[quote]doogie wrote:
How did you know TommyGun was white? Did you just assume he was because he posted facts?
[/quote]
Interesting, I never said he was white, you did. You must be off your meds again.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
How did you know TommyGun was white? Did you just assume he was because he posted facts?
Interesting, I never said he was white, you did. You must be off your meds again.[/quote]
You’re right (see it isn’t hard to admit when you are wrong). You said, “I also believe that it has to do with his own racist tendencies as well.” I should have asked you how you knew he wasn’t also Black.
So, are you willing to admit you pulled your welfare statitics out of your ass.
AlDurr,
True. I wasn’t there before AA, so I have no firsthand knowledge. But since you brought it up again (don’t blame me) let me ask you a question; would you agree that we have minorities succeed before AA and fail after AA? So at some point doesn’t it come down to the individual aspects of a person that makes him/her successful? I understand that many more did succeed after AA, but many still did not and are not today. So can we continue to blame those failures on racial discrimination or is there some other factor at work?
[quote]doogie wrote:
You’re right (see it isn’t hard to admit when you are wrong). You said, “I also believe that it has to do with his own racist tendencies as well.” I should have asked you how you knew he wasn’t also Black.
[/quote]
Again, you are proving that you not only can’t read and comprehend, but your only purpose on here is to cause issues when there are no issues. The statement you are quoting was NOT referring to TommyGunn, it was referring to YOU. I was talking to him about you. Schmuck!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
AlDurr,
True. I wasn’t there before AA, so I have no firsthand knowledge. But since you brought it up again (don’t blame me) let me ask you a question; would you agree that we have minorities succeed before AA and fail after AA? So at some point doesn’t it come down to the individual aspects of a person that makes him/her successful? I understand that many more did succeed after AA, but many still did not and are not today. So can we continue to blame those failures on racial discrimination or is there some other factor at work?
[/quote]
Lorisco,
I can agree that we have had minorities succeed before AA and fail after AA. I have said this before on other occassions. I think where we were having a disagreement is that the numbers that have succeeded before AA are nowhere as high as the numbers that have succeeded after AA (However, you stated above that you do understand, so I think that we are in agreement here too).
Many more doors were opened because of programs like these that were previously shut because of racism. Pointing to minorities that succeeded prior to AA does not say that AA was unecessary without an understanding of the many factors involved with its creation.
I also agree that at some point it comes down to individual aspects of a person that makes him/her successful. However, if that individual is not given an opportunity, no matter how small, they will not be successful. There were so many people that were denied opportunities simply because of race, gender, veteran status, religious background etc. that AA was felt to be necessary. Is it the right way? I don’t know. But I do know for now that it is better than what we had before.
Also, I agree that there are many that still do not succeed even after AA. This can be due to many other reasons, environment, exposure, lack of knowledge, lack of support and encouragement, lack of drive etc.
However, much of the underlying reasons for this can be tracked back to some sort of predjudice (racial, gender etc.). The problem is that it is far easier to create than to destroy. Once ignorance and hopelessness is spread, it is like cancer and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is why you have so many people growing up in certain areas that can never imagine living differently. They don’t know and their environment reinforces this lack of drive and knowledge.
So we can say that it is other factors that have played a part in the failures, but since the creation of the US, racial discrimination has always played a major part of the failures. It is only when a true effort to eliminate racial discrimintaion takes place that many of these failures can be fully addressed. I remain hopeful that this will happen, but it will shake the very foundation of the US system.
I also think that the problem with AA has less to do with its existence and more to do with how individual entities enact AA policies. The government never required any of these entities to have quotas. That is a misconception brought about by those who don’t want to see the playing field leveled. The government never told them that you can’t operate without as specific number of people in these demographics.
They simply said that we will give you money if you do have them. The problem is that these entities wanted the money more than doing things the right way. So they, not the government, established quota systems complete with some of them lowering the bar to get their numbers. If anyone wants to blame someone, they should blame these institutions, not the government, for doing all of us a disservice. That is the basic problem that I have when people start complaining about AA. They don’t understand that the principles of AA are sound. It is these institutions that have fucked it up.
Thank you for your well thought out question. I look forward to discussing this further.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
You’re right (see it isn’t hard to admit when you are wrong). You said, “I also believe that it has to do with his own racist tendencies as well.” I should have asked you how you knew he wasn’t also Black.
Again, you are proving that you not only can’t read and comprehend, but your only purpose on here is to cause issues when there are no issues. The statement you are quoting was NOT referring to TommyGunn, it was referring to YOU. I was talking to him about you. Schmuck![/quote]
No shit dumbass. You said the reason I questioned your statistics and not TommyGuns was because “it has to do with his (my)own racist tendencies as well”. That means you assumed TommyGun is of a different race than you.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
AlDurr,
True. I wasn’t there before AA, so I have no firsthand knowledge. But since you brought it up again (don’t blame me) let me ask you a question; would you agree that we have minorities succeed before AA and fail after AA? So at some point doesn’t it come down to the individual aspects of a person that makes him/her successful? I understand that many more did succeed after AA, but many still did not and are not today. So can we continue to blame those failures on racial discrimination or is there some other factor at work?
Lorisco,
I can agree that we have had minorities succeed before AA and fail after AA. I have said this before on other occassions. I think where we were having a disagreement is that the numbers that have succeeded before AA are nowhere as high as the numbers that have succeeded after AA (However, you stated above that you do understand, so I think that we are in agreement here too).
Many more doors were opened because of programs like these that were previously shut because of racism. Pointing to minorities that succeeded prior to AA does not say that AA was unecessary without an understanding of the many factors involved with its creation.
I also agree that at some point it comes down to individual aspects of a person that makes him/her successful. However, if that individual is not given an opportunity, no matter how small, they will not be successful. There were so many people that were denied opportunities simply because of race, gender, veteran status, religious background etc. that AA was felt to be necessary. Is it the right way? I don’t know. But I do know for now that it is better than what we had before.
Also, I agree that there are many that still do not succeed even after AA. This can be due to many other reasons, environment, exposure, lack of knowledge, lack of support and encouragement, lack of drive etc.
However, much of the underlying reasons for this can be tracked back to some sort of predjudice (racial, gender etc.). The problem is that it is far easier to create than to destroy. Once ignorance and hopelessness is spread, it is like cancer and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is why you have so many people growing up in certain areas that can never imagine living differently. They don’t know and their environment reinforces this lack of drive and knowledge.
So we can say that it is other factors that have played a part in the failures, but since the creation of the US, racial discrimination has always played a major part of the failures. It is only when a true effort to eliminate racial discrimintaion takes place that many of these failures can be fully addressed. I remain hopeful that this will happen, but it will shake the very foundation of the US system.
I also think that the problem with AA has less to do with its existence and more to do with how individual entities enact AA policies. The government never required any of these entities to have quotas. That is a misconception brought about by those who don’t want to see the playing field leveled. The government never told them that you can’t operate without as specific number of people in these demographics.
They simply said that we will give you money if you do have them. The problem is that these entities wanted the money more than doing things the right way. So they, not the government, established quota systems complete with some of them lowering the bar to get their numbers. If anyone wants to blame someone, they should blame these institutions, not the government, for doing all of us a disservice. That is the basic problem that I have when people start complaining about AA. They don’t understand that the principles of AA are sound. It is these institutions that have fucked it up.
Thank you for your well thought out question. I look forward to discussing this further.[/quote]
Al, I have to say bro, you are very reasonable guy to discus issues with. Most of the time you don’t attack me personally for asking the tough questions. Respect!
Perhaps the flaws in AA are the same flaws in welfare, that they create opportunities for manipulation and dependency. Both have built in processes that reward manipulation. For example, as you stated, the quotas are used to get more money (manipulation of the system), and the more kids you have the more money you get from welfare. So perhaps the true flaw is the government putting in programs that encourage or don’t adequately prevent against manipulation. Because regardless of how these programs are written, it is the application of them that causes the problems.
Anyway, do you think the program is still needed today, or does it now cause a perception that there is an uneven playing field among those who are not favored by program?
[quote]doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
You’re right (see it isn’t hard to admit when you are wrong). You said, “I also believe that it has to do with his own racist tendencies as well.” I should have asked you how you knew he wasn’t also Black.
Again, you are proving that you not only can’t read and comprehend, but your only purpose on here is to cause issues when there are no issues. The statement you are quoting was NOT referring to TommyGunn, it was referring to YOU. I was talking to him about you. Schmuck!
No shit dumbass. You said the reason I questioned your statistics and not TommyGuns was because “it has to do with his (my)own racist tendencies as well”. That means you assumed TommyGun is of a different race than you.[/quote]
Who cares?
[quote]doogie sputtered:
More insanity.
[/quote]
That last post made NO sense. We’re done talking.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Al, I have to say bro, you are very reasonable guy to discus issues with. Most of the time you don’t attack me personally for asking the tough questions. Respect!
Perhaps the flaws in AA are the same flaws in welfare, that they create opportunities for manipulation and dependency. Both have built in processes that reward manipulation. For example, as you stated, the quotas are used to get more money (manipulation of the system), and the more kids you have the more money you get from welfare. So perhaps the true flaw is the government putting in programs that encourage or don’t adequately prevent against manipulation. Because regardless of how these programs are written, it is the application of them that causes the problems.
Anyway, do you think the program is still needed today, or does it now cause a perception that there is an uneven playing field among those who are not favored by program?
[/quote]
I have always believed that whenever the government enacts programs, they usually don’t think the whole thing through. The quick solution that they use is to throw money at it and hope that people will act honorably. We know that doesn’t work.
As far as your question is concerned, that is a tough call. On the one hand, if it is removed then there will be an assumption that the playing field is leveled. I don’t believe that has happened yet. I think that it will take another 2-3 generations before that happens, and that is a conservative estimate.
On the other hand, if it is left in place the way it is currently applied, this gives more fuel to the fire of those that have the perception that there is an uneven playing field among those who are not favored by the program. I personally feel that the ones who are yelling the loudest (those who have gained the most from the status quo of an unequal playing field) are also the ones who are against a leveled playing field.
My suggestion would be to enact a policy that these institutions that want to receive the government monies have to prove that the standards haven’t been lowered to get their numbers. If there is evidence to show if they have been lowered so they can pad their numbers, they don’t get the money. This way the spirit of AA is enacted without showing perceived favoritism towards any one group.
I don’t like (and I’m sure others in my position feel the same way) the perception that I got where I am because standards were lowered for me (even though I have proven time and time again that I am just as qualified, and in some cases even more so than my majority counterparts), but I do like the idea that people have to take me into consideration as well as my majority counterparts and that I can’t be eliminated from consideration simply because of the color of my skin or some other factor that has nothing to do with the position.
Lorisco, I try to be reasonable for the most part, but I am human like everyone else. I’m trying to get better at understanding that the written word on a internet posting doesn’t always translate well with the meaning intact. However, there is always times where I lose this understanding. Like I said, I’m human.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
You’re right (see it isn’t hard to admit when you are wrong). You said, “I also believe that it has to do with his own racist tendencies as well.” I should have asked you how you knew he wasn’t also Black.
Again, you are proving that you not only can’t read and comprehend, but your only purpose on here is to cause issues when there are no issues. The statement you are quoting was NOT referring to TommyGunn, it was referring to YOU. I was talking to him about you. Schmuck!
No shit dumbass. You said the reason I questioned your statistics and not TommyGuns was because “it has to do with his (my)own racist tendencies as well”. That means you assumed TommyGun is of a different race than you.
Who cares?[/quote]
I do. He said I questioned his clearly made up statistics because of my racist tendencies. I just want to know why he assumed TommyGun wasn’t Black.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
doogie sputtered:
More insanity.
That last post made NO sense. We’re done talking.
[/quote]
We haven’t been talking. I’ve been asking you for a source on the statistics that you made up and then injected into the thread, and you’ve been hiding behind calling me a racist.
Al, isn’t what we are trying to do is ensure everyone is judged based on their own merits and not by skin color? If so, how can that be accomplished while AA is still around? I mean, if two job candidates are equally qualified, how does choosing one over the other, based on government sanctioned selection criteria, help people to be colorblind?
Don’t you think that as long as we make an issue of race and color (positive or negative) it will remain one? In other words, there are crackers out there who love AA because it gives them ammo to hit their fellow brethren with who are not racists.
If we get the government out of this and have all races stand up for what is right, then these outlier groups will have nothing to say. They will be the freaks and the losers.
I know this may be wishful thinking, but I think perceptions can be changed without a program that requires favoritism to some extent. How can you teach people to deal fairly with all people when there is perceived favoritism?