Why the anger? The minorities got cheaper cupcakes out of it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
To rally behind a cause like this is to be stupid enough to ignore the fact that certain groups (whites, heterosexuals, cisgendered, men) get preferential treatment already.
The pastry sale is a good analogy, if, and only if, every student on campus is restricted to a stipend wherein white males get the most spending money and Native American females get the least.
As much as I find fault with AA, it’s much better than the rightwing solution of “Pretend there is no problem and do nothing.”[/quote]
You remind me of the do-gooder politicians who want racism to be alive and well so they can define themselves by what they’re against. If you ask me, “doing nothing” is exactly what needs to be done.[/quote]
Do you say that because you don’t see inequality in our society as it is? Or because you think those inequalities are justified?[/quote]
Of course some inequality is justified. Its inherent in our system there is no assumption of equality of condition.
This has to be one of the dumbest threads ever though. From the protesters to someone actually asserting PROLIFE protesters are the ones threatened with violence. I know of at least 7 murders of prochoice activists, off hand I know of none from the prolife crowd.
W
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re talking about regarding prolife/choice. I must have missed that part of the thread.
Can you expound on the first part, though? How is some inequality (such as, say, whites consistently getting preferential treatment in hiring and promotion) justified?[/quote]
A free society in particular a capitalist one is based on the idea of equality of opportunity not the idea that everyone will have an equal quality of life or equal condition. You get out what you put in as it were. Now certainly I would agree that there isn’t equality of opportunity but I think its much less now than it was historically. The conservative would say that government regulations have caused problems that the free market would alleviate. Someone who believes in massive government legislation to equalize opportunity would be the other extreme. Obviously the best approach would be somewhere in the middle as some labor laws are in my opinion necessary, but nothing like say quotas.
One thing you fail to realize is the equality of opportunity for the poor and uneducated is very close. There isn’t a tremendous difference in opportunity between someone who is poor uneducated and white and someone who is the same and black. Wealth and power much of it inherited opens up many more avenues of opportunity.
In a capitalist system you need inequalities to drive the economy and production. What is the incentive to work if say we suddenly decided that we were going to enforce true equality of condition in that no one could make over 10,000 a year without entering a 100 percent marginal tax bracket that took all overages and divided it amongst the people not making this number.
Let me turn it around on you. How would you institute a system that increased the hiring and promotion of minority candidates that didn’t do this at the expense of not hiring a more qualified person some of the time? Or would this inequality be ok? Seems this would be a recipe for a mediocre company.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
To rally behind a cause like this is to be stupid enough to ignore the fact that certain groups (whites, heterosexuals, cisgendered, men) get preferential treatment already.
…
[/quote]
where exactly ? [/quote]
As it pertains to the discussion, in hiring practices, lending practices, etc. Every study shows that dominant groups get preferential treatment in being hired and promoted - at this point its enough for me to just say google it.
It happens in general society as well, of course, but thats a little outside the scope of this discussion. [/quote]
Every time I hear someone complain about discriminatory hiring practices in the field I’m in which is IT I simply point out to them that about 50% of employees in my department are immigrants from India who apparently aren’t discriminated against for some reason, regardless of the fact that most of them have temporary work permits that expire eventually and the risk of losing the person after all the training, knowledge transfer etc etc is mush higher than that of an American citizen. Contrary to the popular belief - a very small number of them - less then 10% were brought here by various outsourced companies and make less then their american-born coworkers, the rest make the same.
Moreover, black dudes’ resumes in IT are like gems lol, I’m going to honestly tell you that they get preferential treatment, especially in bigger, public companies where somewhat “secret” HR policies of race quotas do exist and if you think they favor whites you’re mistaken.
Lending practices are a numbers game - your credit score and your assets trump everything else.
If blacks have lower credit scores (which they do) than whites or asians and they get rejected by lenders more often - it’s not because the lenders are racist. There are other groups - single people under 30 for example - who, on average, have lower credit scores and also get rejected more often.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Lending practices are a numbers game - your credit score and your assets trump everything else.
If blacks have lower credit scores (which they do) than whites or asians and they get rejected by lenders more often - it’s not because the lenders are racist. There are other groups - single people under 30 for example - who, on average, have lower credit scores and also get rejected more often.
[/quote]
Right. This is where it becomes systemic racism - the fact that blacks get rejected more often doesn’t mean every lender carries personal racist beliefs. After all, like you said, they’re following the same rules for everyone. But why is it, though, that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than whites or asians?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
To rally behind a cause like this is to be stupid enough to ignore the fact that certain groups (whites, heterosexuals, cisgendered, men) get preferential treatment already.
[/quote]
Okay, please list what preferential treatment I’ve received. Specifics. and also show how all minorities haven’t.
No, because in the real world you get paid for your work. No one stipulates what amount each race makes.
[quote]
As much as I find fault with AA, it’s much better than the rightwing solution of “Pretend there is no problem and do nothing.”[/quote]
First do no harm. Doing nothing is certainly better than sweeping institutionalized racist policy.
Please come up with some justification why race should be used as a criteria on top of individual merit and background. Being poor or from a bad area, or from a broken home are all outside of race. There is no justification for making strictly racial preferences on top of that.
If you want to help get people without advantages into school, then do that. Think it’s not fair for the poor, help the poor. Think kids from broken homes need help, help kids from broken homes. But helping people based on race (excluding people who need help because of skin color and helping those who don’t need it for the same reason) is, like I said, dumber than a dog fart.
Explain why individual background and life experience is insufficient without knowing a person’s race.
Remember, there are more poor white people than black people. Why would you not help the majority of the poor?
If you want to feel better about your personal racial guilt, use your own time, money and effort, not mine.
Disparity and discrimination are 2 different things. Otherwise the NBA discriminates against white players, the MLB discriminates against whites and blacks, and heart disease is both racist and sexist.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Lending practices are a numbers game - your credit score and your assets trump everything else.
If blacks have lower credit scores (which they do) than whites or asians and they get rejected by lenders more often - it’s not because the lenders are racist. There are other groups - single people under 30 for example - who, on average, have lower credit scores and also get rejected more often.
[/quote]
Right. This is where it becomes systemic racism - the fact that blacks get rejected more often doesn’t mean every lender carries personal racist beliefs. After all, like you said, they’re following the same rules for everyone. But why is it, though, that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than whites or asians?[/quote]
No sir, Affirmative Action is systemic racism, so are race quota policies in hiring.
Those official policies are based on race and are a perfect example of what systemic racism is all about.
DoubleDuce nailed it in terms of disparity vs. discrimination.
As I mentioned in my previous post - blacks are just one of the groups with a lower average credit scores, other groups like say unmarried males under 30 also demonstrate that disparity.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But why is it, though, that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than whites or asians?[/quote]
Because they tend to do things that make them riskier to loan to.
wow typical racist liberal. Credit score does not take into account race, but you say it does.
Fing bigot.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Lending practices are a numbers game - your credit score and your assets trump everything else.
If blacks have lower credit scores (which they do) than whites or asians and they get rejected by lenders more often - it’s not because the lenders are racist. There are other groups - single people under 30 for example - who, on average, have lower credit scores and also get rejected more often.
[/quote]
Right. This is where it becomes systemic racism - the fact that blacks get rejected more often doesn’t mean every lender carries personal racist beliefs. After all, like you said, they’re following the same rules for everyone. But why is it, though, that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than whites or asians?[/quote]
No sir, Affirmative Action is systemic racism, so are race quota policies in hiring.
Those official policies are based on race and are a perfect example of what systemic racism is all about.
DoubleDuce nailed it in terms of disparity vs. discrimination.
As I mentioned in my previous post - blacks are just one of the groups with a lower average credit scores, other groups like say unmarried males under 30 also demonstrate that disparity.
[/quote]
You seem to have glossed over my question. Why is it that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than blacks or asians?
And if you’re going to give a tautological answer (like "because they do things that cause them to have lower credit scores), I’ll naturally respond by asking what leads them to doing those things that cause them to have a lower credit score.
Here’s my guess: white people generally come from families that make more money - so a white kid is likely to get approved for a credit card earlier in life. Add to that the fact that, if the kid is irresponsible, a white family is more likely to be able to step in and pay it off. Add to that the fact that (again) whites tend to get preferential treatment in callbacks/hires/promotions, and the white kid is more likely to be making more money than the black kid, making him more likely to be able to pay off more debt and establish better credit
Perhaps systemic racism was an incorrect phrasing for what I’m talking about - but the fact is, advantage is passed down from parent to child, and a system that keeps the advantaged (white, men, heterosexual, cisgendered) at a cost to the disadvantaged (others) is inherently unethical.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Lending practices are a numbers game - your credit score and your assets trump everything else.
If blacks have lower credit scores (which they do) than whites or asians and they get rejected by lenders more often - it’s not because the lenders are racist. There are other groups - single people under 30 for example - who, on average, have lower credit scores and also get rejected more often.
[/quote]
Right. This is where it becomes systemic racism - the fact that blacks get rejected more often doesn’t mean every lender carries personal racist beliefs. After all, like you said, they’re following the same rules for everyone. But why is it, though, that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than whites or asians?[/quote]
No sir, Affirmative Action is systemic racism, so are race quota policies in hiring.
Those official policies are based on race and are a perfect example of what systemic racism is all about.
DoubleDuce nailed it in terms of disparity vs. discrimination.
As I mentioned in my previous post - blacks are just one of the groups with a lower average credit scores, other groups like say unmarried males under 30 also demonstrate that disparity.
[/quote]
You seem to have glossed over my question. Why is it that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than blacks or asians?
And if you’re going to give a tautological answer (like "because they do things that cause them to have lower credit scores), I’ll naturally respond by asking what leads them to doing those things that cause them to have a lower credit score.
Here’s my guess: white people generally come from families that make more money - so a white kid is likely to get approved for a credit card earlier in life. Add to that the fact that, if the kid is irresponsible, a white family is more likely to be able to step in and pay it off. Add to that the fact that (again) whites tend to get preferential treatment in callbacks/hires/promotions, and the white kid is more likely to be making more money than the black kid, making him more likely to be able to pay off more debt and establish better credit
Perhaps systemic racism was an incorrect phrasing for what I’m talking about - but the fact is, advantage is passed down from parent to child, and a system that keeps the advantaged (white, men, heterosexual, cisgendered) at a cost to the disadvantaged (others) is inherently unethical.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Lending practices are a numbers game - your credit score and your assets trump everything else.
If blacks have lower credit scores (which they do) than whites or asians and they get rejected by lenders more often - it’s not because the lenders are racist. There are other groups - single people under 30 for example - who, on average, have lower credit scores and also get rejected more often.
[/quote]
Right. This is where it becomes systemic racism - the fact that blacks get rejected more often doesn’t mean every lender carries personal racist beliefs. After all, like you said, they’re following the same rules for everyone. But why is it, though, that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than whites or asians?[/quote]
No sir, Affirmative Action is systemic racism, so are race quota policies in hiring.
Those official policies are based on race and are a perfect example of what systemic racism is all about.
DoubleDuce nailed it in terms of disparity vs. discrimination.
As I mentioned in my previous post - blacks are just one of the groups with a lower average credit scores, other groups like say unmarried males under 30 also demonstrate that disparity.
[/quote]
You seem to have glossed over my question. Why is it that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than blacks or asians?
And if you’re going to give a tautological answer (like "because they do things that cause them to have lower credit scores), I’ll naturally respond by asking what leads them to doing those things that cause them to have a lower credit score.
Here’s my guess: white people generally come from families that make more money - so a white kid is likely to get approved for a credit card earlier in life. Add to that the fact that, if the kid is irresponsible, a white family is more likely to be able to step in and pay it off. Add to that the fact that (again) whites tend to get preferential treatment in callbacks/hires/promotions, and the white kid is more likely to be making more money than the black kid, making him more likely to be able to pay off more debt and establish better credit
Perhaps systemic racism was an incorrect phrasing for what I’m talking about - but the fact is, advantage is passed down from parent to child, and a system that keeps the advantaged (white, men, heterosexual, cisgendered) at a cost to the disadvantaged (others) is inherently unethical.
[/quote]
My dad’s parents were poor. We were poor when I was born. Making using race, instead of individual background dumb.
But even denying that, you have shown no evidence to support any of your notions.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Lending practices are a numbers game - your credit score and your assets trump everything else.
If blacks have lower credit scores (which they do) than whites or asians and they get rejected by lenders more often - it’s not because the lenders are racist. There are other groups - single people under 30 for example - who, on average, have lower credit scores and also get rejected more often.
[/quote]
Right. This is where it becomes systemic racism - the fact that blacks get rejected more often doesn’t mean every lender carries personal racist beliefs. After all, like you said, they’re following the same rules for everyone. But why is it, though, that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than whites or asians?[/quote]
No sir, Affirmative Action is systemic racism, so are race quota policies in hiring.
Those official policies are based on race and are a perfect example of what systemic racism is all about.
DoubleDuce nailed it in terms of disparity vs. discrimination.
As I mentioned in my previous post - blacks are just one of the groups with a lower average credit scores, other groups like say unmarried males under 30 also demonstrate that disparity.
[/quote]
You seem to have glossed over my question. Why is it that blacks consistently have lower credit scores than blacks or asians?
And if you’re going to give a tautological answer (like "because they do things that cause them to have lower credit scores), I’ll naturally respond by asking what leads them to doing those things that cause them to have a lower credit score.
Here’s my guess: white people generally come from families that make more money - so a white kid is likely to get approved for a credit card earlier in life. Add to that the fact that, if the kid is irresponsible, a white family is more likely to be able to step in and pay it off. Add to that the fact that (again) whites tend to get preferential treatment in callbacks/hires/promotions, and the white kid is more likely to be making more money than the black kid, making him more likely to be able to pay off more debt and establish better credit
Perhaps systemic racism was an incorrect phrasing for what I’m talking about - but the fact is, advantage is passed down from parent to child, and a system that keeps the advantaged (white, men, heterosexual, cisgendered) at a cost to the disadvantaged (others) is inherently unethical.
[/quote]
Now that you’ve turned it into an income debate vs. a race debate I’m going to agree.
Yes, I won’t be against universities giving breaks to students with lower income, which some of them do already. That’s perfectly fine. If some kids has good scores but can’t afford to pay for tuition full time, sure, pick a few that have the highest scores and cut their tuition or whatever if the budget can handle that. Black, white, asian - whatever.
But a policy that dictates to pick a kid with the lower score over the kid with the higher score based on his race is so blatantly racist (and is exposed by the cupcake sale) that it really amuses me to see libs defending it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why the anger? The minorities got cheaper cupcakes out of it.[/quote]
I was waiting on that…
This is news? Guys, people have been doing these bake sales on college campuses for at least 6 years! Where were you guys?
Btw, it only makes sense that a policy favoring one group would only last until that group had caught up. Then is should be promptly discarded. Women are caught up. I don’t care what the others say. More of us are graduating because we take instruction well and therefore in a few years more of us will be holding higher positions. You can probably take us off the list.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
To rally behind a cause like this is to be stupid enough to ignore the fact that certain groups (whites, heterosexuals, cisgendered, men) get preferential treatment already.
…
[/quote]
where exactly ? [/quote]
As it pertains to the discussion, in hiring practices, lending practices, etc. Every study shows that dominant groups get preferential treatment in being hired and promoted - at this point its enough for me to just say google it.
It happens in general society as well, of course, but thats a little outside the scope of this discussion. [/quote]
OMG…you mean people that have are the larger portion of the population have higher acceptances rates??? You mean because there is more of them they have a larger stock of smart people to go to college?