Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You would think, but no, I don't believe it does.If there are incidences of whites being discriminated against then, by law, the affirmative action laws must cover them as well. That this doesn't seem to happen merely means that white people aren't discriminated against on a regular basis.
If we NEED this law is another question entirely...but the way the law is written it covers everyone (except gender benders).
I think the Supreme Court has said that the CRA prevents institutions (colleges, private employers, governments) from choosing an under-qualified person over a qualified person on the basis of race etc. But those institutions can have policies where, if there's a pool of equally qualified candidates, they can select a racial minority and/or female from that pool by virtue of that candidate having those traits. I think that's the nuance here.
Applying for a job or college is a zero sum game. People are naturally going to get squeezed out. Some companies' policies will default to the non-white non-male candidate over other equally qualified candidates who are white and or male--meaning they're being squeezed out on the basis or race and or gender. This is the discrimination I'm talking about, which is something that admittedly offends my delicate sensibilities here.
But I realize it's kind of hard to feel sorry for white males in this country because we've historically been the oppressor social group.
Wouldn't "on the basis of... sex" cover benders?
Sorry, I don't believe in affirmative action for idiots.LOL! Fixed your post.manipoo said:Manipoo doesn't even know the difference between affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act, so how can she be expected to speak intelligently on this topic?
From wikipedia, a simplistic enough explanation that even you can understand.
Ravibility said:manifold's spot on assessment of my ignorance was more hurtful than my ego can handle, so now I'm going to lash out with deflection and strawmen, the only way I know how.
If you're looking for sympathy you can find it in the dictionary, somewhere between shit and syphilis.
You guys would make for a cute couple.
How it is used is beyond my control. Like I said before, there probably aren't all that many cases of white people being discriminated against.Whatever reason it was originally written is immaterial. The way it is written it covers everyone.In that case Ravibility I truly cannot expect you to speak intelligently on the subject.
Carry on
Problem is it's not interpreted the way it reads.
Show me an example where a white used AA laws as precedence in a civil suit?
It's just like EEO. Whites would get laughed out of the office if they had a complaint.
The problem I have is with fairness. As you say, laws should always be applied evenly, but they never are. If you want to look at Hate Crimes legislation, who do they protect? Certainly not whites or Christians. Only minorities and Gays.
This is not to say it's necessarily unjustified. I believe there was a study done a few (?) years ago that said something to the effect that, if an applicant has a non-European sounding name, they're half as likely to get the interview than someone who does. I don't remember the year, could be from the 70s for all I know.
LOL! Fixed your post.manipoo said:Manipoo doesn't even know the difference between affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act, so how can she be expected to speak intelligently on this topic?
From wikipedia, a simplistic enough explanation that even you can understand.
Affirmative action was first established in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961 and required government contractors to "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" as well as to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[9] This executive order was superseded by Executive Order 11246, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965 and affirmed the Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[1] It is notable that affirmative action was not extended to women until Executive Order 11375 amended Executive Order 11246 on October 13, 1967, expanding the definition to include "sex." As it currently stands, affirmative action through Executive Order 11246 applies to "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In the U.S., affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[10
Related but different. Look at Jeff Dunham with Achmed and Sweet Daddy D. One could easily make the argument that the two characters are gross racial sterotype- and in that regard they it is racist, even if it is a rather benign racism and accepted by society as a whole.Is socially & culturally accepted racism a subset of institutionalized racism?
Or is that something completely different?
How it is used is beyond my control. Like I said before, there probably aren't all that many cases of white people being discriminated against.Whatever reason it was originally written is immaterial. The way it is written it covers everyone.
Problem is it's not interpreted the way it reads.
Show me an example where a white used AA laws as precedence in a civil suit?
It's just like EEO. Whites would get laughed out of the office if they had a complaint.
The problem I have is with fairness. As you say, laws should always be applied evenly, but they never are. If you want to look at Hate Crimes legislation, who do they protect? Certainly not whites or Christians. Only minorities and Gays.
And, BS on hate crimes. There are hate crime charges brought against minorities, open your eyes.
In Long Beach California a pack of wild feral negroes went out on a mission to find White people and beat them to a pulp. As they were attacking the Whites they were hurling racial slurs like "cracka" and "White trash" etc..etc..etc... When the charges were bought NOT one hate crime charge and in the end they got community service and a slap on the wrist.
Anybody with two eyes and a brain can find countless situations were blacks blatantly targeted Whites for vicious attacks and they are almost never charged with hate crimes. On the other hand, if I were so much as to look at a black person wrong and mutter to myself "fukkking ******!" you can be damn sure that's a 30 year hate crime felony.
If we are going to have hate crime laws on the books they better start applying it to the savage negroes that abuse it the most.
The mods don't like sockpuppets--especially ones by banned members, Stanley Pickle.
The truest sentence ever told.
In Long Beach California a pack of wild feral negroes went out on a mission to find White people and beat them to a pulp. As they were attacking the Whites they were hurling racial slurs like "cracka" and "White trash" etc..etc..etc... When the charges were bought NOT one hate crime charge and in the end they got community service and a slap on the wrist.
Anybody with two eyes and a brain can find countless situations were blacks blatantly targeted Whites for vicious attacks and they are almost never charged with hate crimes. On the other hand, if I were so much as to look at a black person wrong and mutter to myself "fukkking ******!" you can be damn sure that's a 30 year hate crime felony.
If we are going to have hate crime laws on the books they better start applying it to the savage negroes that abuse it the most.
Good question.What is institutionalized racism?