Libertarian? Me? Hahahahahaha.
Somewhere, bt is rubbing his hands together with glee.
All snark aside, yes. There are are several companies that are mostly one ethnicity, but can and and do hire others. There are those that prefer to keep things uniracial. As a consume, it's up to me who I patronize, and I talk with my money. And yes, I support non discriminatory laws, which is why I would want a rating system - - as a consumer, it's next to impossible to know who is breaking or skirting around these laws without some type of rating system as people rarely proclaim their bigotry, bias or what have you - - they may not even know what they are doing if they are a truly gigantic megacorp. I would prefer the government do the raring with an appeals process in place run by a third company. As most people talk with their money, I don't think it would be a meaningless pr exercise - even bigots don't like to be seen as bigots nowadays, tak a look at those Golden Dawn idiots.It seems like the standard libertarian claptrap to me. I don't have a lot of faith in using rating agencies for this kind of thing.
Also remember that an awful lot of business doesn't interact directly with consumers. They sell to other businesses or contract to other businesses. Much harder to put any pressure on them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You want to give to one, you take from another. sometimes another that needs it just as much. screw your sick version of humanity.im against ANY group suffering,Then suck it up. Racial minorities, especially the hispanic and black minorities, overwhelmingly start off worse than the average white person, and overwhelmingly are afforded fewer opportunities for upward social mobility, while at the same time being exposed to countless enticing avenues for downward social mobility, from a very young age.
Those are the groups that are suffering the most, and that's why we balance the odds a little for them.
Grow some humanity.
In the 18th century, white, landed males held 100% of the voting power in the United States. By the mid-20th century, they held substantially less than half that. The country saw inequality, and rectified it by granting voting power to racial minorities and women at the expense of the voting power of white, landed men.
EQUALITY ALWAYS COMES AT A COST. The quest for equality only exists because things are unequal to begin with. Any increase in equality for a certain group will mean a decrease in power for the group that benefited from the inequality.
If it were up to you and your insane ideology, blacks and women would never have had the right to vote because you'd defend the voting power of you and your white, male friends against all challengers. After all, why should white men suffer and losing voting power just to even things out for blacks and women?
Why are you guys even trying? Nothing is going to change him.
No, probably not. But there is at least some ground to be had in exposing his ideas as logically untenable, morally bankrupt, and horrifically narrow-minded. If there is anyone paying attention to this thread who is considering whether Andrew R's argument has merit, our goal should be to expose it in such a way as to end any such consideration.
Libertarian? Me? Hahahahahaha.
Somewhere, bt is rubbing his hands together with glee.
Yes, I dearly miss Comrade Thorn's presence.
I'd like to see him argue with Citizen Betts. Preferably, when he had been drinking.
Hee hee!
|
And your version, where white offenders are more likely to get jobs than black non-offenders is a better version of humanity?You want to give to one, you take from another. sometimes another that needs it just as much. screw your sick version of humanity.im against ANY group suffering,Then suck it up. Racial minorities, especially the hispanic and black minorities, overwhelmingly start off worse than the average white person, and overwhelmingly are afforded fewer opportunities for upward social mobility, while at the same time being exposed to countless enticing avenues for downward social mobility, from a very young age.
Those are the groups that are suffering the most, and that's why we balance the odds a little for them.
Grow some humanity.
No, but forcing and coercing to get more minorities hired at any cost is not better
|
|
Why are you guys even trying? Nothing is going to change him.No, probably not. But there is at least some ground to be had in exposing his ideas as logically untenable, morally bankrupt, and horrifically narrow-minded. If there is anyone paying attention to this thread who is considering whether Andrew R's argument has merit, our goal should be to expose it in such a way as to end any such consideration.
Or so those of you that agree can pat yourself on the back about how morally superior you are when your lovely ideology is costing someone else.
but but but but There may be as many as 10 people who commit voter fraud! PER YEAR! ZOMG.
In other news, good article that pretty much confirms my suspicion that our rulers and our media are psychopaths. Link
I haven't read the article yet, but it looks juicy.
But, did you know, Comrade Knife, that not only are they psychopaths but also...
Vive le Galt!
|
|
You want to give to one, you take from another. sometimes another that needs it just as much. screw your sick version of humanity.im against ANY group suffering,Then suck it up. Racial minorities, especially the hispanic and black minorities, overwhelmingly start off worse than the average white person, and overwhelmingly are afforded fewer opportunities for upward social mobility, while at the same time being exposed to countless enticing avenues for downward social mobility, from a very young age.
Those are the groups that are suffering the most, and that's why we balance the odds a little for them.
Grow some humanity.
In the 18th century, white, landed males held 100% of the voting power in the United States. By the mid-20th century, they held substantially less than half that. The country saw inequality, and rectified it by granting voting power to racial minorities and women at the expense of the voting power of white, landed men.
EQUALITY ALWAYS COMES AT A COST. The quest for equality only exists because things are unequal to begin with. Any increase in equality for a certain group will mean a decrease in power for the group that benefited from the inequality.
If it were up to you and your insane ideology, blacks and women would never have had the right to vote because you'd defend the voting power of you and your white, male friends against all challengers. After all, why should white men suffer and losing voting power just to even things out for blacks and women?
No, this is where you don't seem to get it. taking the vote away from whites to give them to the others is more akin to your love of making sure that white men have to work harder to get a job or into a school when women and minorities can scream discrimination and say gimme. Giving someone a vote doesn't take the vote from another, jobs are different.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't know.
I went to public college, I've worked in relatively PC Massachusetts my entire life, I've never been adversely affected by affirmative action.
I'm not saying it never happens, but I have to wonder how it is that minorities are stealing all the white man's jobs when black unemployment is roughly twice that of white unemployment.
No, this is where you don't seem to get it. taking the vote away from whites to give them to the others is more akin to your love of making sure that white men have to work harder to get a job or into a school when women and minorities can scream discrimination and say gimme. Giving someone a vote doesn't take the vote from another, jobs are different.You want to give to one, you take from another. sometimes another that needs it just as much. screw your sick version of humanity.im against ANY group suffering,Then suck it up. Racial minorities, especially the hispanic and black minorities, overwhelmingly start off worse than the average white person, and overwhelmingly are afforded fewer opportunities for upward social mobility, while at the same time being exposed to countless enticing avenues for downward social mobility, from a very young age.
Those are the groups that are suffering the most, and that's why we balance the odds a little for them.
Grow some humanity.
In the 18th century, white, landed males held 100% of the voting power in the United States. By the mid-20th century, they held substantially less than half that. The country saw inequality, and rectified it by granting voting power to racial minorities and women at the expense of the voting power of white, landed men.
EQUALITY ALWAYS COMES AT A COST. The quest for equality only exists because things are unequal to begin with. Any increase in equality for a certain group will mean a decrease in power for the group that benefited from the inequality.
If it were up to you and your insane ideology, blacks and women would never have had the right to vote because you'd defend the voting power of you and your white, male friends against all challengers. After all, why should white men suffer and losing voting power just to even things out for blacks and women?
So..when can minorities and women hold jobs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When they earn them by the same standard as a white man
Well, that should be easy! They have access to all the same resources, income, and advantages that white men ha-- oh, wait.
but but but but There may be as many as 10 people who commit voter fraud! PER YEAR! ZOMG.
In other news, good article that pretty much confirms my suspicion that our rulers and our media are psychopaths. Link
I read the article. This is exactly what I'm talking about. This used to be the kind of things people would at least pretend to be against. Now it has become a consensus; people either cheer for it or try to explain it away. This guy is just an extreme example of this kind of behaviour.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't know.
I went to public college, I've worked in relatively PC Massachusetts my entire life, I've never been adversely affected by affirmative action.
I'm not saying it never happens, but I have to wonder how it is that minorities are stealing all the white man's jobs when black unemployment is roughly twice that of white unemployment.
It's like there's some variable other than facts at work here. What could it possibly be?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, this is where you don't seem to get it. taking the vote away from whites to give them to the others is more akin to your love of making sure that white men have to work harder to get a job or into a school when women and minorities can scream discrimination and say gimme. Giving someone a vote doesn't take the vote from another, jobs are different.
I was really hoping this wouldn't be necessary. I tried to use a point that was clear, explaining in detail exactly how what you want is analogous to depriving minorities and women of suffrage. It would have been heartening for you to have internalized the point.
But you didn't.
So I'll repeat myself.
AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR NATION'S HISTORY, white men had 100% of the country's voting power. 100%. 100%. Following so far?
AS WE STAND TODAY, white men have substantially less than HALF of the voting power they once did. LESS THAN HALF.
Let's recap. I know that was a lot to process.
White men had 100% of the voting power. Now they have much less than 50%. The difference in voting power was GIVEN to those who were previously unable to vote (including women and blacks).
No, white men did not have the vote taken from them. They had voting power taken from them, and given to those who had none. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY you can argue that granting women suffrage, or granting blacks suffrage, was NOT a case of taking something from one group who had something and giving some of that advantage to those who lacked it.
Did you never wonder why granting suffrage was opposed by white men? They didn't want to lose the monopoly hold they had on the country's political process.
There's a lot of talk this election season about redistribution of wealth, and it's treated like a political bludgeon by the Republican party. Granting women and blacks the vote was just redistribution of a different type - redistribution of voting power.
After all, you're not talking about having the ability to work taken from you. You can still apply for jobs, and you'll probably eventually get one, even if you (OH NO) get passed over for a woman, or a black person who may or may not have been slightly less qualified than you (yeah, that must be the reason you didn't get the job). You're just talking about them taking a little bit of that opportunity from you - a little bit of your power to gain employment, if you will.
I'm white. I'm male. I'm not wealthy. I've been employed, and I've been unemployed. And I've applied to literally hundreds of jobs. You know what I've never once even thought of using as an excuse for not getting one of the jobs I applied for? "Oh, they probably gave the job to a less-qualified woman."
So grow some humanity. Not to mention some personal responsibility.
Funny, I never thought stormfront.org and paizo.com were that easy to confuse...
Funny, I never thought stormfront.org and paizo.com were that easy to confuse...
We did have that Holocaust denier a few months back.
No, but forcing and coercing to get more minorities hired at any cost is not betterAnd your version, where white offenders are more likely to get jobs than black non-offenders is a better version of humanity?You want to give to one, you take from another. sometimes another that needs it just as much. screw your sick version of humanity.im against ANY group suffering,Then suck it up. Racial minorities, especially the hispanic and black minorities, overwhelmingly start off worse than the average white person, and overwhelmingly are afforded fewer opportunities for upward social mobility, while at the same time being exposed to countless enticing avenues for downward social mobility, from a very young age.
Those are the groups that are suffering the most, and that's why we balance the odds a little for them.
Grow some humanity.
So you think it's bad that racism exists and affects hiring practices, but you think nothing should be done about it.
|
|
So you think it's bad that racism exists and affects hiring practices, but you think nothing should be done about it.No, but forcing and coercing to get more minorities hired at any cost is not betterAnd your version, where white offenders are more likely to get jobs than black non-offenders is a better version of humanity?You want to give to one, you take from another. sometimes another that needs it just as much. screw your sick version of humanity.im against ANY group suffering,Then suck it up. Racial minorities, especially the hispanic and black minorities, overwhelmingly start off worse than the average white person, and overwhelmingly are afforded fewer opportunities for upward social mobility, while at the same time being exposed to countless enticing avenues for downward social mobility, from a very young age.
Those are the groups that are suffering the most, and that's why we balance the odds a little for them.
Grow some humanity.
Not institutional government blessed, no mandated, racism.
|
|
No, this is where you don't seem to get it. taking the vote away from whites to give them to the others is more akin to your love of making sure that white men have to work harder to get a job or into a school when women and minorities can scream discrimination and say gimme. Giving someone a vote doesn't take the vote from another, jobs are different.I was really hoping this wouldn't be necessary. I tried to use a point that was clear, explaining in detail exactly how what you want is analogous to depriving minorities and women of suffrage. It would have been heartening for you to have internalized the point.
But you didn't.
So I'll repeat myself.
AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR NATION'S HISTORY, white men had 100% of the country's voting power. 100%. 100%. Following so far?
AS WE STAND TODAY, white men have substantially less than HALF of the voting power they once did. LESS THAN HALF.
Let's recap. I know that was a lot to process.
White men had 100% of the voting power. Now they have much less than 50%. The difference in voting power was GIVEN to those who were previously unable to vote (including women and blacks).
No, white men did not have the vote taken from them. They had voting power taken from them, and given to those who had none. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY you can argue that granting women suffrage, or granting blacks suffrage, was NOT a case of taking something from one group who had something and giving some of that advantage to those who lacked it.
Did you never wonder why granting suffrage was opposed by white men? They didn't want to lose the monopoly hold they had on the country's political process.
There's a lot of talk this election season about redistribution of wealth, and it's treated like a political bludgeon by the Republican party. Granting women and blacks the...
Funny, YOU are in favor of handing bonuses to some for the situation of their birth (race and gender) but want to accuse ME, the one that says everyone should earn by their own merits, of lacking personal responsibility. Just comical right there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because in 2012, suffrage is a "bonus."
I'm sorry Andrew, but your defense of white privilege (which is exactly what it is, whether you understand that or not) just isn't ever going to play well here -- you're going to have to seek affirmation elsewhere.
So, more fun with life under Obama:
Kshama Sawant was fired.
Who is Kshama Sawant?
The change.org link is kind of light on details, but here's what I got from my commie listserve:
Seattle Central Community College (SCCC) has fired a hard-working professor who was an activist in Occupy, teaches classes that provide a critical analysis of conservative economic theory, and was among those instrumental in bringing Occupy to SCCC after police evicted it from Westlake.
Dr. Sawant has had glowing evaluations from her students, and exceptional performance reviews from her departme
nt. But she teaches from the point of view of the overall needs of society, in other words the 99% rather than the 1%. SCCC claims to be committed to diversity in ideas as well as ethnicity and gender balance. Firing Dr. Sawant violates all of these principles.
This also brings to the fore the astonishing lack of rights of part-time college professors. Students probably don’t know that part-time staff can be fired and removed for any reason or no reason, without any right to defend themselves. Since the vast majority of teachers at SCCC are now part-time, this leads teachers to tailor their lesson plans to what they perceive will be acceptable to the SCCC bureaucracy. Clearly, this reduces the diversity of ideas at SCCC and in this case represents an attack on ideas considered hostile to the 1%.
In addition to her activism in the Occupy movement, Dr. Sawant was a vocal opponent of the attacks on free speech by the SCCC administration that were challenged at several public forums at the end of the 2012 academic year. She has also been active in her union in calling for an end to higher education budget cuts and tuition increases. The underfunding of higher education has led to an increasing proportion of faculty being forced into grossly underpaid and insecure part-time positions. The SCCC administration has sought to force through their agenda of cuts by attempting to force full-time and part-time faculty to compete with each other to protect their livelihoods. We argue that we must completely reject this divide-and-rule strategy and defend the rights of all faculty, as well as students, against these brutal attacks on higher education.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Dr. Sawant was fired in retaliation for her activist role at SCCC or for her challenge to right-wing economic views in the classroom. Discrimination on the basis of political views is illegal in the city of Seattle as well as ethically indefensible. The SCCC bureaucracy seeks to protect itself by denying the political basis of the firing, while providing no alternate, plausible explanation why Dr. Sawant was not retained in her position, given her exceptional student evaluations and performance.
In the spring of 2012, Dr. Sawant was upbraided by the college administration for not using a textbook that was favored by the head of her department. This text was written by N. Gregory Mankiw, a controversial ultra-conservative economist who served as the head of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, and is now a member of Mitt Romney's 2012 election campaign. On November 2, 2011, about 70 students walked out of Mankiw's Economics 10 class at Harvard. They handed Mankiw an open letter critical of his course, saying in part that it “espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today ... it offers only one heavily skewed perspective rather than a solid grounding on which other courses can expand”.
Forcing a professor to use a particular textbook is a blatant violation of any reasonable idea of academic freedom in higher education. Dr. Sawant was trying to defend her students from this defective, narrow-minded perspective. Conservative economics professors hold that their pro-corporate viewpoint is the only way an economics class can be legitimately taught, while in reality their approach serves as an uncritical defense of the disastrous economic policies that helped create the current economic crisis and that perpetuate inequality and poverty.
Instead of valuing academic diversity, the administration fired Dr. Sawant, and the students she should have been teaching this fall will now be exposed only to this "one heavily skewed perspective".
Occupy has demonstrated the growing anger at the top-down economic model taught by those who support Mankiw's textbook. The non-renewal of a part-time professor who had the courage to help bring Occupy to campus is a chilling precedent which threatens all academic freedom – the freedom to think for oneself – and cannot be allowed to stand. It is a threat to the diversity that students and the community expect at our community colleges.
This action by the administration is one of the latest in a series of attacks on the campus community, such as the ending of the drama, journalism, interpreter training, and film and video programs, the closure of the daycare center, the shutting down of the City Collegian newspaper, and the elimination of elections for student government.
DEMANDS
Immediate reinstatement of Dr. Sawant in the Winter 2013 quarter, including back pay for loss of earnings in Fall 2012 quarter.
Retain the two new part-time professors hired this Fall to teach economics courses. Take action against excessive moonlighting, which reduces diversity and quality of education at SCCC.
Increased job security for part-time teachers. An end to arbitrary firings, and for a legitimate appeal process.
So, more fun with life under Obama:
Kshama Sawant was fired.
Who is Kshama Sawant?
The change.org link is kind of light on details, but here's what I got from my commie listserve:
** spoiler omitted **...
I don't get I... Did Obama fire her personally?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
This thread was started about repression of leftist activists today. Despite all of the wonderful derails, only I, Comrade Anklebiter, hater of on-topic threads, have stayed the course.
I think I should get a cookie.
No.
This thread was started about repression of leftist activists today. Despite all of the wonderful derails, only I, Comrade Anklebiter, hater of on-topic threads, have stayed the course.
I think I should get a cookie.
I want a cookie too.
I want a cookie too.You need to take some personal responsibility and earn it yourself, instead of waiting for someone to hand you a cookie.
Well I am keeping my posts on topic, I guess. I'd say that means something :p
And btw, what is that, Ayn Rand? lol
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want a cookie too.You need to take some personal responsibility and earn it yourself, instead of waiting for someone to hand you a cookie.
What if I make my own cookies?
Is that like if I was making my own money?
Am I going to jail for counterfeiting cookies?
This metaphor makes my head hurt.
Not institutional government blessed, no mandated, racism.So you think it's bad that racism exists and affects hiring practices, but you think nothing should be done about it.No, but forcing and coercing to get more minorities hired at any cost is not betterAnd your version, where white offenders are more likely to get jobs than black non-offenders is a better version of humanity?You want to give to one, you take from another. sometimes another that needs it just as much. screw your sick version of humanity.im against ANY group suffering,Then suck it up. Racial minorities, especially the hispanic and black minorities, overwhelmingly start off worse than the average white person, and overwhelmingly are afforded fewer opportunities for upward social mobility, while at the same time being exposed to countless enticing avenues for downward social mobility, from a very young age.
Those are the groups that are suffering the most, and that's why we balance the odds a little for them.
Grow some humanity.
I on the other hand consider racism to be evil, so I want my government to do something about it. You can put your head in the sand if you like, but when you cry about racism against whites, you need to understand that overall, you are wrong. Yes, sometimes in specific examples, things get f$#!ed up for whited people too, but overall, racism is still a fundamental issue for black people in this country.
When they earn them by the same standard as a white man
I'm black. I'm working (two jobs actually). Are you saying I should never have gotten those jobs because they hired me because I'm black. Keep I mind that I would have no way of knowing if they did- it was never mention to me, I'm just glad I got these jobs. To my knowledge they hired the best person for the job. Should I just up and quit?
|
When they earn them by the same standard as a white man
Do you mean the part about having people of your same race and gender (not to mention friends and relatives) in most positions of power and authority regarding hiring decisions, or the part about societal presumed competence of your race and gender vs a vie everyone else?
Because all the studies say the same resume with a white male sounding name gets the job over the woman or non-white sounding name.
Look it up.
stuffLet me get this straight, you're blaming Obama for the actions of a college administration? Last time I heard, college administration was not within the purview of the Executive Branch.
I don't get it. I don't remember anyone giving Comrade Cordozo the third degree when he said Obama violated those anarchists' rights in the worst violation of civil liberties since Adolf Hitler.
Obama has never been nor did he describe himself as a leftist President. Although many on the Glen Beck side classify him as such when they're not calling him the exact opposite.No.
This thread was started about repression of leftist activists today. Despite all of the wonderful derails, only I, Comrade Anklebiter, hater of on-topic threads, have stayed the course.
I think I should get a cookie.
I'm not sure what you mean. I think everybody here knows that.
But I still think I should get a cookie.
I don't get it. I don't remember anyone giving Comrade Cordozo the third degree when he said Obama violated those anarchists' rights in the worst violation of civil liberties since Adolf Hitler.stuffLet me get this straight, you're blaming Obama for the actions of a college administration? Last time I heard, college administration was not within the purview of the Executive Branch.
I'd say I got a reasonable amount of flak on my first post, but since then, the other links I've posted have been ignored. Though in my defense I have to say my comments were not nearly as hyperbolic. I'm careful with the Godwin :p
By the way, have a cookie :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't keep track of every idiotic, extreme, or strawman post on these boards.I don't get it. I don't remember anyone giving Comrade Cordozo the third degree when he said Obama violated those anarchists' rights in the worst violation of civil liberties since Adolf Hitler.stuffLet me get this straight, you're blaming Obama for the actions of a college administration? Last time I heard, college administration was not within the purview of the Executive Branch.
It seems you took the bait here. If you reread the original post and my follow ups you'd see that I have done nothing of the sort. Comrade is exagerating, hopefully for the sake of humour. Wherever I was convinced I might have been wrong, I have pointed that out.
It is slowly becoming clear the debate tactics some people use: ignore posts which describe stuff you cannot defend or explain away and go for the easy jabs.
I don't get it. I don't remember anyone giving Comrade Cordozo the third degree when he said Obama violated those anarchists' rights in the worst violation of civil liberties since Adolf Hitler.stuffLet me get this straight, you're blaming Obama for the actions of a college administration? Last time I heard, college administration was not within the purview of the Executive Branch.At least that one was FBI and a federal grand jury. Federal and thus at least nominally under Obama's control, whether he's responsible for the specific policies and actions or not.
Now we're talking about a private college and before that local police.
It's a completely different thing.
This. And remember, as I have said before, my point is not that Obama has specifically ordered each of these actions. I'd say his leniency with and fostering of a security state brings this kind of stuff to the realm of the politically acceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our system and culture as a whole promotes these abuses of power by the government. I don't like them, I'm not sure how to fix it either. I do think Bush/Cheney were a little more gung-ho about changing the rules, but a lot of the policies they put in place have affected the culture of how any future president receives advice from the various organizations.
Obama talke about reversing some of the Bush policies, but they weren't really his top agenda. He talked about it more because he was running against the idea of Bush than anything else.
For example I think he could have taken a harder line on Guantanamo, but I don't think there is any ideal solution to that problem. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If a president releases those prisoners and just one of them kills another American soldier, let alone carries out an attack on American civilians, their political career will pretty much be over.
Edit: how exactly does anyone legitimately control a grand jury? Besides presenting valid evidence, I'm pretty sure there are a few laws against telling them to do anything, other than obey grand jury rules.