Reverse Discrimination

[katsteve2012]

I dont see it. Your assumptions are amusing and vaque. Where does it specify only or primarily Black people? Your assumptions are not credible. I asked for a link.

In 1964, which Race and which Color do you think they were referencing?


That is not an assumption, it is having some knowledge of the historical context.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

In 1964 "race" implied several defined races. The US has never been just Black and white. Are you really still trying to defend that stupid claim of yours?

Which Races and COlors do you think they were passing the 64 Act for?

Whites? Lol!

HIspanics? LOL, in 1960 they were 3.2% of the population and they weren't the ones marching and rioting.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Whatever "sacrifices" that you imagine have been made up many times over through white females benefitting from Affirmative Action more than any other demographic.

Furthermore, the income disparity between whites and every other demographic in America is still substantially tilted in favor of the white population as a whole.

That being said the "discrimination" that you claim has been practiced against the white population is a figment of your persecuted imagination. So yes, I am completely dismissing the ridiculous notion of ANY "sacrifices".

The legislation passed in 1964 was to right a number of wrongs that had existed since America became a country. Get over it. You're not a victim

He sounds like that whiny effeminate poster named Protectionist.

Thanks.....I knew he sounded familiar.

 

[Conservative65]

I have listed as one example the hiring/promotion of less qualified blacks over more qualified whites as one.

The fact that white females have made gains over a similar period does not change that fact.

The fact that white females have made better gains from a law aimed primarily at people based on "Race" and "Color" does not change the cost to individual whites of not getting jobs or promotions they were more qualified for.

As for it being a figment of my imagination, I have linked to documentation on the 310 point SAT bonus blacks get in Ivy League Admissions, I have sited a Supreme Court case and personal experience as a manager trying to promote the most qualified people.

The remaining income disparity? Against every other demographic? You sure about that? I have my doubts about Asians, they have moving up fast.

But regardless, you can have massive discrimination in favor of blacks, and still have a large income gap.

You just have to have even MORE MASSIVE dysfunction in the black community to outweigh the benefits of the pro-black discrimination.

You listed ONE example and related a personal experience. I can list countless examples of qualified minorities and specifically black people who were passed over for opportunities for years simply based on the fact that they did not "look like" the person doing the hiring.

....

THe ONE example I listed is important because we see in it, a motive for reverse discrimination that is present in ALL walks of life, including ALL hiring and ALL promotion decisions.

That is why it is a good example.

The OTHER example I listed showed wide spread reverse discrimination in Ivy League admissions, based on ALL the admissions to Ivy League universities.

That is a good example because it showed the amount of reverse discrimination as a precise and large number based on ALL the students who were admitted.

It was "one" example, but included the entire student population of those schools.

I am certain that you do believe it was a good example since you also believe that there has been deliberate discrimination against the white population for "generations".

"All of the students admitted" still comes down to one undeniable fact. The number of black students admitted is substantially less, even allowing for relative population size, so there is still no evidence nationally that "massive" numbers of white students are being displaced in the classroom by black students due to the mythical "reverse discrimination" factor.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and I cannot relinquish any more of my time arguing a moot point with a total stranger.

All that I can recommend to you is to organize your own protest, just as black citizens did in 1964.

I do not know if you are capable of illustrating a compelling case of lost future earnings and promotions due to being robbed of your potential because of "reverse discrimination", but it you are in fact serious abiut your allegations, it woukd probably be wise to assemble some facts supporting your claim if you intend to pursue it legally.

Good luck.

It doesn't have to be massive numbers of whites. ONE being displaced in the name of affirmative action is wrong.

It is not 1950 anymore. America is a more diverse country than it was then. Back in the days that you long for, it was matter of which WHITE person had the right connections. A relative on the board, an
in law at the country club, etc.

Women and minorities, even if they were college educated and well qualified were automatically DISQUALIFIED.

So, if one, or two, or three or even a hundred are displaced, so be it. It is the law.

Get over it.

What's wrong if someone hires a relative or an in law? Shouldn't a family owned business be able to hire a family member first? I don't have a problem with that even if blacks hired their family members first.

Sorry but I'm not going to tell my white children who, when they are more qualified, to get over it to please a bunch of whiny little bleeding hearts that want to make themselves feel good by creating programs to hire less qualified people because of what happened in the past. I'll tell them that they should work hard and be qualified based on what they offer. If the day should come where a less qualified minority gets hired over them due to being a minority, I'll tell them that it has nothing to do with them but with assholes like you wanting to feel good about themselves.

Interesting how you have no problem using race to benefit minorities yet raise hell when raise is used to deny. Typical double standard hypocrite.

 

[katsteve2012]

You listed ONE example and related a personal experience. I can list countless examples of qualified minorities and specifically black people who were passed over for opportunities for years simply based on the fact that they did not "look like" the person doing the hiring.

....

THe ONE example I listed is important because we see in it, a motive for reverse discrimination that is present in ALL walks of life, including ALL hiring and ALL promotion decisions.

That is why it is a good example.

The OTHER example I listed showed wide spread reverse discrimination in Ivy League admissions, based on ALL the admissions to Ivy League universities.

That is a good example because it showed the amount of reverse discrimination as a precise and large number based on ALL the students who were admitted.

It was "one" example, but included the entire student population of those schools.

I am certain that you do believe it was a good example since you also believe that there has been deliberate discrimination against the white population for "generations".

"All of the students admitted" still comes down to one undeniable fact. The number of black students admitted is substantially less, even allowing for relative population size, so there is still no evidence nationally that "massive" numbers of white students are being displaced in the classroom by black students due to the mythical "reverse discrimination" factor.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and I cannot relinquish any more of my time arguing a moot point with a total stranger.

All that I can recommend to you is to organize your own protest, just as black citizens did in 1964.

I do not know if you are capable of illustrating a compelling case of lost future earnings and promotions due to being robbed of your potential because of "reverse discrimination", but it you are in fact serious abiut your allegations, it woukd probably be wise to assemble some facts supporting your claim if you intend to pursue it legally.

Good luck.

It doesn't have to be massive numbers of whites. ONE being displaced in the name of affirmative action is wrong.

It is not 1950 anymore. America is a more diverse country than it was then. Back in the days that you long for, it was matter of which WHITE person had the right connections. A relative on the board, an
in law at the country club, etc.

Women and minorities, even if they were college educated and well qualified were automatically DISQUALIFIED.

So, if one, or two, or three or even a hundred are displaced, so be it. It is the law.

Get over it.

What's wrong if someone hires a relative or an in law? Shouldn't a family owned business be able to hire a family member first? I don't have a problem with that even if blacks hired their family members first.

Sorry but I'm not going to tell my white children who, when they are more qualified, to get over it to please a bunch of whiny little bleeding hearts that want to make themselves feel good by creating programs to hire less qualified people because of what happened in the past. I'll tell them that they should work hard and be qualified based on what they offer. If the day should come where a less qualified minority gets hired over them due to being a minority, I'll tell them that it has nothing to do with them but with assholes like you wanting to feel good about themselves.

Interesting how you have no problem using race to benefit minorities yet raise hell when raise is used to deny. Typical double standard hypocrite.

Obviously I struck a nerve. I am no more an "asshole" than you are an ignorant, outdated idiot.

How often do you think that someone has been placed in a fortune 500 company based on a board member asking for a favor?

I saw it plenty. Like I told you before, dumbass, it is not 1950 anymore.

You're not a victim.

 

[Conservative65]

THe ONE example I listed is important because we see in it, a motive for reverse discrimination that is present in ALL walks of life, including ALL hiring and ALL promotion decisions.

That is why it is a good example.

The OTHER example I listed showed wide spread reverse discrimination in Ivy League admissions, based on ALL the admissions to Ivy League universities.

That is a good example because it showed the amount of reverse discrimination as a precise and large number based on ALL the students who were admitted.

It was "one" example, but included the entire student population of those schools.

I am certain that you do believe it was a good example since you also believe that there has been deliberate discrimination against the white population for "generations".

"All of the students admitted" still comes down to one undeniable fact. The number of black students admitted is substantially less, even allowing for relative population size, so there is still no evidence nationally that "massive" numbers of white students are being displaced in the classroom by black students due to the mythical "reverse discrimination" factor.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and I cannot relinquish any more of my time arguing a moot point with a total stranger.

All that I can recommend to you is to organize your own protest, just as black citizens did in 1964.

I do not know if you are capable of illustrating a compelling case of lost future earnings and promotions due to being robbed of your potential because of "reverse discrimination", but it you are in fact serious abiut your allegations, it woukd probably be wise to assemble some facts supporting your claim if you intend to pursue it legally.

Good luck.

It doesn't have to be massive numbers of whites. ONE being displaced in the name of affirmative action is wrong.

It is not 1950 anymore. America is a more diverse country than it was then. Back in the days that you long for, it was matter of which WHITE person had the right connections. A relative on the board, an
in law at the country club, etc.

Women and minorities, even if they were college educated and well qualified were automatically DISQUALIFIED.

So, if one, or two, or three or even a hundred are displaced, so be it. It is the law.

Get over it.

What's wrong if someone hires a relative or an in law? Shouldn't a family owned business be able to hire a family member first? I don't have a problem with that even if blacks hired their family members first.

Sorry but I'm not going to tell my white children who, when they are more qualified, to get over it to please a bunch of whiny little bleeding hearts that want to make themselves feel good by creating programs to hire less qualified people because of what happened in the past. I'll tell them that they should work hard and be qualified based on what they offer. If the day should come where a less qualified minority gets hired over them due to being a minority, I'll tell them that it has nothing to do with them but with assholes like you wanting to feel good about themselves.

Interesting how you have no problem using race to benefit minorities yet raise hell when raise is used to deny. Typical double standard hypocrite.

Obviously I struck a nerve. I am no more an "asshole" than you are an ignorant, outdated idiot.

How often do you think that someone has been placed in a fortune 500 company based on a board member asking for a favor?

I saw it plenty. Like I told you before, dumbass, it is not 1950 anymore.

You're not a victim.

Again, how is a friend hiring a friend racism? How is it wrong for a friend to hire a friend's son?

Sounds to me like you think you should have been hired before someone else and it hurt your feelings when you didn't. Sounds to me as if they didn't want a whining asshole.

You don't mind race being used to benefit but you haven't shown a damn thing where a board member asking for a favor getting someone hired and a black not getting it as racism. It's not racism if a favor is done and the one not hired is black. For it to be racism, the black person not getting hired would have to take place because he's black. In your example, the black not getting hired wasn't because of race but because someone did a favor. Even if the person getting the favor was white, it still isn't racism and definitely not illegal. If I want to hire a white friend's son over a black I don't know, that's my business. It isn't racism nor illegal. Don't like it, find some new friends.

 

[katsteve2012]

I am certain that you do believe it was a good example since you also believe that there has been deliberate discrimination against the white population for "generations".

"All of the students admitted" still comes down to one undeniable fact. The number of black students admitted is substantially less, even allowing for relative population size, so there is still no evidence nationally that "massive" numbers of white students are being displaced in the classroom by black students due to the mythical "reverse discrimination" factor.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and I cannot relinquish any more of my time arguing a moot point with a total stranger.

All that I can recommend to you is to organize your own protest, just as black citizens did in 1964.

I do not know if you are capable of illustrating a compelling case of lost future earnings and promotions due to being robbed of your potential because of "reverse discrimination", but it you are in fact serious abiut your allegations, it woukd probably be wise to assemble some facts supporting your claim if you intend to pursue it legally.

Good luck.

It doesn't have to be massive numbers of whites. ONE being displaced in the name of affirmative action is wrong.

It is not 1950 anymore. America is a more diverse country than it was then. Back in the days that you long for, it was matter of which WHITE person had the right connections. A relative on the board, an
in law at the country club, etc.

Women and minorities, even if they were college educated and well qualified were automatically DISQUALIFIED.

So, if one, or two, or three or even a hundred are displaced, so be it. It is the law.

Get over it.

What's wrong if someone hires a relative or an in law? Shouldn't a family owned business be able to hire a family member first? I don't have a problem with that even if blacks hired their family members first.

Sorry but I'm not going to tell my white children who, when they are more qualified, to get over it to please a bunch of whiny little bleeding hearts that want to make themselves feel good by creating programs to hire less qualified people because of what happened in the past. I'll tell them that they should work hard and be qualified based on what they offer. If the day should come where a less qualified minority gets hired over them due to being a minority, I'll tell them that it has nothing to do with them but with assholes like you wanting to feel good about themselves.

Interesting how you have no problem using race to benefit minorities yet raise hell when raise is used to deny. Typical double standard hypocrite.

Obviously I struck a nerve. I am no more an "asshole" than you are an ignorant, outdated idiot.

How often do you think that someone has been placed in a fortune 500 company based on a board member asking for a favor?

I saw it plenty. Like I told you before, dumbass, it is not 1950 anymore.

You're not a victim.

Again, how is a friend hiring a friend racism? How is it wrong for a friend to hire a friend's son?

Sounds to me like you think you should have been hired before someone else and it hurt your feelings when you didn't. Sounds to me as if they didn't want a whining asshole.

You don't mind race being used to benefit but you haven't shown a damn thing where a board member asking for a favor getting someone hired and a black not getting it as racism. It's not racism if a favor is done and the one not hired is black. For it to be racism, the black person not getting hired would have to take place because he's black. In your example, the black not getting hired wasn't because of race but because someone did a favor. Even if the person getting the favor was white, it still isn't racism and definitely not illegal. If I want to hire a white friend's son over a black I don't know, that's my business. It isn't racism nor illegal. Don't like it, find some new friends.

I am certain that you do believe it was a good example since you also believe that there has been deliberate discrimination against the white population for "generations".

"All of the students admitted" still comes down to one undeniable fact. The number of black students admitted is substantially less, even allowing for relative population size, so there is still no evidence nationally that "massive" numbers of white students are being displaced in the classroom by black students due to the mythical "reverse discrimination" factor.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and I cannot relinquish any more of my time arguing a moot point with a total stranger.

All that I can recommend to you is to organize your own protest, just as black citizens did in 1964.

I do not know if you are capable of illustrating a compelling case of lost future earnings and promotions due to being robbed of your potential because of "reverse discrimination", but it you are in fact serious abiut your allegations, it woukd probably be wise to assemble some facts supporting your claim if you intend to pursue it legally.

Good luck.

It doesn't have to be massive numbers of whites. ONE being displaced in the name of affirmative action is wrong.

It is not 1950 anymore. America is a more diverse country than it was then. Back in the days that you long for, it was matter of which WHITE person had the right connections. A relative on the board, an
in law at the country club, etc.

Women and minorities, even if they were college educated and well qualified were automatically DISQUALIFIED.

So, if one, or two, or three or even a hundred are displaced, so be it. It is the law.

Get over it.

What's wrong if someone hires a relative or an in law? Shouldn't a family owned business be able to hire a family member first? I don't have a problem with that even if blacks hired their family members first.

Sorry but I'm not going to tell my white children who, when they are more qualified, to get over it to please a bunch of whiny little bleeding hearts that want to make themselves feel good by creating programs to hire less qualified people because of what happened in the past. I'll tell them that they should work hard and be qualified based on what they offer. If the day should come where a less qualified minority gets hired over them due to being a minority, I'll tell them that it has nothing to do with them but with assholes like you wanting to feel good about themselves.

Interesting how you have no problem using race to benefit minorities yet raise hell when raise is used to deny. Typical double standard hypocrite.

Obviously I struck a nerve. I am no more an "asshole" than you are an ignorant, outdated idiot.

How often do you think that someone has been placed in a fortune 500 company based on a board member asking for a favor?

I saw it plenty. Like I told you before, dumbass, it is not 1950 anymore.

You're not a victim.

Again, how is a friend hiring a friend racism? How is it wrong for a friend to hire a friend's son?

Sounds to me like you think you should have been hired before someone else and it hurt your feelings when you didn't. Sounds to me as if they didn't want a whining asshole.

You don't mind race being used to benefit but you haven't shown a damn thing where a board member asking for a favor getting someone hired and a black not getting it as racism. It's not racism if a favor is done and the one not hired is black. For it to be racism, the black person not getting hired would have to take place because he's black. In your example, the black not getting hired wasn't because of race but because someone did a favor. Even if the person getting the favor was white, it still isn't racism and definitely not illegal. If I want to hire a white friend's son over a black I don't know, that's my business. It isn't racism nor illegal. Don't like it, find some new friends.

What it sounds like is that you have a comprehension problem.

So one more time,

s l o w l y.

In the not too distant past, equally qualified females and minorities were passed over generally as a rule. And it was not uncommon for it to be in favor of a white male who was part of a network and received a favor, and not just in privately family owned companies, in those situations it is obvious that family hires family

In larger corporations because of nepotism or favoritism AND racism, .females and minorities no matter how qualified they were, were often disqualified or just ignored based on race and gender.

Had there been a fair and equitable system of hiring in the workforce, to begin with, there never would have been a need for corrective legislation.

And as far as me personally, not that it is any of your business, but I was not passed over for anything, I was fortunate enough not to be, and I am currently retired, but I did see it happen to many others. If there was no legislation in place today to ensure fairness and equality there would be none.

All one has to do is read some of the comments by some of the extreme right wing nuts posting here and multiply that number by thousands to understand that.

 

[squeeze berry]

even black managers realize that a certain class of employees are not very bright and lazy as fuck

RE: asslickers failed McDonalds post

the only way for some to keep up is forced hiring of the lazy and stupid

lol

yes, lazy and stupid