in cali. I am curious how much adoption leave for young adoptions there is, and whether both Lesbian and Gay couples get it. If only one did that would be clear discrimination.

    And in the case of Lesbians with surrogate fathers, does only one parent, or both female ‘parents’ get maternity? Confusing indeed.

    At least we’ve found a place where Aexodus is pro discrimination based on a factor out of ones control. Heterosexuals should have the Right to adopt but Homosexuals should not. So much for high ideals being behind your positions on racial equality. Which leaves us with the real reason...

  18. #198

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    I guess Cali wasted no time in the wake of the repeal of a law prohibiting racial discrimination to make racial discrimination mandatory:
    California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law requiring publicly traded corporations headquartered in California to appoint directors from underrepresented communities to their boards, the first law in the country to dictate the racial makeup of corporate boards.

    “The new law represents a big step forward for racial equity,” one of the bill’s authors Assemblyman Chris Holden, a Democrat from Pasadena, said in a statement. “While some corporations were already leading the way to combat implicit bias, now, all of California’s corporate boards will better reflect the diversity of our state.”

    Holden says research shows that public support for social justice often does not lead to lasting reforms needed to boost hiring and retention.

    The legislation he co-authored would require people from “underrepresented communities” to have at least one seat on corporate boards in California by the end of 2021.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ds/5874469002/
    If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again?
    Petitioner cross-claimed for a declaration that its special admissions program was lawful. The trial court found that the special program operated as a racial quota, because minority applicants in that program were rated only against one another, and 16 places in the class of 100 were reserved for them. Declaring that petitioner could not take race into account in making admissions decisions, the program was held to violate the Federal and State Constitutions and Title VI. Respondent's admission was not ordered, however, for lack of proof that he would have been admitted but for the special program. The California Supreme Court, applying a strict-scrutiny standard, concluded that the special admissions program was not the least intrusive means of achieving the goals of the admittedly compelling state interests of integrating the medical profession and increasing the number of doctors willing to serve minority patients. Without passing on the state constitutional or federal statutory grounds the court held that petitioner's special admissions program violated the Equal Protection Clause. Since petitioner could not satisfy its burden of demonstrating that respondent, absent the special program, would not have been admitted, the court ordered his admission to Davis.

    Held: The judgment below is affirmed insofar as it orders respondent's admission to Davis and invalidates petitioner's special admissions program, but is reversed insofar as it prohibits petitioner from taking race into account as a factor in its future admissions decisions.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265
    And that’s not all:
    Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the historic law Wednesday that creates a nine-member task force dedicated to coming up with recommendations for what form reparations might take and who would be eligible to receive them. The task force must have its first meeting no later than June 1 and submit its recommendations to the state Legislature one year later.

    Reparations could come in the form of cash payments, student loan forgiveness, public works projects or job training. The law doesn't limit the payment to slavery but requires the task force give special consideration for Black people who are descendants of slaves.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...aw/5877926002/
    Quote Originally Posted by Title VI, Civil Rights Act
    No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
    Quote Originally Posted by 14th Amendment
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Decades after the end of Jim Crow, racial quotas and racial subsidies exclusively for people with the right skin colors/racial ancestry are hailed as “progress” as the State of California charges bravely onward in her quest to mandate racial discrimination, in what is being called a model for the entire country. What a time to be alive. Time to cut off federal funding to the State of California?
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; October 07, 2020 at 07:27 AM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  19. #199
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Institutional racism Legio.

    Save your fingers the work next time.

    Time to cut off federal funding to the State of California?
    Absolutely. I hope this is brought up at the next debate.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  20. #200

    Default Re: California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalExMachina View Post
    why do you even bother with the national review, you should know by now that the only goal of their "journalism" is to disseminate propaganda.

    so, some context here:

    https://www.latimes.com/california/s...epeal-election

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tion-aca5-vote
    > decries the "National Review" as propaganda
    > cites "The Guardian"

    Brilliant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Decades after the end of Jim Crow, racial quotas and racial subsidies exclusively for people with the right skin colors/racial ancestry are hailed as “progress” as the State of California charges bravely onward in her quest to mandate racial discrimination, in what is being called a model for the entire country. What a time to be alive. Time to cut off federal funding to the State of California?
    Nah. That'll only invite China to fill the gap. Just treat them like you treated the last batch of racist secessionists...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •