Republican Party Depends On Racist Tactics, Editorial Says

Berzerker said:

So I'm correct about what you wrote but I cant manage talking about what you wrote?

Click to expand...

For the last time, I haven't said a word in this thread about so-called "state mandated racial discrimination", except in regard to the past when blacks were not allowed to attend some state colleges at all.

If you think I have, prove it. If you cannot, stop claiming I have done so.

Crezth said:

Even an idiot child can see* that all that affirmative action does is mandate, perhaps hamfistedly, strongly that you cannot be shown to have discriminatory hiring practices. So take an aforementioned example where 11% of the state is black, but only 4% of the student body is black. All other things being equal - and yes the law does assume that whites and blacks are equal - these numbers should be the same, or you should make a compelling case for why you are enrolling a disproportionate quantity of whites. Many organizations do have good reasons - not enough are applying, the numbers are inflated due to non-racial implied biases in the process, etc. - and are capable of justifying this inequity thusly.

In other words, it is legislation against discrimination that takes it to its logical conclusion. You cannot discriminate, and we will know if you do because you should be hiring a proportional quantity of whites and blacks. It is not "state-mandated racial discrimination" so much as "enforced non-discrimination."

*Of course, it doesn't feed into the convenient whitey victimization complex to believe that affirmative action isn't just a law saying "Give jobs to blacks, not whites, under pain of government."

Click to expand...

So to avoid the state's enforcement of non-discrimination, businesses and schools "should" hire and admit people based on race. If they dont, "we will know" they're discriminating. Well, they are - they're hiring or admitting people based on race.

peter grimes said:

Have you applied to college yet? It doesn't work that way. You are not granted admission solely on the basis of a test score.

Nobody is guaranteed a slot. That's not how it works.

Click to expand...

I didn't say admission was granted solely based on a test score or that she was guaranteed a slot, just that I imagine her gripe is her test scores lost out to another "factor" - apparently race.

Cutlass said:

I've never denied that state mandated discrimination existed. But the states in the US have never discriminated against white people. And Texas did not do so in this case.

Click to expand...

You said civil rights didn't mandate racial discrimination, but now you're trying to justify it like Form by pointing to the sins of the past. I understand, slavery and Jim Crow sucked - but thats history. She aint to blame for it...

Formaldehyde said:

For the last time, I haven't said a word in this thread about so-called "state mandated racial discrimination", except in regard to the past when blacks were not allowed to attend some state colleges at all.

If you think I have, prove it. If you cannot, stop claiming I have done so.

Click to expand...

"Except in regard to the past"... Jesus Form, you keep admitting it while denying it. You just dont want to apply those words to "affirmative action". Fine, show me why they shouldn't apply to affirmative action.

Berzerker said:

So to avoid the state's enforcement of non-discrimination, businesses and schools "should" hire and admit people based on race. If they dont, "we will know" they're discriminating. Well, they are - they're hiring or admitting people based on race.

Click to expand...

Prove it. The only hard evidence you could possibly have - the admittance rates - strongly suggest that the bias is towards whites.

Berzerker said:

"Except in regard to the past"... Jesus Form, you keep admitting it while denying it. You just dont want to apply those words to "affirmative action". Fine, show me why they shouldn't apply to affirmative action.

Click to expand...

Again, affirmative action really no longer exists. It was effectively banned during the GWB era, even though it hadn't really existed for decades. That just shows to what extent your rhetoric is so disingenuous regarding this topic.

But even so, trying to compare it to real discrimination from the past is beyond absurd, just as is trying to claim that civil rights is a form of discrimination.

Berzerker said:

You said civil rights didn't mandate racial discrimination, but now you're trying to justify it like Form by pointing to the sins of the past. I understand, slavery and Jim Crow sucked - but thats history. She aint to blame for it...

Click to expand...

Not for lack of trying. Look at what this chick is actually saying: Texas discriminates against blacks, and they do not get to go to university at the same rate as whites. This girl is whimpering and whining that Texas does not discriminate against blacks as much as they should so that she could get the benefit of that discrimination.

Crezth said:

Prove it. The only hard evidence you could possibly have - the admittance rates - strongly suggest that the bias is towards whites.

Click to expand...

I'll just quote you again:

You cannot discriminate, and we will know if you do because you should be hiring a proportional quantity of whites and blacks.

Click to expand...

Thats your description - and thats called racial quotas and people will use them to avoid being punished. I dont need to "prove" it, you did it for me...

Formaldehyde said:

Again, affirmative action really no longer exists. It was effectively banned during the GWB era, even though it hadn't really existed for decades. That just shows to what extent your rhetoric is so disingenuous regarding this topic.

But even so, trying to compare it to real discrimination from the past is beyond absurd, just as is trying to claim that civil rights is a form of discrimination.

Click to expand...

You brought up the sins of the past - that was your attempt to justify discrimination now, I merely called the policy state mandated racial discrimination and you still haven't explained why it aint. And dont accuse me of being disingenuous based on your BS about how the policy doesn't exist anymore.

Cutlass said:

Not for lack of trying. Look at what this chick is actually saying: Texas discriminates against blacks, and they do not get to go to university at the same rate as whites. This girl is whimpering and whining that Texas does not discriminate against blacks as much as they should so that she could get the benefit of that discrimination.

Click to expand...

Texas shouldn't be discriminating against anyone based on race

Berzerker said:

Thats your description - and thats called racial quotas and people will use them to avoid being punished. I dont need to "prove" it, you did it for me...

Click to expand...

The quotas are more implied than anything. But if 4% of your student body is black and 11% of the state's population is black, all other things being equal you can make a strong case that discrimination against blacks has occurred. And that is exactly what is going on here.

What I asked you to prove was that people are being hired or admitted based on race. Well, OK - if we look at the data, affirmative action or no, it looks like people who are white are more likely to be admitted. So the point stands.

Berzerker said:

Texas shouldn't be discriminating against anyone based on race

Click to expand...

Sure. And this girl bringing the suit was not discriminated against. She was trying to take advantage of discrimination, and came up short.

Berzerker said:

You brought up the sins of the past - that was your attempt to justify discrimination now, I merely called the policy state mandated racial discrimination and you still haven't explained why it aint. And dont accuse me of being disingenuous based on your BS about how the policy doesn't exist anymore.

Click to expand...

Only it is nothing of the sort, especially when compared to real racially discriminatory practices from the past. The Supreme Court already ruled in 2003 that race can be a minor factor in admissions policies to promote diversity after quota systems were previously declared unconstitutional. Of course, that was before GWB installed two more reactionaries on the bench.

Quota-based affirmative action programs from the past clearly no longer exist. They have been unconstitional since 1978.

This was your original statement in response to my comment:

Berzerker said:

"civil rights" are state mandated discrimination

Click to expand...

Talk about disingenuous nonsense. When taken alone, the word "discrimination" can essentially mean any selection process where a decision is made to favor one person over another. But when it is put in context with civil rights and racism, it means something quite different. This is why it is quite similar to claiming that abortion is murder. It is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to falsely claim that those who support diversity programs and even civil rights are the actual racists.

I think it's wrong to say that they "depend" on racist tactics, but they certainly benefit from racism to a significant extent.

Crezth said:

The quotas are more implied than anything. But if 4% of your student body is black and 11% of the state's population is black, all other things being equal you can make a strong case that discrimination against blacks has occurred. And that is exactly what is going on here.

What I asked you to prove was that people are being hired or admitted based on race. Well, OK - if we look at the data, affirmative action or no, it looks like people who are white are more likely to be admitted. So the point stands.

Click to expand...

The quotas are implied goals or guidelines for avoiding the state - thats one of the first lines of defense businesses have when a bureaucrat comes calling because of a complaint. And if I were a black Texan and my academic accomplishments lost out to a white ( or latino, or asian, or...) with lesser credentials, I'd want to know if race was a "factor". This is the point - if race is a factor then racial discrimination is the inevitable result - and it's mandated by the state (or feds).

I dont know if this is BS but I keep hearing Asian Americans are over represented in the California Uni system, I went to school out there in the 70s and the best HS in the city was virtually all Asian and white. "If" the state required racial representation for reasons of diversity or whatever, a bunch of those people couldn't have gone to that school. How is that not discriminating based on race?

Cutlass said:

Sure. And this girl bringing the suit was not discriminated against. She was trying to take advantage of discrimination, and came up short.

Click to expand...

I dont know the merits of the case, I do know there's plenty of people who get included or excluded because of their race.

Formaldehyde said:

Only it is nothing of the sort, especially when compared to real racially discriminatory practices from the past. The Supreme Court already ruled in 2003 that race can be a minor factor in admissions policies to promote diversity after quota systems were previously declared unconstitutional. Of course, that was before GWB installed two more reactionaries on the bench.

Click to expand...

And choosing one person over another based on the minor factor of race is not discriminating based on race? You said the policy ended and now you're saying it still exists... and accusing me of dishonesty for not knowing this all ended long ago.

Quota-based affirmative action programs from the past clearly no longer exist. They have been unconstitional since 1978.

Click to expand...

So civil rights included a quota system? How is that not discriminating based on race? Well... we just wont call it a quota system And you think that ended affirmative action?

Talk about disingenuous nonsense.

Click to expand...

I haven't, thats you... You're the one who keeps accusing me of dishonesty.

When taken alone, the word "discrimination" can essentially mean any selection process where a decision is made to favor one person over another. But when it is put in context with civil rights and racism, it means something quite different. This is why it is quite similar to claiming that abortion is murder. It is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to falsely claim that those who support diversity programs and even civil rights are the actual racists.

Click to expand...

I dont know if you are a racist - or what that even means - but if you support affirmative action then you support state mandated racial discrimination. You're choosing people based on race and trying to justify it by pointing at racial discrimination from the past.

Berzerker said:

The quotas are implied goals or guidelines for avoiding the state - thats one of the first lines of defense businesses have when a bureaucrat comes calling because of a complaint. And if I were a black Texan and my academic accomplishments lost out to a white ( or latino, or asian, or...) with lesser credentials, I'd want to know if race was a "factor". This is the point - if race is a factor then racial discrimination is the inevitable result - and it's mandated by the state (or feds).

Click to expand...

Race can't be a factor is the law. If the proportions don't match up, you are discriminating -or- the manpower isn't there. You have to prove the latter to be absolved of the former.

I dont know if this is BS but I keep hearing Asian Americans are over represented in the California Uni system, I went to school out there in the 70s and the best HS in the city was virtually all Asian and white. "If" the state required racial representation for reasons of diversity or whatever, a bunch of those people couldn't have gone to that school. How is that not discriminating based on race?.

Click to expand...

HS which are not magnet tend to take students from certain geographic zones. Furthermore, affirmative action doesn't usually apply to HS as I understand it.

Affirmative action allegedly applies to state universities too, but they nevertheless can be shown to have patterns of discrimination. For all AA does, the playing field is still tipped heavily in the favor of whites.

Also: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222219

Bright minds and dark attitudes: lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact.

Hodson G, Busseri MA.
Department of Psychology, Brock University, Ontario, Canada. ghodson@brocku.ca

Abstract

Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget Reagan's spiel about the "Welfare Queens".

You mean the last decent, moderate President?

A man who used the racist, ignorant beliefs of others in an attempt to gain votes and to dehumanise and disenfranchise blacks.

Obama?

GhostWriter16 said:

Obama?

Click to expand...

Apparently you lack even the most basic of reading comprehension or ability.

I actually meant Reagan, although you can go on about how Obama is apparently stoking racial tensions, whilst you were rather silent on the whole birther issue.

Let's not forget forming black lists which ruined the careers of dozens of actors whose only crimea were being liberals, while supposedly protecting their interests as president of the Screen Actors Guild. Deliberately ignoring AIDs during the first critical years because many of his most influential advisers thought it was due to their god getting even with homosexuals. Nearly starting WWIII after the Cold War had effectively ended decades before and the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse. And being the first Republican president who deliberately destroyed the balance of the Supreme Court to further his own reactionary agenda, among many other similar deeds.

If Reagan was a moderate, then Romney is a communist.

GhostWriter16 said:

You mean the last decent, moderate President?

Click to expand...

Eisenhower?