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

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

 

[Conservative65]

I see we have two new rookies here, wet behind the ears, who are so butthurt about racial things that instead of introducing themselves to the USMB membership, they jump right in and just can't wait to show us how butthurt they are

Luddly Neddite 's response was right on target, but better than these two laughable nutbags deserve.

What kind of rookies START on a forum like this? So, Adiodato and Correll - what the fuck is wrong with both of you?

Slow day at StormKKKront, or what?

.

Must be a long line at the Liberal ass licking trough today. Guess that's why you pucker up to Luddly's ass.

Oh, you are back. And OT as usual.

You are still here and puckering up as usual.

Is he always like this?

All he has done is insult people. He hasn't addressed the issue at all.

Pay attention and learn, you racist, bigoted stupid fuck:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

There is only discrimination, and it is terrible no matter who commits it. I don't care if a white, black, brown, latino, red, olive-skinned or yellow person does it, it is ALWAYS bad.

Only, it's almost always invariably white racist pieces of shit who just hve to bring it up, because they are like moths and the thought of bellyaching about Black people is like the light for them.

You may be the most stupid rookie I have ever encountered, well, assuming that you are not a sock.

If you present a REAL topic, one worth debating, I may just stop by. Otherwise, go fuck yourself, Cleetus.

Good luck with your tonka toys. Seems like that's more your league.

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

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

There doesn't have to be massive displacement. The argument by those supporting affirmative action programs centers around that it's wrong to deny a black based on race but it's perfectly OK to benefit one based on race.

 

[Correll]

I see we have two new rookies here, wet behind the ears, who are so butthurt about racial things that instead of introducing themselves to the USMB membership, they jump right in and just can't wait to show us how butthurt they are

Luddly Neddite 's response was right on target, but better than these two laughable nutbags deserve.

What kind of rookies START on a forum like this? So, Adiodato and Correll - what the fuck is wrong with both of you?

Slow day at StormKKKront, or what?

.

Must be a long line at the Liberal ass licking trough today. Guess that's why you pucker up to Luddly's ass.

Oh, you are back. And OT as usual.

You are still here and puckering up as usual.

Is he always like this?

All he has done is insult people. He hasn't addressed the issue at all.

Pay attention and learn, you racist, bigoted stupid fuck:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

There is only discrimination, and it is terrible no matter who commits it. I don't care if a white, black, brown, latino, red, olive-skinned or yellow person does it, it is ALWAYS bad.

Only, it's almost always invariably white racist pieces of shit who just hve to bring it up, because they are like moths and the thought of bellyaching about Black people is like the light for them.

You may be the most stupid rookie I have ever encountered, well, assuming that you are not a sock.

If you present a REAL topic, one worth debating, I may just stop by. Otherwise, go fuck yourself, Cleetus.

Good luck with your tonka toys. Seems like that's more your league.

guno - where the fuck do these people come from? Mars? Saturn?

Discrimination, or reverse discrimination, if all discrimination is terrible, then why do you seem more upset about semantics than the discrimination in question?


If discrimination is terrible, than what is your opinion on Ricci v Destefano?

It must greatly upset you that 4 out of 9 Supreme Court justices voted for that blatant discrimination.

Do you think that all the Justices that voted FOR discrimination against whites are "racist pieces of shit"?

Or is voting for blatant discrimination less offensive to you than word choices that you disagree with?


You asshole.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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? [emoji23]

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

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

You are being far too kind to racist assholians who don't deserve the courtesy. The fact that two rookies immediately came to this thread speaks volumes. Alone the fact that someone is fucked up enough to postulate that "reverse" discrimination is a topic for itself speaks volumes. I have lost all patience with racist, bigoted assholians. They are piss-poor in spirit and deserve not even an ounce of energy from me or any intelligent person.

Fuck em, they're trash.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[katsteve2012]

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? [emoji23]

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

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

You are being far too kind to racist assholians who don't deserve the courtesy. The fact that two rookies immediately came to this thread speaks volumes. Alone the fact that someone is fucked up enough to postulate that "reverse" discrimination is a topic for itself speaks volumes. I have lost all patience with racist, bigoted assholians. They are piss-poor in spirit and deserve not even an ounce of energy from me or any intelligent person.

Fuck em, they're trash.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I could not agree more Stat. I guess it is part entertainment and another part that some of what I'm reading here is fascinating.

 

[katsteve2012]

.

Must be a long line at the Liberal ass licking trough today. Guess that's why you pucker up to Luddly's ass.

Oh, you are back. And OT as usual.

You are still here and puckering up as usual.

Is he always like this?

All he has done is insult people. He hasn't addressed the issue at all.

Pay attention and learn, you racist, bigoted stupid fuck:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

There is only discrimination, and it is terrible no matter who commits it. I don't care if a white, black, brown, latino, red, olive-skinned or yellow person does it, it is ALWAYS bad.

Only, it's almost always invariably white racist pieces of shit who just hve to bring it up, because they are like moths and the thought of bellyaching about Black people is like the light for them.

You may be the most stupid rookie I have ever encountered, well, assuming that you are not a sock.

If you present a REAL topic, one worth debating, I may just stop by. Otherwise, go fuck yourself, Cleetus.

Good luck with your tonka toys. Seems like that's more your league.

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

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

There doesn't have to be massive displacement. The argument by those supporting affirmative action programs centers around that it's wrong to deny a black based on race but it's perfectly OK to benefit one based on race.

Affirmative action does not specifically address racial discrimination against blacks. It also addresses discrimination relating to religion, gender, disability, and sexual preference. The myopic focus on tge small percentace of blacks who have benefitted from it is miniscule compared to all the other components of the initiative. You should take some time and read it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

You are being far too kind to racist assholians who don't deserve the courtesy. The fact that two rookies immediately came to this thread speaks volumes. Alone the fact that someone is fucked up enough to postulate that "reverse" discrimination is a topic for itself speaks volumes. I have lost all patience with racist, bigoted assholians. They are piss-poor in spirit and deserve not even an ounce of energy from me or any intelligent person.

Fuck em, they're trash.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I could not agree more Stat. I guess it is part entertainment and another part that some of what I'm reading here is fascinating.

Life is too short for assholians. They are a total waste of human energy and time.

 

[Correll]

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

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.

 

[Correll]

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? [emoji23]

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

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

You are being far too kind to racist assholians who don't deserve the courtesy. The fact that two rookies immediately came to this thread speaks volumes. Alone the fact that someone is fucked up enough to postulate that "reverse" discrimination is a topic for itself speaks volumes. I have lost all patience with racist, bigoted assholians. They are piss-poor in spirit and deserve not even an ounce of energy from me or any intelligent person.

Fuck em, they're trash.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

1. It always amuses me that liberals, who are supposedly so concerned with equality are so desperate for class. As demonstrated by your strong focus on the fact that I am new here, as though that invalidates what I have to say.

2. Reverse discrimination, is a real problem, as shown by Ricci v Destefano, for example, and has many differences that make it worth discussing it separately from other discriminations, such as having the force of law behind it, and not having a social stigma attached.

3. You have no call to call me a racist or an asshole. I have said nothing racist, and you insulted me the first post you addressed to me, and seemed surprised that I insulted you back.

Is that part of being a veteran here? Do you imagine it gives you the right to insult people for no reason and still be treated with respect?

What type of person thinks that way? Rhetorical question, the answer: Elitist Asshole.

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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.

 

[Correll]

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

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.

The number of black students is less. And that is the reason for the discrimination.

The administrations want to have diversity, but they have the problem that that black applicants are not as qualified as the whites and asians.

So they discriminate.

They discriminate A LOT, 310 SAT points worth.

And they still can't find enough blacks who can they can sort of pretend are qualified to get the diversity they want so bad.

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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.

The number of black students is less. And that is the reason for the discrimination.

The administrations want to have diversity, but they have the problem that that black applicants are not as qualified as the whites and asians.

So they discriminate.

They discriminate A LOT, 310 SAT points worth.

And they still can't find enough blacks who can they can sort of pretend are qualified to get the diversity they want so bad.[QUOTE


As I state

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

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.

The number of black students is less. And that is the reason for the discrimination.

The administrations want to have diversity, but they have the problem that that black applicants are not as qualified as the whites and asians.

So they discriminate.

They discriminate A LOT, 310 SAT points worth.

And they still can't find enough blacks who can they can sort of pretend are qualified to get the diversity they want so bad.[/QUOTE

What hapoened to the "massive numbers " displacing whites in college admissions due to "reverse discrimination?

If there are not that many, you could always organize a protest based on the two incidents that you pointed out. Of course for your "movement against reverse discrimination" to have credibility you will likely need to illustrate the impact of the "generations of discrimination and sacrifice" that your people have endured.

 

[Conservative65]

Oh, you are back. And OT as usual.

You are still here and puckering up as usual.

Is he always like this?

All he has done is insult people. He hasn't addressed the issue at all.

Pay attention and learn, you racist, bigoted stupid fuck:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

There is only discrimination, and it is terrible no matter who commits it. I don't care if a white, black, brown, latino, red, olive-skinned or yellow person does it, it is ALWAYS bad.

Only, it's almost always invariably white racist pieces of shit who just hve to bring it up, because they are like moths and the thought of bellyaching about Black people is like the light for them.

You may be the most stupid rookie I have ever encountered, well, assuming that you are not a sock.

If you present a REAL topic, one worth debating, I may just stop by. Otherwise, go fuck yourself, Cleetus.

Good luck with your tonka toys. Seems like that's more your league.

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

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

There doesn't have to be massive displacement. The argument by those supporting affirmative action programs centers around that it's wrong to deny a black based on race but it's perfectly OK to benefit one based on race.

Affirmative action does not specifically address racial discrimination against blacks. It also addresses discrimination relating to religion, gender, disability, and sexual preference. The myopic focus on tge small percentace of blacks who have benefitted from it is miniscule compared to all the other components of the initiative. You should take some time and read it.

Bullshit. It uses characteristics to encourage and hire people that if those same characteristics were used to deny hiring, the entity would get sued. The entity hiring doesn't come out and say we hired so many of certain groups because of it. I've had more than one in those certain groups placed under my supervision that had to be sent for training and certification when someone else that already had it that interviewed wasn't hired.

 

[Conservative65]

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

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.

 

[Correll]

You are still here and puckering up as usual.

Is he always like this?

All he has done is insult people. He hasn't addressed the issue at all.

Pay attention and learn, you racist, bigoted stupid fuck:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

There is only discrimination, and it is terrible no matter who commits it. I don't care if a white, black, brown, latino, red, olive-skinned or yellow person does it, it is ALWAYS bad.

Only, it's almost always invariably white racist pieces of shit who just hve to bring it up, because they are like moths and the thought of bellyaching about Black people is like the light for them.

You may be the most stupid rookie I have ever encountered, well, assuming that you are not a sock.

If you present a REAL topic, one worth debating, I may just stop by. Otherwise, go fuck yourself, Cleetus.

Good luck with your tonka toys. Seems like that's more your league.

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

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

There doesn't have to be massive displacement. The argument by those supporting affirmative action programs centers around that it's wrong to deny a black based on race but it's perfectly OK to benefit one based on race.

Affirmative action does not specifically address racial discrimination against blacks. It also addresses discrimination relating to religion, gender, disability, and sexual preference. The myopic focus on tge small percentace of blacks who have benefitted from it is miniscule compared to all the other components of the initiative. You should take some time and read it.

Bullshit. It uses characteristics to encourage and hire people that if those same characteristics were used to deny hiring, the entity would get sued. The entity hiring doesn't come out and say we hired so many of certain groups because of it. I've had more than one in those certain groups placed under my supervision that had to be sent for training and certification when someone else that already had it that interviewed wasn't hired.

I supervised a shift for a couple of years (27ish people), and when I was transferring, I gave upper management my recommendations for who to promote to replace me.

They felt the need to get more blacks into the management team.

THey ignored my recommendations and asked questions ONLY about a number of black employees.

The one they focused on, I strongly recommended AGAINST, because I said she did not have the maturity.

I could not tell them that it took strong nerves to be in the middle between the unrealistic expectations of the staff and the unrealistic demands of upper management.

They promoted her, and in a few weeks she was fired.

They ran though at least one more before they found a black that could handle the job.

(they actually reduced the responsibilities of the position a lot, but truthfully, that was a unrelated bug up the ass of upper management)

 

[Conservative65]

Is he always like this?

All he has done is insult people. He hasn't addressed the issue at all.

Pay attention and learn, you racist, bigoted stupid fuck:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

There is only discrimination, and it is terrible no matter who commits it. I don't care if a white, black, brown, latino, red, olive-skinned or yellow person does it, it is ALWAYS bad.

Only, it's almost always invariably white racist pieces of shit who just hve to bring it up, because they are like moths and the thought of bellyaching about Black people is like the light for them.

You may be the most stupid rookie I have ever encountered, well, assuming that you are not a sock.

If you present a REAL topic, one worth debating, I may just stop by. Otherwise, go fuck yourself, Cleetus.

Good luck with your tonka toys. Seems like that's more your league.

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

There doesn't have to be massive displacement. The argument by those supporting affirmative action programs centers around that it's wrong to deny a black based on race but it's perfectly OK to benefit one based on race.

Affirmative action does not specifically address racial discrimination against blacks. It also addresses discrimination relating to religion, gender, disability, and sexual preference. The myopic focus on tge small percentace of blacks who have benefitted from it is miniscule compared to all the other components of the initiative. You should take some time and read it.

Bullshit. It uses characteristics to encourage and hire people that if those same characteristics were used to deny hiring, the entity would get sued. The entity hiring doesn't come out and say we hired so many of certain groups because of it. I've had more than one in those certain groups placed under my supervision that had to be sent for training and certification when someone else that already had it that interviewed wasn't hired.

I supervised a shift for a couple of years (27ish people), and when I was transferring, I gave upper management my recommendations for who to promote to replace me.

They felt the need to get more blacks into the management team.

THey ignored my recommendations and asked questions ONLY about a number of black employees.

The one they focused on, I strongly recommended AGAINST, because I said she did not have the maturity.

I could not tell them that it took strong nerves to be in the middle between the unrealistic expectations of the staff and the unrealistic demands of upper management.

They promoted her, and in a few weeks she was fired.

They ran though at least one more before they found a black that could handle the job.

(they actually reduced the responsibilities of the position a lot, but truthfully, that was a unrelated bug up the ass of upper management)

When I was promoted to my current position, my former position was vacant. HR made a big push for a female to be hired in our division. When we interviewed, all but the one that was hired already had the certifications necessary to fill the position and many more years experience. The one that was hired had one "qualification" the others didn't have. SHE got hired. She lasted about 2 years thinking that the "qualification" she was born with would allow her to slide through. When she found out she was going to have to do the job instead of simply being in it, she left. From what I understand, a similar result happened in her next position.

 

[Asclepias]

It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

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

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.

 

[Asclepias]

All races,genders and all colors of historically discriminated people since thats what it says. Thats why white women benefit more from AA than anyone else.

White women are white americans. I have no bone with them.

IN 1964, they were talking about blacks, not whites, not hispanics. They wording was universal, the real reason was blacks.



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

Is that another one of your assumptions or do you have it documented like I have asked for before? Show me where they said Blacks instead of race, color, gender, or nationality. I'm getting tired of waiting on your proof.

No assumptions. Just a layperson's knowledge of the time.

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

Actually if you are a layperson it is an assumption. Thanks for admitting that.

What sacrifices have white americans made? I'm curious because you seem to be butthurt.

Nothing in the definition of layperson indicates that a person cannot have general common knowledge of a subject.

Do you need a link to the meaning of the word?

As for sacrifices, one example is that for generations, more qualified whites have been losing jobs to less qualified blacks. I have sited the New Haven Firefighter case as one example.

I have, when a member of a management team, personally witnessed two white people get passed over for a less qualified black person.

A good friend of mine was surprised to NOT get hired for a City job, only to see that department successfully sued for reverse discrimination a couple of years later.

Thats your problem. Common knowledge can be anything from a half truth to utter ignorance of the facts. Sounds like you are suffering from the latter.

 

[katsteve2012]

You are still here and puckering up as usual.

Is he always like this?

All he has done is insult people. He hasn't addressed the issue at all.

Pay attention and learn, you racist, bigoted stupid fuck:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

There is only discrimination, and it is terrible no matter who commits it. I don't care if a white, black, brown, latino, red, olive-skinned or yellow person does it, it is ALWAYS bad.

Only, it's almost always invariably white racist pieces of shit who just hve to bring it up, because they are like moths and the thought of bellyaching about Black people is like the light for them.

You may be the most stupid rookie I have ever encountered, well, assuming that you are not a sock.

If you present a REAL topic, one worth debating, I may just stop by. Otherwise, go fuck yourself, Cleetus.

Good luck with your tonka toys. Seems like that's more your league.

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

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.

There is no "massive discrimination" in favor of blacks going on that can be attributed to "massive" displacement of white candidates in the workforce or in college admissions. There are no numbers that support this as fact. You even stating that this has been "going on for generations" is laughable. Do you know how many years a "generation" consists of?

You actually believe that from 1964 forward there has a systematic practice of discrimination against white people? In 1964, black citizens had just newly acquired the right to vote and be treated like equal citizens by law. Which means lawful PRACTICES were not fully established nor consistent. at that time.

Of course there are some cases where a minority or a female (most often a white female). Is appointed over a white male for a position, but that does not make it the norm that occurs in the majority of hiring decisions. White males still comprise the majority of those placed in positions of responsibility.

If you read the article that was posted regarding how white females have benefitted from affirmative action, it is stated that approximately 6 million white females have directly benefitted through being promoted based on AA practices.

You should be be grateful that white females have ascended the ranks at such a rapid rate of success since the implementation of AA. This phenomena has in most cases resulted in better lifestyles and more discretionary income for millions of white families in America. In addition to that, you should read more regarding AA policies and how they are ever changing. The newest trend is that veterans and the disabled are the most protected groups within AA practices.

You can deny and deflect and blame the black population for the failure of a minimal number of white males if you wish to, however, I will repeat, there is no "massive" displacement of whites due to blacks being unfairly rewarded at their expense. If that was the case, there would be anarchy in the streets.
You are not a victim.

There doesn't have to be massive displacement. The argument by those supporting affirmative action programs centers around that it's wrong to deny a black based on race but it's perfectly OK to benefit one based on race.

Affirmative action does not specifically address racial discrimination against blacks. It also addresses discrimination relating to religion, gender, disability, and sexual preference. The myopic focus on tge small percentace of blacks who have benefitted from it is miniscule compared to all the other components of the initiative. You should take some time and read it.

Bullshit. It uses characteristics to encourage and hire people that if those same characteristics were used to deny hiring, the entity would get sued. The entity hiring doesn't come out and say we hired so many of certain groups because of it. I've had more than one in those certain groups placed under my supervision that had to be sent for training and certification when someone else that already had it that interviewed wasn't hired.

If that was true, white females would not be the demographic that has most benefitted from Affirmative Action.

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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.