Native American PWNS immigration protest

[bankside]

Sure, but white men have been "exploited" a hell of a lot less than anyone else now haven't they. Since white men STILL benefit from the racial (and gender) assumptions baggage of western culture, I can see the point. You just reduced the argument to the same simplistic terms Rolyo did, and not so charmingly!

It isn't fair is a pointless thing to say. People make decisions fair or not about hiring all the damn time - it isn't fair for the nephew of your buddy to get that job just because either - it isn't fair that they gave that promotion to the guy with the family even though you had better numbers, such is life.

The trouble is, the minute you depart from actual merit as the criteria for hiring someone, it legitimises it for everybody to work whatever insider advantage they think they can get.

It leads people to wonder if they should start trying to work the Secret White Network™ for advancement. I'm not sure how that would work tbqh, but I keep being told I have a membership card. Mind you I can't figure out airmiles either. Just when I think I have enough, they either expire, or I find out all I can get is a blender.

 

[Benvolio]

Actually nothing in my post attacked you at all. So now you're just sidestepping the points.

If there were points, thy are lost in the rudeness.

 

[rareboy]

At Last???????

I only say that because BV was mooting the point that the real people hurt by all of this were the African Americans....in some desperate attempt to disguise the real issue he has with affirmative action.

The only issue for Benvolio is white power.

 

[Rolyo85]

That's really a lot of fallacy in just one post.

Throughout history, we have had an elitist society. That you might have been just as white as the Christian kings, popes, and emperors of Europe was absolutely no protection against being exploited by the elite.

It ultimately just isn't fair to deny a white guy the same chance at a job today just because George Wallace happened to be white. The only thing we need to do to undo the legacy of racism is hire people on their merits.

1. All the elite was white, whether whites were also discriminated against.

2. It's easy to talk of hiring people on their merits, but until societal perception of different colors and races changes, the white man attitude toward those merits will be colored by... well, color and race. While nobody is entirely in love with the idea that we should hire someone because he's from a minority, ultimately that is a necessity until people become truly colorblind. If you can claim with a straight face that they already are, I will... disagree...

 

[xbuzzerx]

First off Benvolio your nightmare interpretation of these policies has already been handily debunked by everyone else here, very well. So there's no need for me to say anything about that.

Second off, in what parallel universe do you live in where white males in this country earn less and have less access to good jobs than every non-white-male group?

This is like yelling murder with no body or yelling rape with no victim.

^ Benvolio if you are unable to demonstrate that white males are not earning more than another demographic and on the whole have worse jobs or job opportunity, then you aren't pointing out that these policies (which don't do what you claim they do or say what you claim they say) are discriminating against white men, but you're only pointing out the opposite: they're doing what they're intended to do and bringing more people up into inclusion in the greater workforce.

You can't, and haven't, demonstrated any actual harm of these policies or the things you claim they do as far as the white male dominance of income and opportunity.

 

[TX-Beau]

The trouble is, the minute you depart from actual merit as the criteria for hiring someone, it legitimizes it for everybody to work whatever insider advantage they think they can get.

It leads people to wonder if they should start trying to work the Secret White Network™ for advancement. I'm not sure how that would work tbqh, but I keep being told I have a membership card. Mind you I can't figure out airmiles either. Just when I think I have enough, they either expire, or I find out all I can get is a blender.

Who is to say that the woman/black guy is without merit? To assume that, that the minority is automatically less qualified and therefore a product SOLELY of bias is kinda the definition of bias.

For most of the history of this country, if you were a black guy in competition with a white guy, fucking pack up and go home. Merit or no merit.

People have been working whatever "insider advantages" they may have since the beginning, that isn't the symptom of anything or some apocalyptic thing to shudder about. THAT has been happening from the start. Everywhere. The secret "White Network" is the societal bias that teaches that black guys are lazy and Mexicans steal, women are flighty, and white male is the defacto standard, and you know what, white guys whether they know it or not, have been benefiting from it since 1776 and beyond.

 

[bankside]

1. All the elite was white, whether whites were also discriminated against.

2. It's easy to talk of hiring people on their merits, but until societal perception of different colors and races changes, the white man attitude toward those merits will be colored by... well, color and race. While nobody is entirely in love with the idea that we should hire someone because he's from a minority, ultimately that is a necessity until people become truly colorblind. If you can claim with a straight face that they already are, I will... disagree...

1. The colour of the elite doesn't matter when everyone who was not elite was subject to exploitation….when other factors could put someone at an equal or greater disadvantage…when decades and centuries pass.

2. I've hired people, and been hired by people, in colourblind processes; as a result, people of various ethnicities have reported to me, and I have similarly been responsible to people of various ethnicities. My face, though never straight, is serious.

 

[bankside]

Who is to say that the woman/black guy is without merit? To assume that, that the minority is automatically less qualified and therefore a product SOLELY of bias is kinda the definition of bias.

The affirmative action process says they have less merit, even when they actually do.

 

[TX-Beau]

No actually it doesn't, and who is to say the white guy isn't less qualified?

 

[bankside]

No actually it doesn't, and who is to say the white guy isn't less qualified?

When the white guy is less qualified, affirmative action isn't necessary.

 

[TX-Beau]

On the contrary that is exactly why it came into being in the first place.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The affirmative action process says they have less merit, even when they actually do.

When the white guy is less qualified, affirmative action isn't necessary.

That's not true at all. Affirmative Action is regarded by minority academics as a "bad solution to a bad problem." It's not perfect. It sometimes advantages wealthy minorities over poor minorities or poor whites. These sorts of problems with it are known about and have been exhaustively written about. So there's no illusions about that. However, your assertion that affirmative action inherently assumes minority people are less qualified is not correct. It was never a system at all intended to take completely unqualified people and advance them over qualified ones and putting them into jobs they were not capable to do. It was an attempt to redress the massive trend to favor white male candidates as inherently better qualified, more driven, or more desirable to hire over women or over non-whites of similar qualification. These problems still persist when you examine male-female pay differentials for exactly the same job positions, as one example.

In an affirmative action-free world you see things like, where in Japan, people flat out say don't even bother trying to get a job over x age as a woman. Because employers won't hire you, because they presume pretty soon you're going to get married and pop out kids and then your priority will be your kids and not your job, and you aren't as reliable a worker as a result.

 

[bankside]

Okay maybe we are talking about different things. The way I'm most familiar with it is in federally-regulated industries in Canada, where it is called "Employment Equity."

In that framework, a manager is obliged to try to make their staff match the same proportion of women, disabled people, aboriginals and visible minorities as in the Canadian population.

To do this, they have to hire by
a) figuring out what the minimum requirements are to do the job effectively
b) advertising and recruiting on that basis
c) ranking candidates according to the requirements set out
d) picking the top ranked candidate if that person is female, disabled, aboriginal or a visible minority
e) skipping over and picking a less-qualified candidate instead, if the first-place candidate is not one of the magic groups, as long as the less-qualified candidate meets the minimum and is one of the four magic groups.

So it is true that Employment Equity never hires or promotes an unqualified candidate. But it does reject the best candidate unless that person is already one of the magic four groups.

That is unfair. Worse, it creates the perception (true or not) that any candidate from an ethnic minority, or a woman, or a disabled person, or an aboriginal person, is not actually the best person for the job, only that they were just good enough, and that probably some white male would have been better. It is terrible for morale, and it actually undermines its own stated goal of creating equity in the workplace.

Without Employment Equity, anybody beaten by an Aboriginal, female, disabled, or visible minority candidate could say "That person was the best candidate for the job; they beat me fair and sqaure," and it opens the door for respect, for natural mentorship and leadership by people regarded as clearly excellent. Instead it casts doubt and division. It is a terrible system.

The whole approach is wrong from the ground up, but even if there were any useful outcomes of preferential hiring, it would still miss the boat. It doesn't move men into female-dominated sectors (which actually reinforces the prejudice that work traditionally done by women is of lower value). It does not do a damn thing for gay people to help us overcome the challenges of discrimination we've faced. It does not deal with the challenges faced by a white male who grew up in poverty. It does nothing for kids who grew up in broken homes due to mental illness. And a million other kinds of disadvantage that make a real difference. And ultimately, maybe there is a better way, but Employment Equity is worse than doing nothing at all. It makes inequality grow.

 

[opinterph]

fair inclusion

It seems to me that “fair inclusion” is materially different from “unfair exclusion.”

It is my impression that the Offices of Minority & Women Inclusion stipulated in Dodd-Frank only affect firms doing business with the Federal Reserve, the Securities & Exchange Commission, and FDIC. Such firms may include banks, broker-dealers, registered investment advisors, hedge funds, and financial services firms or such other businesses that do business with the aforementioned federal government offices.

 

[Nemothepanda]

Ironically, most if the jobs the minorities want are created by white males, and their beloveted welfare comes from the taxes of white males. They not only bite the hand that feeds them,but they want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

How are you not racist again? Just because these jobs were *allegedly* made by white males and that welfare *allegedly* comes from white males, doesn't mean that they should be excluded from having said jobs or benefit from said programs. They're citizens that follow laws and do their jobs just like everyone else.

 

[rareboy]

^ It is like Benvolio always has a gun pointing at his foot and no matter how hard he tries.....he can't help but pull that trigger.

Even the merest shred of credibility that he might have in railing against all the things he does......completely disintegrates when he inevitably exposes the real reason for his anger and frustration.

He apparently thinks that all brown folk are freeloaders taking a ride on the white man's dime. He is afraid of being displaced by someone who isn't a white, anglo-saxon protestant and of seeing 'his' America transformed by blacks and hispanics.

All the other words are just window dressing around racism.

 

[Benvolio]

How are you not racist again? Just because these jobs were *allegedly* made by white males and that welfare *allegedly* comes from white males, doesn't mean that they should be excluded from having said jobs or benefit from said programs. They're citizens that follow laws and do their jobs just like everyone else.

The question is, why should white males be EXCLUDED from all those jobs, while a preference is given to others, including recent immigrants? Is that not a racist policy? Why is it racist to object to a racist law? How can that be consistent with the Constitutional requirement of equalrotection of the law.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The question is, why should white males be EXCLUDED from all those jobs, while a preference is given to others, including recent immigrants? Is that not a racist policy? Why is it racist to object to a racist law? How can that be consistent with the Constitutional requirement of equalrotection of the law.

You haven't shown any form of exclusion. So you're going in circles.

 

[Benvolio]

You haven't shown any form of exclusion. So you're going in circles.

The statute requires their exclusion to the maximum extent possible.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The statute requires their exclusion to the maximum extent possible.

Fair inclusion =/= white exclusion.

These policies exist to combat a pervasive, extremely well documented trend which is stronger the further back in time you go to give first preference to white males even over other qualified candidates. As an example of fair inclusion, look at Japan, where women past age 30 or so are widely stated to be "unhirable" because employers presume they will not be as reliable as a male hire, because pretty soon they'll marry and want to have kids and make those their first priority.

That's the kind of exclusion that actually happens, particularly when no policy or regulation of fair inclusion is present. Factors beyond pure capability to do the job end up being the deciding factor in whom to hire among a set of qualified individuals, such as whether or not you think women really make good engineers or black people really have the right attitude for the officeplace. There is no exclusion of white males in U.S. hiring, nor does policy call for it, nor have you demonstrated that it has.