Native American PWNS immigration protest

[rareboy]

The statute requires their exclusion to the maximum extent possible.

Jesus. You just don't give up do you? You've been shown to be motivated by race issues...it has been proven to you repeatedly that statutory inclusion does not mean exclusion and you still just won't give in.

Would you at least acknowledge that the centuries old preference and practise of white males empowering and hiring of white males created an EXCLUSIONARY environment for all other races and sexes. By its own design, it was self-perpetuating juggernaut until it required legislation (or civil war) to bust this little club.

If you can't understand that inclusion of others does not equal exclusion of some...then you are apparently intellectually unwilling to accept a fundamental and simple premise.

If you are just pissy because you don't like the fact that a larger field of contenders means that the mediocre are no longer just automatically promoted by birthright of being a white male, then all I can say is...good on ya and all the others over there at Stormfront. You deserve whatever comes.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Jesus. You just don't give up do you? You've been shown to be motivated by race issues...it has been proven to you repeatedly that statutory inclusion does not mean exclusion and you still just won't give in.

Would you at least acknowledge that the centuries old preference and practise of white males empowering and hiring of white males created an EXCLUSIONARY environment for all other races and sexes. By its own design, it was self-perpetuating juggernaut until it required legislation (or civil war) to bust this little club.

If you can't understand that inclusion of others does not equal exclusion of some...then you are apparently intellectually unwilling to accept a fundamental and simple premise.

If you are just pissy because you don't like the fact that a larger field of contenders means that the mediocre are no longer just automatically promoted by birthright of being a white male, then all I can say is...good on ya and all the others over there at Stormfront. You deserve whatever comes.

I believe this is one of those cases where "removal of historical and unfair privilege" = "discrimination." In some white guys' heads, that's always how they're going to view it, because they simply view a past where wealth and power were dominated by white men almost exclusively to have come about because of merit and some pseudosciency belief in social darwinism. And that we're now in a "PC age" that is trying to artificially undo that and force "unmerit" over "merit" for the sake of "inclusion" or "diversity."

As far as they're concerned, a past where the privileged status of white men was nearly exclusive and unchallenged is the proof enough in their minds that they are correct in their view that white people are more intelligent, industrious, creative and hardworking, and they simply have to suffer through being discriminated against todaybecause of it at the behest of minorities.

Not sure what we can do about that mindset except wait for it to die out. And it will.

 

[Benvolio]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

 

[Rolyo85]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

And that's a problem for you?

 

[xbuzzerx]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

This is a specious argument.

 

[Rolyo85]

No, let's assume, for the sake of Benvolio's mental health, that it's correct. Everyone non-white has been brutally discriminated against for centuries in Western society. So, if - as Benvolio claims - total inclusion is impossible, and it's either white or non-white, I'd say it's still only fair to switch it around for a while to compensate, no?

 

[TX-Beau]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

No it's not really up for debate. You will see what you want to see - to justify your racism. Not up for debate at all.

 

[bankside]

Again, some white guy getting racist perks in 1868 does sweet fuck all for me. Even if you could demonstrate that was my direct ancestor, the intervening time and chance have, at least in my family, clearly deprived me of my "inheritance" of "white privilege." And I'm not going to give up the same chance at a job or the same chance for advancement on account of my skin colour because some dead people were unfair to other dead people. It's not the right approach.

Opposition to affirmative discrimination has nothing to do with social Darwinism or the idea that the social hierarchy of centuries past was correct or dignified or justified. Of course it wasn't. But you'd have to believe in social Darwinism to suggest that minority candidates need to have white people blocked and excluded before they have a chance of competing. I don't see how it isn't as offensive to ethnic minorities as it is to white men.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Again, some white guy getting racist perks in 1868 does sweet fuck all for me. Even if you could demonstrate that was my direct ancestor, the intervening time and chance have, at least in my family, clearly deprived me of my "inheritance" of "white privilege." And I'm not going to give up the same chance at a job or the same chance for advancement on account of my skin colour because some dead people were unfair to other dead people. It's not the right approach.

Opposition to affirmative discrimination has nothing to do with social Darwinism or the idea that the social hierarchy of centuries past was correct or dignified or justified. Of course it wasn't. But you'd have to believe in social Darwinism to suggest that minority candidates need to have white people blocked and excluded before they have a chance of competing. I don't see how it isn't as offensive to ethnic minorities as it is to white men.

This is a zero sum mindset presuming everyone today is on an equal footing with equal resources, equal education or equal access to opportunity which is premature. This isn't a new argument, it's probably the classic argument against any kind of system, including scholarships, to try to help redress the imbalances in income, opportunity and education for historically disadvantaged groups.

 

[TX-Beau]

And affirmative action in the States SOLELY applies to people wanting the public dime. Everyone else can hire as many neo-nazis they want.

 

[bankside]

This is a zero sum mindset presuming everyone today is on an equal footing with equal resources, equal education or equal access to opportunity which is premature. This isn't a new argument, it's probably the classic argument against any kind of system, including scholarships, to try to help redress the imbalances in income, opportunity and education for historically disadvantaged groups.

Funny you should mention zero sum...The zero sum thinking comes from assuming that minority individuals can only succeed when majority individuals are pushed aside. There are lots of useful strategies for making the workplace equitable. No-harassment policies, advertising and recruiting in non traditional media, even a positive declaration of being an equal opportunity employer. All of those approaches ensure minority candidates know they're not wasting their time to apply, while preserving the fairness of the competition itself. The best man or woman of any ethnicity will get the job. Positive sum all around.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Funny you should mention zero sum...The zero sum thinking comes from assuming that minority individuals can only succeed when majority individuals are pushed aside. There are lots of useful strategies for making the workplace equitable. No-harassment policies, advertising and recruiting in non traditional media, even a positive declaration of being an equal opportunity employer. All of those approaches ensure minority candidates know they're not wasting their time to apply, while preserving the fairness of the competition itself. The best man or woman of any ethnicity will get the job. Positive sum all around.

Bankside, your whole position was a more eloquent version of "I wasn't a slaveowner; you weren't a slave."

Yes, the historical differences in advantage and opportunity have shaped where groups are today, including their socioeconomic status, their parents' level of education, even what neighborhood they live in and what jobs their family held.

Affirmative action programs do have problems, that's true. However pointing this out, and pointing out that today that white and nonwhite people, or males and females, are on completely equal footing isn't... born out by anything really. Any yardstick you want to use really. So I don't really agree with your position, either that these systems are unfair OR that they are pushing out qualified white people.

 

[Kulindahr]

The entire history of human existence on planet Earth has consisted of people taking over lands that were already inhabited by others. But there's a big difference between invasions that took place in ancient times when the national boundaries that we know of today did not exist, and illegally entering an established country like the USA and expecting to be granted amnesty instead of entering legally and waiting in line. When the first Europeans arrived here hundreds of years ago, there was no actual country. There were simply various native tribes scattered about in what now constitutes the continental USA. So, saying that the USA was "founded on illegal immigration" is a foolish claim when speaking in favor the USA's current illegal immigration issue.

What's the point of having immigration laws in place that are intended to curtail the flow of immigrants into the USA if the government's gonna grant amnesty to the illegals just because they're already here?

Wonderful example of cultural imperialism!

 

[Kulindahr]

I am virtually the only one here who ever expresses concern for the poor, or who has a practical plan to help them. Can you point to a single post in which you expressed concern for poor Americans?

I nominate this post for "Lie of the Year" award. I can't think of anything that could top it in the next ten months, so can we just go ahead and make the award?

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes there is some evidence that some Vikings or Scandinavians arrived in the far northwestern parts of Canada/U.S. earlier than people thought they did, but still thousands upon thousands of years AFTER the Natives. Sorry.

The Chinese got here before the colonial European influx, in fact twice, once around 600 and again around 1400. In the first instance, they married into the native population, setting an example few who followed them would follow.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, rareboy, your objection is not well taken. Scroll through this or any other thread and try to find a liberal post which does not contain an personal insult against the Conservative members. No big deal. I don't respect them enough to care about their insults.

What "Conservative members"?

 

[Nemothepanda]

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.

What exclusion? People get excluded from jobs all the time, usually because they're not up to standards or aren't what an owner is looking for. Immigrants for example tend to work more for less regardless of their education, which is something that most business owners want, rather than the native-born that wants better pay and benefits upfront. This is capitalism at work here, and it's not the immigrant's fault if you didn't get the job.

 

[Nemothepanda]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

Yeah, because that's what is needed. If these laws and statutes weren't in place, we'd be around 1943 in terms on how businesses treat minorities...horribly, mind you. I for one find it deliciously ironic that you're complaining about majority exclusion on a gay porn site. You do realize that sexual orientation isn't a protected category, and that homosexuals can be denied jobs and service in 50% of America by simply being gay correct? Assuming that you're gay yourself, all this ranting is hurting our own cause to become accepted members of society because we ourselves are a MINORITY that can BENEFIT from laws such as these. Get that in your skull.

 

[rareboy]

You are simply ignoring the words of the statute. If you include women and minorities " to the maximum extent possible", you necessarily exclude white men "to the maximum extent possible" DUH It is not open to debate.

DUH.

You do not exclude white men to the maximum extent possible.

One does not equal the other unless you believe that there are only an absolutely finite number of spots to fill. Which there actually aren't.

And that is not open to debate.

As well, white men do not deserve by right of skin colour or their sex to come before all others in any endeavour.

That also is not open to debate.

 

[Benvolio]

White males do not deserve to behind others as the statute requires. The maximum extent possible for women and minorities is 100 percent. That is the purpose and effect. It is only when the supply of qualified women and minorities is exhausted that it it legal to hire a white man.

That also is not open to debate.