Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 220

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

  1. #61

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    "Social and economic circumstances" can be controlled for without racial considerations. You have no point.
    There are variations in economic outcomes due to skin color. The point is self-evident.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    You did not answer my question. If I were to remove the word "solely" from what you've just said, would it still hold true?
    There is no difference, you're still hating someone because of their skin color. Whether you add other reasons is fairly irrelevant.

    Really now? So it's okay to hate poor black people (whilst not hating poor white people), just not black people in general? Is this your position?
    This is nonsensical. It's not okay to hate black people because they're black period.

    And it identifies these marginalized groups based on.. what? Oh, that's right, race. In other words: within the span of 2 lines of text you go from "judging based on race is bad" to "judging based on race is good". I'm impressed, well done. The next step, of course, is to contradict yourself within the same sentence, so I eagerly await your reply.
    Racism is not just judging, it's often times actively excluding. Affirmative action isn't "judging people" based on race, it's identifying which groups are marginalized. If you don't feel like a marginalized group, then don't consider yourself one. In the same way if you feel you are not poor, then don't take benefits.



    Quote Originally Posted by Settra View Post
    Read it.

    Besides even if you are correct, in 1-2 years time you will come asking to rescind that. Better to nip this in the bud and stop this cancer at the root, before it blossoms into systemic racism.
    I don't understand your point here. I'd appreciate it if you spelled it out for me.

    No, racism is wrong because it uses criteria other than merit to dole out advantages. Positive racism is still racism. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. As long as race is a factor, even among 1 million others, it's racism and it needs to die. The idea that only whites can be racist or that racism only stems from whiteness is not even idiotic, it's evil. If you ever bother looking though Mein Kampf you will see almost identical arguments in favor of the germans and in excuse of antisemitism.
    There is zero similarity between the arguments of Mein Kampf and affirmative action. Unless you're telling me that the superiority of the Aryan race is identical to Black scholarships on the basis of need and ability.

  2. #62

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    There are variations in economic outcomes due to skin color. The point is self-evident.
    The cause(s) of the economic variations is irrelevant if said variations have been controlled for. Otherwise you're controlling for the same factors twice (ie. controlling for the disadvantage and then the cause of the disadvantage). So once again, you have no point. I suggest you actually read the rationale behind affirmative action.



  3. #63

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The cause(s) of the economic variations is irrelevant if said variations have been controlled for. Otherwise you're controlling for the same factors twice (ie. controlling for the disadvantage and then the cause of the disadvantage). So once again, you have no point. I suggest you actually read the rationale behind affirmative action.
    Struggling to through the incoherency I think you are saying you would be against making a covid vaccine if we found a covid treatment. Since the treatment would control for the disadvantages (sickness and death), you would see a vaccine as irrelevant since controlling for the cause (covid) has already been address by controlling for the advantages.

    Explain, preferably coherently what about affirmative action you don't like. Try to do it without tired arguments citing racial discrimination.

    One question: since most legacies are white because they come from a time where racial discrimination was even more present I assume you think legacy factors also shouldn't be included in college admissions?

  4. #64

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The cause(s) of the economic variations is irrelevant if said variations have been controlled for. Otherwise you're controlling for the same factors twice (ie. controlling for the disadvantage and then the cause of the disadvantage). So once again, you have no point. I suggest you actually read the rationale behind affirmative action.
    No you can't, because those economic variations would be unique to a specific group. If you excluded the skin color, or the nationality, or any other overt identifier it would make zero difference. The whole point of affirmative action is that the economic and social variations of a particular group are unique to them.

  5. #65

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

    The law repeals mentions race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origins yet the umbrage here from those who see fascism in repealing a law to make it easier to create a more socially just society seem solely focused on the race part. Some (like academics/scientists for example) would say that laser focus alone is evidence that racism is a primary motivator in the opposition. Further evidence would be the KKK and Neo Nazis and the Alt Right and Libertarians being the only vocal opponents in California.

    Lets talk about how we shouldn't allow schools to discriminate based on sex. Based on applications who could easily end up with a student population which is mostly one sex in any given year at some schools. Wouldn't that be to the overall detriment of the student body (would disappoint me if it was all dudes). Race is no different.

  6. #66

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    No you can't, because those economic variations would be unique to a specific group.
    You can control for economic depravity, poor schooling, areas of limited opportunity etc. on an individual basis. You do not need use racial criteria.

    If you excluded the skin color, or the nationality, or any other overt identifier it would make zero difference.
    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, but if excluding race as a variable would "make zero difference", then including it must have no value.

    The whole point of affirmative action is that the economic and social variations of a particular group are unique to them.
    No it is not. The "whole point" of race based affirmative action is to overcome supposed biases within the application/recruitment process and to increase "representation" in certain fields.



  7. #67

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    You can control for economic depravity, poor schooling, areas of limited opportunity etc. on an individual basis. You do not need use racial criteria.
    Police measures are administratively inefficient done on a case-by-case basis. Race is a social construct, by using racial criteria we are really using socio-economic criteria. Affirmative action isn't in place simply because of skin color, it is in place because skin color is tied, at least in some way (the extent of which is debated) to outcomes.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, but if excluding race as a variable would "make zero difference", then including it must have no value.
    If I don't use your name, yet I sufficiently describe you to identify you, then I might as well use your name. Affirmative action uses race to describe a specific criteria.

    No it is not. The "whole point" of race based affirmative action is to overcome supposed biases within the application/recruitment process and to increase "representation" in certain fields.
    "Diversity" is in place precisely because of limitations on affirmative action impose by laws and court rulings, not because it is always or was always the express purpose of affirmative action.

  8. #68

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

    Cope: are you against sex based affirmative action which is commonplace in schools? Do it think it is wrong for schools to balance male to female populations or is it only race that bothers you?

  9. #69

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wanderwegger View Post
    Cope: are you against sex based affirmative action which is commonplace in schools? Do it think it is wrong for schools to balance male to female populations or is it only race that bothers you?
    There is no reason to expect that average group preferences will be uniform; by extension, there is no reason that disparate outcomes ought to be artificially "corrected" by institutional inference. Women are already over represented in higher education. I have no interest in supporting affirmative action programmes aiming to reduce their proportional presence.



  10. #70

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    There is no reason to expect that average group preferences will be uniform;
    There is no expectation that every person will be identical, merely that similarity across specific populations can be found.

  11. #71

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    There is no reason to expect that average group preferences will be uniform; by extension, there is no reason that disparate outcomes ought to be artificially "corrected" by institutional inference. Women are already over represented in higher education. I have no interest in supporting affirmative action programmes aiming to reduce their proportional presence.
    I see you didn't understand me. My question is to you believe the affirmative action programs already in place used universally by universities to use sex as a determining factor should be eliminated, or are you solely concerned with race?

  12. #72

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wanderwegger View Post
    I see you didn't understand me. My question is to you believe the affirmative action programs already in place used universally by universities to use sex as a determining factor should be eliminated, or are you solely concerned with race?
    My answer makes it evident that I don't support gender-based affirmative action.



  13. #73

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    My answer makes it evident that I don't support gender-based affirmative action.
    Follow up: with that in mind I am curious why you think all of your initial posts are focused solely on the racial aspect? Sex, location, natural athletic ability, parents alma mater. All things that play a major role in college admissions and are forms of affirmative action but are in general out of a persons control. What is it about race that you are so particularly opposed to.

    I could guess but I wonder if you are self aware enough to know yourself and solid enough to admit it openly.

  14. #74

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wanderwegger View Post
    Follow up: with that in mind I am curious why you think all of your initial posts are focused solely on the racial aspect? Sex, location, natural athletic ability, parents alma mater. All things that play a major role in college admissions and are forms of affirmative action but are in general out of a persons control. What is it about race that you are so particularly opposed to.
    I'm typically opposed to protected characteristics being used as a basis for preferential treatment.

    I could guess but I wonder if you are self aware enough to know yourself and solid enough to admit it openly.
    If you're going to insist on debating in bad faith, you aren't going to get on well here.



  15. #75

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I'm typically opposed to protected characteristics being used as a basis for preferential treatment.



    If you're going to insist on debating in bad faith, you aren't going to get on well here.
    Explain the bad faith. If I was debating in bad faith I would say it is clear from these statements this person is a racist. I am wondering why you think you are laser focused on race precisely because there might be an answer that is not the obvious one.

    What makes you think my aim is to get on well here? As someone who owns who they are and why they do what they do let me state unequivocally I think posting in the non gaming section of a gaming forum is a sadness for all involved me included.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; July 31, 2020 at 12:09 PM. Reason: Insulting.

  16. #76

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

    Let’s ask the OP. Moderator, two questions, why was your initial comment solely focused on race including things like braids being unnatural? Do you think ponytails are unnatural for white people?

  17. #77
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I'm typically opposed to protected characteristics being used as a basis for preferential treatment.
    This is an interesting place in the conversation, and it speaks to the core issue here.

    I like to go back to the time or date when a particular equality is passed into law to look at the relationship between the established majority mainstream society and that newly enfranchised group at that moment. Does one group have access to more wealth? does one group have cultural aspects that harm another?

    If there isn't a balance between the newly enfranchised group and wider society, then I think it's reasonable to expect that individuals who represent the previous mainstream will continue to live their lives and strive to succeed, benefiting from their previously privileged state simply by having more to start with. Not only is it reasonable to expect that people in the previous mainstream would continue to strive and succeed and benefit from their prior status, it's also reasonable to assume that life would continue to be difficult for those who have been newly enfranchised - and this difficulty is not going to right itself for many generations, no matter how much work that the newly enfranchised population does. You can't just wave a magic wand and make everybody happy and wealthy.

    I think there's a paradox here. How does one establish equality of opportunity when some groups start with a handicap. Newly enfranchised individuals might succeed through a combination of hard work and natural talent, but most people aren't that exceptional, so they will continue to struggle, and the change in law may have no impact on their day to day life at all.

    Certainly I don't like legislation that seeks to use a physical difference as a basis for special treatment, and I don't think it is right to replace a law that enshrines prejudice with a solution that is based on the same prejudice. But I can't reconcile this with the fact that equality of opportunity can't be magically switched on from a start point of inequality, no matter how the situation looks in law.

    To use a purposely exaggerated example to illustrate the point... A plantation farmer can free their slaves, but ushering them of the front lawn, leaving them standing in rags at the end of their driveway looking back at the plantation owner smoking a pipe on the porch of their mansion, doesn't really solve all of the issues that slavery has caused. It's just replacing one unjust experience with another. This is where the paradox begins, and to date, I haven't seen any country solve it adequately.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  18. #78

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

    The best one can hope for is to try for progressive improvement. Will all the solutions be ideal? Impossible. Some basic starting points are address the inequality with the laws of the geography. California’s repeal is clearly aimed at being able to do this. But as important is calling out bad actors hiding behind poor arguments with obvious vile motivations. Don’t let them pretend with appeals like free speech et al. No one has any illusions as to why these bad actors are in opposition to a juster society. Education does not work. Once the jug of a human soul is broken it is unlikely to be mended with rational discourse. Any organization that empowers such people bears the shame and responsibility for the continued injustice of the targeted minority.

  19. #79
    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 Love Mountain View Post
    There is no difference, you're still hating someone because of their skin color. Whether you add other reasons is fairly irrelevant.



    This is nonsensical. It's not okay to hate black people because they're black period.
    Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Judging people based on their race is bad, we agree, even if it isn't the only factor.


    Racism is not just judging, it's often times actively excluding.
    And what's preferential treatment if not exclusion of every group that isn't the recipient of said preferential treatment?
    Example: Say the government decides to give 100$ to every white person. Is this exclusion or preferential treatment? Both. It is preferential treatment of whites, exclusion of everyone else.
    Affirmative action isn't "judging people" based on race, it's identifying which groups are marginalized.
    Yes, based on race (yes, yes, amongst other factors, I know). We agreed that that was a bad thing earlier.

    If you don't feel like a marginalized group, then don't consider yourself one. In the same way if you feel you are not poor, then don't take benefits.
    Yes, I'm sure a lot of people will tell the university "no no, don't accept me, my score was too low".
    Not much of a point, however. Going back to my previous example of government giving money based on race: just because white people can choose not to accept the money, does it make it any less discriminatory? no.
    Last edited by nhytgbvfeco2; July 30, 2020 at 03:23 AM.

  20. #80
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by wanderwegger View Post
    Let’s ask the OP. two questions, why was your initial comment solely focused on race including things like braids being unnatural? Do you think ponytails are unnatural for white people?
    Because racial discrimination is what the amendment outlawed.

    The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
    It also mentions sex and nationality, which we can talk about too. Racial equality however is a very important building block of a functional society.

    You are not born with braids. If your work has a dress code that prohibits braids, then don’t wear braids.

    If it prohibits natural african hair, that is a problem.

    And obviously, if you allow discrimination based on race, but ban discrimination based on hair type, that is rank hypocrisy and demonstrable pandering to black people.
    Last edited by Aexodus; July 30, 2020 at 05:46 AM.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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