Are whites racially oppressed?

tom prendergast said:
Do you know how to dispose of Damn Yankee safely?
Click to expand...
Well he's caustic as hell so at a minimum neutralization and stabilization before landfilling would be required and that would also include treatment for all his underlying hazardous constituents (UHC's) though the easiest way to meet all applicable treatment standards would be incineration, though that would cost more.
 
Ice Dancer said:
What a typical asinine comment coming from you. If discrimination is happening from our own government whether it is intentionally or unintentionally it is a BIG FUCKING DEAL! Affirmative Action policy HAS outlived its usefulness. There is evidence that it is in fact causing discrimination against white males. Just because you personally have not been affected does not mean it does not happen.
Click to expand...
The only one who has ever prevented you from getting a job is you.
 
Southern Chicken said:
I'm sorry, but this couldn't be further from the truth. AA is hardly based on the notion that "it serves to cause reduced expectations for minorities". That you or anyone else thinks that Blacks (or women, or other minorities, or persons with a physical disability, or Veterans - ALL protected classes under AA) are getting jobs because the government is threatening companies shows your lack of familiarity with Affirmative Action in the real world. AA is based on the notion of making sure that companies aren't NOT hiring/promoting members of these protected classes simply on the basis of their race. There is a HUGE difference between being singled out and rejected SOLELY because of your race and having a program that encourages companies to be aware of their own demographics and to make sure that they are making a 'good faith effort' to not exclude anyone based solely upon one category. Basically, without AA, white men would likely have continued to hire other white men (that's the premise behind the original legislation/action), thus AA was born.

I think people would greatly benefit from reading up on AA before jumping to conclusions.

Start here---http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm


So, clearly there is still a problem with racism in the US. So if we get rid of AA, then what is the alternative? Should it be by simply getting rid of it and pretending that everything is fine.

I'm sure everyone would love to hear your suggestions.
Click to expand...


The alternative to AA is NOT having race based discrimination against white people as a wrongheaded form of revenge racial discrimnation. It's no justice account per race or anything, discriminating against a whole generation of whites because their great grandfathers may have had slaves implies that somehow the progeny of perpetrators are liable for crimes, this is not how our justice system works.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The alternative to AA is NOT having race based discrimination against white people as a wrongheaded form of revenge racial discrimnation. It's no justice account per race or anything, discriminating against a whole generation of whites because their great grandfathers may have had slaves implies that somehow the progeny of perpetrators are liable for crimes, this is not how our justice system works.
Click to expand...

And this solves the problem with discrimination in minority selection for hiring, HOW????
Which is why AA was created in the first place...

Azzhat, I don't know how familiar you are with the workings of Affirmative Action, but based upon your above assertions, I can only assume not at all. Race is NEVER the primary characteristic used to determine one's qualification. The ONLY time that a person's 'protected class' status might override other qualifications is in the construction field as a result of actual quotas (not perceived quotas) for WOMEN.

Affirmative Action is not just about race. I honestly don't understand why we're still of the mindset that it's a black/white issue when that's just not the case. I'd urge everyone to read my previous link on AA.


One scenario I'd like to offer...

Suppose there's a company in a city with a Black population of 17%, a Hispanic population of 10%, an Asian population of 4% and an American Indian population of 3% (btw, 'American Indian' is the group title used for AA purposes). This company's workforce is 94% white (and it's a company with more than 100 employees). It might appear on the outside that there is some discrimination going on. But there is absolutely NO way to know this without taking a closer look at what goes on within the company's hiring/firing practices and then some. Often times, it's as simple as poor advertising to minorities that creates these disaparities...that's ALL a part of AA. Sometimes the 'pool of qualified applicants' (more AA terminology) does not equal the demographics of the region (actually, this is often the case). So (for example) you might have a pool of qualified applicants in the very same region that is 9% Black, 4% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 1% American Indian. The 94% white workforce doesn't appear so discriminatory when you have these more in depth numbers - and that's EXACTLY what AA entails. The pool of qualified applicants is one of the most important aspects of AA planning. Now suppose this company has an interview for a position that requires a bachelor's degree in Communications and 3 years experience in the specific field (HR). The company has three applicants that meet all of the job requirements: a white male, a Black male, and a woman. Now suppose the white male has 7 years experience but has a poor interview. The black male has exactly 3 years experience but has a wonderful interview. The woman has 4 years experience and has a good interview. ANY ONE of these individuals is qualified for the job. The company decides to hire the woman since she has both additional experience AND a good interview (which happens to be important for this position). She didn't get the job because of Affirmative Action employing 'reverse discrimination'. She got the job because she was what the company was looking for overall. Now had all things been exactly equal with these three applicants, the company is basically in a position to hire whomever they feel will best represent their company.

I continue to be surprised by how many people seem to forget the importance of an interview in the job selection process. Sometimes companies are looking for a certain type of person/personality to fulfill a specific role within the company. In the actual working world of Affirmative Action, it VERY RARELY ever comes down to a person's race being a factor.
 
Southern Chicken said:
And this solves the problem with discrimination in minority selection for hiring, HOW????
Which is why AA was created in the first place...

Azzhat, I don't know how familiar you are with the workings of Affirmative Action, but based upon your above assertions, I can only assume not at all. Race is NEVER the primary characteristic used to determine one's qualification. The ONLY time that a person's 'protected class' status might override other qualifications is in the construction field as a result of actual quotas (not perceived quotas) for WOMEN.

Affirmative Action is not just about race. I honestly don't understand why we're still of the mindset that it's a black/white issue when that's just not the case. I'd urge everyone to read my previous link on AA.


One scenario I'd like to offer...

Suppose there's a company in a city with a Black population of 17%, a Hispanic population of 10%, an Asian population of 4% and an American Indian population of 3% (btw, 'American Indian' is the group title used for AA purposes). This company's workforce is 94% white (and it's a company with more than 100 employees). It might appear on the outside that there is some discrimination going on. But there is absolutely NO way to know this without taking a closer look at what goes on within the company's hiring/firing practices and then some. Often times, it's as simple as poor advertising to minorities that creates these disaparities...that's ALL a part of AA. Sometimes the 'pool of qualified applicants' (more AA terminology) does not equal the demographics of the region (actually, this is often the case). So (for example) you might have a pool of qualified applicants in the very same region that is 9% Black, 4% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 1% American Indian. The 94% white workforce doesn't appear so discriminatory when you have these more in depth numbers - and that's EXACTLY what AA entails. The pool of qualified applicants is one of the most important aspects of AA planning. Now suppose this company has an interview for a position that requires a bachelor's degree in Communications and 3 years experience in the specific field (HR). The company has three applicants that meet all of the job requirements: a white male, a Black male, and a woman. Now suppose the white male has 7 years experience but has a poor interview. The black male has exactly 3 years experience but has a wonderful interview. The woman has 4 years experience and has a good interview. ANY ONE of these individuals is qualified for the job. The company decides to hire the woman since she has both additional experience AND a good interview (which happens to be important for this position). She didn't get the job because of Affirmative Action employing 'reverse discrimination'. She got the job because she was what the company was looking for overall. Now had all things been exactly equal with these three applicants, the company is basically in a position to hire whomever they feel will best represent their company.

I continue to be surprised by how many people seem to forget the importance of an interview in the job selection process. Sometimes companies are looking for a certain type of person/personality to fulfill a specific role within the company. In the actual working world of Affirmative Action, it VERY RARELY ever comes down to a person's race being a factor.
Click to expand...
Bottom line: Affirmative Action is discrimination against white people.
 
Southern Chicken said:
I'm sorry, but this couldn't be further from the truth. AA is hardly based on the notion that "it serves to cause reduced expectations for minorities". That you or anyone else thinks that Blacks (or women, or other minorities, or persons with a physical disability, or Veterans - ALL protected classes under AA) are getting jobs because the government is threatening companies shows your lack of familiarity with Affirmative Action in the real world. AA is based on the notion of making sure that companies aren't NOT hiring/promoting members of these protected classes simply on the basis of their race. There is a HUGE difference between being singled out and rejected SOLELY because of your race and having a program that encourages companies to be aware of their own demographics and to make sure that they are making a 'good faith effort' to not exclude anyone based solely upon one category. Basically, without AA, white men would likely have continued to hire other white men (that's the premise behind the original legislation/action), thus AA was born.

I think people would greatly benefit from reading up on AA before jumping to conclusions.

Start here---http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm


So, clearly there is still a problem with racism in the US. So if we get rid of AA, then what is the alternative? Should it be by simply getting rid of it and pretending that everything is fine.

I'm sure everyone would love to hear your suggestions.
Click to expand...

Read post 67. It refutes your base assumption.
 
Ice Dancer said:
You are fucking ignorant on the matter. I worked for a state agency where it was routine to pass over several of our top candidates until we could fill our Affirmative Action quota...
Click to expand...


Then we have the truth for you and your co-signer that Damn Yankee ------From my link: The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, not are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results…The regulations at 41 CFR 60—2.12(e), 60-2.30, and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals.

PAGE 4

http://www.wickardcompanies.com/Images/10.pdf

or

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3b71cb5b215c393fe910604d33c9fed1&rgn=div5&view=text&node=41:1.2.3.1.2&idno=41#41:1.2.3.1.2.2.1.3


I also noticed how that Damn Yankee side stepped the question I directed to him specifically----


Here it is AGAIN

So if we get rid of AA, then what is the alternative to combat discrimination of minorities in selection? Should it be by simply getting rid of it and pretending that everything is fine.

I'm sure everyone would love to hear your suggestions.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Well he's caustic as hell so at a minimum neutralization and stabilization before landfilling would be required and that would also include treatment for all his underlying hazardous constituents (UHC's) though the easiest way to meet all applicable treatment standards would be incineration, though that would cost more.
Click to expand...

If you dumped him in a septic tank would that count as pollution?
 
Southern Chicken said:
Then we have the truth for you and your co-signer that Damn Yankee ------From my link: The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, not are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results…The regulations at 41 CFR 60—2.12(e), 60-2.30, and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals.

PAGE 4

http://www.wickardcompanies.com/Images/10.pdf

or

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3b71cb5b215c393fe910604d33c9fed1&rgn=div5&view=text&node=41:1.2.3.1.2&idno=41#41:1.2.3.1.2.2.1.3


I also noticed how that Damn Yankee side stepped the question I directed to him specifically----


Here it is AGAIN

So if we get rid of AA, then what is the alternative to combat discrimination of minorities in selection? Should it be by simply getting rid of it and pretending that everything is fine.

I'm sure everyone would love to hear your suggestions.
Click to expand...

Numerical goals? Again, when applying for a state position, there are state tests and applications-from these, lists are developed. States have legal requirements created by Affirmative Action policy that require them to hire specific racial quotas-in addition to this mandatory hiring practice, the state is further incentivized to hire minorities. It is NOT uncommon for several top tier candidates to be passed over because they are white and they are male.

There is little evidence to support your notion that something needs to be "put in place" to prevent racial discrimination. I say this because if we hire based on ability and qualifications and we take those same lists and start at the top then the process is focused not on color, but on qualifications and ability.

Now, understand this, I will not respond to you again unless you get rid of the troll persona- it’s rather disturbing to see how far you go to hide.
 
Southern Chicken said:
And this solves the problem with discrimination in minority selection for hiring, HOW????
Which is why AA was created in the first place...

Azzhat, I don't know how familiar you are with the workings of Affirmative Action, but based upon your above assertions, I can only assume not at all. Race is NEVER the primary characteristic used to determine one's qualification. The ONLY time that a person's 'protected class' status might override other qualifications is in the construction field as a result of actual quotas (not perceived quotas) for WOMEN.

Affirmative Action is not just about race. I honestly don't understand why we're still of the mindset that it's a black/white issue when that's just not the case. I'd urge everyone to read my previous link on AA.


One scenario I'd like to offer...

Suppose there's a company in a city with a Black population of 17%, a Hispanic population of 10%, an Asian population of 4% and an American Indian population of 3% (btw, 'American Indian' is the group title used for AA purposes). This company's workforce is 94% white (and it's a company with more than 100 employees). It might appear on the outside that there is some discrimination going on. But there is absolutely NO way to know this without taking a closer look at what goes on within the company's hiring/firing practices and then some. Often times, it's as simple as poor advertising to minorities that creates these disaparities...that's ALL a part of AA. Sometimes the 'pool of qualified applicants' (more AA terminology) does not equal the demographics of the region (actually, this is often the case). So (for example) you might have a pool of qualified applicants in the very same region that is 9% Black, 4% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 1% American Indian. The 94% white workforce doesn't appear so discriminatory when you have these more in depth numbers - and that's EXACTLY what AA entails. The pool of qualified applicants is one of the most important aspects of AA planning. Now suppose this company has an interview for a position that requires a bachelor's degree in Communications and 3 years experience in the specific field (HR). The company has three applicants that meet all of the job requirements: a white male, a Black male, and a woman. Now suppose the white male has 7 years experience but has a poor interview. The black male has exactly 3 years experience but has a wonderful interview. The woman has 4 years experience and has a good interview. ANY ONE of these individuals is qualified for the job. The company decides to hire the woman since she has both additional experience AND a good interview (which happens to be important for this position). She didn't get the job because of Affirmative Action employing 'reverse discrimination'. She got the job because she was what the company was looking for overall. Now had all things been exactly equal with these three applicants, the company is basically in a position to hire whomever they feel will best represent their company.

I continue to be surprised by how many people seem to forget the importance of an interview in the job selection process. Sometimes companies are looking for a certain type of person/personality to fulfill a specific role within the company. In the actual working world of Affirmative Action, it VERY RARELY ever comes down to a person's race being a factor.
Click to expand...


The only problem i see is active institutionalized discrimination against white males. You say it doesnt create setasides or quotas, but it does. Whites are discriminated against due to race. That's not constitutional. Past injustice is not remedied by new, fresh injustice.
 
Topspin said:
Ice slut works in a gov agencey! Too funny
Click to expand...

That would be worked...dope.


topdope is so stupid-----


How stupid is he?

He's so stupid that under "Education" on his job application, he put "Hooked on Phonics."


Now topdope how is it odd that I used to work for a government agency??? Do you think government jobs are only for democrats?...

OH WAIT YOU'RE TOPDOPE OF COURSE YOU HAVE STUPID LOGIC!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top