One member of this forum has sated that Blacks are kept in poverty by (unspecified) actions of Democratic-Party city governments.
One member of this forum has stated that present laws are biased in favor of Blacks.
Since these are obviously contradictory positions, I offer this thread for the positions to be debated. Please don't get off on health care or secession.
One member of this forum has sated that Blacks are kept in poverty by (unspecified) actions of Democratic-Party city governments.
One member of this forum has stated that present laws are biased in favor of Blacks.
I'll take the bait and say that it is entirely possible for BOTH statements to be true.
I'll take the bait and say that it is entirely possible for BOTH statements to be true.
Agreed. And they're not so unspecified ...
Also, anyone who has ever seen reverse discrimination or had it applied to them while looking for a job knows the second is true. (Can you say racial quotas and preferential hiring?)
racial quotas
It is a lot harder for Asian Americans to get into Universities than Persons of Color. Just because their grades are better doesn't give them access to say, Harvard.
Can you say racial quotas and preferential hiring?
My dad use to work at PSNS(Puget Sound Naval Shipyard). he told me of a friend that went to get hired that had all the qualifications. but didn't get the job and was given to a person with lesser qualifications(my dad had to train him).
There are two factors i could see, yes the hiree was black. so it could have been a quota thing. or it could have been less pay for less qulifications.
I live in the south you don't ever say "reverse discrimination", you might get shot.
a friend that went to get hired that had all the qualifications. but didn't get the job and was given to a person with lesser qualifications
It happened to me as the hiring manager. I wasn't allowed to hire the top candidate. Unfortunately for him, he was a white male. Due to quotas, I had to hire a less qualified person who didn't work out.
It happened to me as the hiring manager. I wasn't allowed to hire the top candidate.
So,just curious, if you were the hiring manager, what stopped you from hiring who you wanted? What quotas? Did your company have so few minorities that the feds were threatening to sue for discrimination in hiring practices?
Did your company have so few minorities that the feds were threatening to sue for discrimination in hiring practices?
How many employees would you need to have in order for this to happen? I only ask because at one point I found that the company policy (certainly not written down) at my employer from the mid-80's to the early 90's, in a pretty liberal area, was 'If you ever hire a f*ck*ng n*gg*r I'll fire you on the spot.' They were purchased by a larger company later which probably brought an end to that particular bullshit but you never know.
We always here the whines about reverse discrimination but rarely the far more real stories of the discrimination that caused quotas to be put into place. I'm pretty sure that I've benefited a couple of times, unknowing on my part at the time, from racial discrimination. I'll side with the quotas.
We always here the whines about reverse discrimination but rarely the far more real stories of the discrimination that caused quotas to be put into place.
When most people use the word discrimination they usually mean prejudice and bias, and there are all sort of those around.
When i was in the Australian Public Service I came across a lot of people conducting job interviews for the middle management positions who felt no one could do those types of jobs unless they had a university degree, thus they only ever interviewed uni graduates for those jobs. It didn't matter if you knew the field or the section inside out, they felt a uni grad who knew nothing about the section or the work had to be a better manager because they had a uni degree.
When most people use the word discrimination they usually mean prejudice and bias, and there are all sort of those around.
You're right of course. I was being imprecise. I was thinking specifically of racial discrimination, which is typically where things like quotas show up.
If I were to hire for a programming position I would be forced to only interview people with a degree. Never mind that one of the best developers I've ever met in our industry didn't have one and was the lead developer for a competitor, our standards say that is a minimum. Seriously stupid.
I was thinking specifically of racial discrimination, which is typically where things like quotas show up.
I know, but I was expanding on it. I dislike using discrimination in that way because to be discriminating is to be selective and is usually meant to be used in a good way. Think of being discriminating in employing people who dress nice to work in an office environment as against someone who dresses like a bricklayer to work in a nice office.
Another area where they have quotas is in gender. I can see many jobs where gender is irrelevant to the job, just the ability to get it done. However, I've been in work places where they were having trouble finding skilled workers because a law was passed setting gender quotas. It's damned hard to have 40% of your work force females when the total number of females trained in the field is 10% of the jobs in the field. We had one senior leader position being temporarily filled for 3 years because none of the females in the company had the legally required work experience to fill it, but we were obliged by the law to only employ a female as the permanent holder of the position. Thus a series of qualified males worked in the job on a 6 month temporary basis until one of the women had the right qualifications and experience.
....................
On a related issue. Have you seen the news out of Canada about the guy who got a $1,100 cut on his car insurance by using the Canadian law that allowed to him to saw he related to being a woman, and thus got his gender legally changed on his official paperwork. Then he blogged and boasted about the saving due to just saying he was woman and getting the government to approve it. I now wonder how many guys having issues getting work because companies needing to fill the gender quotas a re looking for only female applicants will now go a get their gender changed so they can employed as a woman due to the company having to meet the gender quota.
Oh, the fun part about the guy and his car insurance is the politician that passed the law to make it so easy to legally change you gender without any of the operations etc. is mega pissed at the guy who used the system simply to save money.
If I were to hire for a programming position I would be forced to only interview people with a degree. Never mind that one of the best developers I've ever met in our industry didn't have one and was the lead developer for a competitor, our standards say that is a minimum. Seriously stupid.
I've seen worse. Back in the 1980s I worked with a computer programmer to design a logistics database and management program that was way ahead of anything available then. It had a limited use, but for several years it was the leader in that small field until changes in database design allowed a new program to be better than it.
Anyway, a couple of years after we built the software I went to work in the Australian Public Service. They had a specialized logistics area that used the software and it was expanding. So I applied for the vacant positions as it was easy for me and a 3 grade jump. The section head conducting the interviews appointed others to the first 2 of the 5 jobs (each needed a full set of panel interviews). In the interview for the 3 rd job I asked about why I didn't get either of the first 2, and was told there was no way I could do the job unless I'd worked in that section before, and the only reason I was being interviewed was because there were only 10 applicants for 5 jobs. Thus it was clear to me the section head hadn't even read my application. I stopped the interview and wrote out a formal withdrawal of all my applications and stated the reason as being: Having just found out how lazy, stupid, and prejudiced the section head was I no longer wished to work in the unit. The external member of the panel asked me why I felt the section head was lazy and stupid, to which I replied: "I know that for a fact, as she never bothered to read my application which includes two statements and the evidence that I helped create the damned software in use. I'm one of only two people who know the codes to open the software to amend it. That is also in the application, but it seems I can't know enough about the software to use it here, according to her. So I'm out of here." Later I heard that section head got dropped from consideration for a branch head position coming up as a result of inadequate employment processes.
We always here the whines about reverse discrimination but rarely the far more real stories of the discrimination that caused quotas to be put into place.
Maybe you hear more about reverse discrimination these days because the incidents are becoming way more prevalent compared to 'real discrimiation'?
Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Whether you discriminate against a minority or for a minority, it's discrimination. You don't fix racism by reversing it, you fix racism by treating everybody the same. You don't fix colour discrimination by reversing the colour preferences, you fix it by treating everything a colour-blind manner.
I have personal experience with 'reverse discrimination', so take it as yet another an anecdote. I've faced outright discrimination twice in my younger years (90s). One time I applied for a job and was told straight up not to bother as those positions are reserved for women. Funnily it was a women dominated place, so it was straight discrimination, and not an attempt at balancing numbers. A second time few years later, I applied for a job and did not one but three interviews, and was basically assured that I got the job, but I didn't. In the second instance, a friend of mine that worked there told me they went with a black woman instead because it ticked two boxes on their hiring preferences, and they sent her for training because she lacked some qualifications while I had them.
Western societies are now governed by socialist and those target equity now, not equality. Equality is equal opportunity, where everybody is treated the same and afforded the same opportunities. Equity is equality of outcome, and it requires discrimination to implement.
However, they only require equity when it's white men who are dominant, but it's fine and no action required when it's women or minorities that are dominant.
Does anybody ask for equity in the NBA? The race distribution in NBA players doesn't match the general population.
Does anybody ask for equity among Veterinarians? (85% women)
Yet there is huge push for equity in STEM fields that are dominated by men (except in biology, because it's already dominated by women).
You don't fix unfair behaviour with unfair behaviour. You remove unfair behaviour and wait for the outcome to catch up, that way, nobody feels resentment like now.
Western societies are now governed by socialist ...
I wonder whether Donald Trump, Angela Merkel, or Theresa May know they are socialists. Or did you just intend to point out that everyone more liberal than you is a socialist?
Western societies are now governed by socialist ...
I wonder whether Donald Trump, Angela Merkel, or Theresa May know they are socialists. Or did you just intend to point out that everyone more liberal than you is a socialist?
It's not about the heads of state. The head of state can be anything, but the small minions that do run stuff, like HR department people and the people that each have their own little fiefdom inside government institutions are now predominantly socialist. They may not call themselves socialists, but they behave like socialists. Anybody that graduated in the last ten years in the west is most likely socialist. Since 2000, Academia in the West have gone extreme left with more than 50% identifying as socialist and 15% of faculty calling themselves outright marxist. Academia has been a socialist indoctrination system for at least 30 years now.
People who demand social programs and people who run social programs are all socialist. People who implement and run quota based programs and policies are socialist. Any place where one pays more than 40% in taxes is socialist, in California for example, the top tax bracket is over 50%. In Canada the income tax top bracket is now 54%, levied before every other value added and hidden taxes are levied. If that's not socialism, I don't know what is.
Google et all maybe the epitome of Capitalism externally, but inside their campuses their employees behave in a most socialist manner. Have you heard of the Damore incident and the in-house policies at google? Look it up and think about what it means about the underlying environment.
Incredible! I guess that also means social media are socialist propaganda machines. I'm happy I never opened a Twitter or Facebook account.
I always thought Robin Hood was the good guy but now I realize he also was a socialist and the Sheriff of Nottingham a stout defender of individual freedom and prosperity.
I wonder whether Donald Trump, Angela Merkel, or Theresa May know they are socialists. Or did you just intend to point out that everyone more liberal than you is a socialist?
Eh, in practice I view socialism as a scale, it isn't binary, and frustratingly, it isn't even linear(moving "in a straight line" on a proverbial 2 dimensional axis). Instead it is a rather amorphous 3 dimensional blob that covers a number of different things.
Everybody is "socialistic" to one degree or another, if they're not, they're sociopaths.
But the relationship is capable of being partially demonstrated in a Venn diagram. Libertarians and Socialists CAN overlap with one another for example. But that doesn't mean a Libertarian is going to agree with everything a Socialist wants, or find some of their ideas anything better than completely repugnant.
Everybody is "socialistic" to one degree or another, if they're not, they're sociopaths.
Everybody is social not everyone is a socialist. Socialism is a political ideology, it's not a collective term for varying degrees of human social behavior. Opening a daycare facility for children doesn't raise your personal level of socialism.
Everybody is social not everyone is a socialist. Socialism is a political ideology, it's not a collective term for varying degrees of human social behavior. Opening a daycare facility for children doesn't raise your personal level of socialism.
What about support of public sanitation to prevent/reduce the spread of disease? It pings on socialism, support doesn't mean you're a socialist, but it means you have common cause with one.
Edit: also remember I used quotes around "socialistic" in saying everybody is at least partly so.
What about support of public sanitation to prevent/reduce the spread of disease? It pings on socialism ...
Of course, public sanitation is a genuine socialist concept. Who else but a socialist would want to prevent our shit from stinking to high heaven.
Of course, public sanitation is a genuine socialist concept. Who else but a socialist would want to prevent our shit from stinking to high heaven.
Nimby would. ;)
Nimby would. ;)
Yes, Nimby and the Sheriff of Nottingham are my new heroes. The last defenders against a socialist power takeover. But maybe it's true, and it's way too late already. Maybe paying my taxes makes me a socialist as well.
Capitalist: buys up successful daycare facilities for children. Cuts staffing to the bone, paying minimum wages with zero hours contracts. Loads the company with debt and extracts huge dividends. Sells the broken company as a going concern.
Socialist: sets up daycare centres for children using public money, regardless of whether there's any demand.
Liberal: makes attendance at daycare centres for children mandatory, so the toddlers can be taught correct attitudes towards race, sexual orientation and gender orientation.
;)
AJ
Your list leaves me wondering where the capitalist found the successful daycare facility he bought.
Your list leaves me wondering where the capitalist found the successful daycare facility he bought.
probably bought it from a retiring small business owner who built it up from caring for her neighbours' kids.
Socialist: sets up daycare centres for children using public money, regardless of whether there's any demand.
Liberal: makes attendance at daycare centres for children mandatory, so the toddlers can be taught correct attitudes towards race, sexual orientation and gender orientation.
That's not my definition of liberal, let me rephrase the definitions:
Socialist: sets up daycare centres for children using public money, regardless of whether there's any demand.
Makes attendance at daycare centres for children mandatory, so the toddlers can be indoctrinated in socialisme.
Liberal: provides (public) money for daycare fees for people who are too poor to give their children in daycare otherwise. But the decision to give the children into daycare remains with the parents (and they don't give the money for the fees to the parents).
Ok, I know people on different sides of the pond define Liberal differently. I had never heard of Libertinisme and realized European Liberalisme contains libertinistic ideas at least in moderate form.
HM.
As long as you all agree that socialists are evil you have at least some common ground.
I know people on different sides of the pond define Liberal differently.
In Australia we define 'Liberal' and 'liberal' differently.
The main right-centre party (roughly equivalent to the British Tories and German CDU) is called the Liberal Party. The word 'liberal' means what you described.
The Liberals can at least spell their own name: the main left-centre party is the called the Labor Party (roughly equivalent to the British Labour Party).
At one time, the feds defined racial balancing quotas based on the local demographics. I think it was that all companies that did business with the government and all companies over a given size had to adjust their employee racial balance or they would be fined. It had a hefty fine if not complied with by a certain date and also had a per day fine added on top until compliance was met.
My sister worked for HP and was laid off so her company could hire a minority employee. The woman hired didn't have the skills necessary to do the job, which through the workload on her ex-coworkers.
So,just curious, if you were the hiring manager, what stopped you from hiring who you wanted? What quotas?
American Express. HR had to abide by federal quotas. Was that Affirmative Action or something else? I don't remember.
didn't get the job and was given to a person with lesser qualifications
I'm now in Oklahoma (is that south enough?), but my issue happened in Kentucky, back in '85 (which was also south of the Mason Dixon line). Jefferson County Sheriff had 10 openings on their force for new deputies. (This is also city of Louisville, for those of you not familiar with the area.) Just over 400 of us applied for those 10 jobs. After the merit board interview, I was the 8th highest ranking candidate. You'd think I'd have a job, based upon school (lots of people had Associates, I had a Bachelors, and not just in Criminal Justice, but Criminology), military (veteran), and other qualifications.
Just one minor detail - they had no problem with the top 5, those were all white guys. Problem was the next 5. Because apparently they needed to meet some kind of quota, they also had to hire some blacks and some females. Based upon pure qualifications, the top 147 candidates were ALL white males. So literally to hire the last 5 candidates, they had to start at number 148 and ended up going down to number 346 of the list of applicants.
I shouldn't have known how this went down, but one of my classmates dad was ON the merit board and apologized for what they'd had to do. (No, he didn't know me then, and I didn't know him, then, so there was no favoritism involved.)
Just one minor detail - they had no problem with the top 5, those were all white guys. Problem was the next 5. Because apparently they needed to meet some kind of quota, they also had to hire some blacks and some females. Based upon pure qualifications, the top 147 candidates were ALL white males. So literally to hire the last 5 candidates, they had to start at number 148 and ended up going down to number 346 of the list of applicants.
For the era, the effort was great in theory, just completely stupid in application. The theory was that due to numerous factors(in particular back in the 1970's and 80's), minorities had been deliberately denied education and work experience opportunities and as a consequence of that, their resumes were doomed to be lackluster. So needing to pick the 348th ranked applicant to fill one of 10 job openings was somewhat okay.
Their failing was supposed to have been lack of resume, and maybe a shortfall in experience that could be corrected with some "minor" on-the-job training. They also were expected to be highly motivated to make the most of the opportunity given. Meaning the net result was supposed to be win-win for all involved.
Except they ignored one fundamental aspect about ALL natural systems, and human behavior is not immune: They tend to ALWAYS follow the path of least resistance.
It applies to water, it applies to electricity, it applies to flight, it applies to a lot of things, up to and including "don't feed the bears."
Human beings are remarkable for many reasons, most significantly when it comes to our ability to NOT take the path of least resistance. Or in the words of one person, "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
However, at our core, we are still creatures of nature, and are susceptible to natural failings. LBJ's "Great Society" made things "easy"/easier for blacks, while simultaneously making them harder for Whites.
I haven't really investigated him too much, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest he never truly stopped being a racist. He just started playing a very different game, one that plays out over a much longer time scale
I'll take the bait and say that it is entirely possible for BOTH statements to be true.
Agreed.
I'll take the bait and say that it is entirely possible for BOTH statements to be true.
Add me the list of
/agreed
Libertarianism is a weird thing. In most respects it is what was (Egalitarian) Liberalism in the United States circa 1800. But it also border on being anarchist in other respects when you start looking at platform planks the Libertarian party espouses.
Liberalism as used in the United States today has little to do with liberalism from country's founding. It basically is a milder form of European Socialism at this point.
Which isn't to be confused with the Marxist and Stalinist agitators that are running amok in and around the DNC.
Which isn't to be confused with the Marxist and Stalinist agitators that are running amok in and around the DNC.
Actually, I'd say the DNC is doing their best to keep the grassroots socialist agitators at bay. They know that proclaiming the party as 'Democratic Socialists' is a death knell in many places in the US (without regard to what that actually MEANS or looks like in practice - e.g. Sweden)
Actually, I'd say the DNC is doing their best to keep the grassroots socialist agitators at bay. They know that proclaiming the party as 'Democratic Socialists' is a death knell in many places in the US (without regard to what that actually MEANS or looks like in practice - e.g. Sweden)
I think they're on the verge of caving, look no further than Bernie Sanders for that. Middle America is a write-off for them, they don't understand it, and will just continue to point to popular vote tallies while fuming about how unfair the Senate's structure and the Electoral College is.
