Why reverse racism can't exist

[JQPublic1]

That's just plain stupid. Affirmative Action couldn't exist without the approval of Whites But the fallacy of " "racism" associated with AA doesn't end there. White women benefitted from it too. That fact completely annihilates your inane claim of Affirmative Action being racist against Whites.

So you're saying it's against white men? How does that make it better? How does a government policy promoting hiring based on race a good thing? Shouldn't hiring be based on merit?

Some rw white male spin doctors have made it seem that AA is against white men but in fact, as I detailed in post #30 , the white husbands of women using AA are benefitting too. Two high paying jobs beats one high paying job any day of the week. It's much easier to send the kids to college, have a nicer home and automobile with AA helping your white female spouse to succeed.

Are you going to answer the question?

How does a government policy promoting hiring based on race a good thing? Shouldn't hiring be based on merit?

I've answered your question. I've shown that hiring or ediucational opportunity under AA in it's present form is independent of race. Any underrepresented group is eligible as long as the individual is qualified.
Let's take a look at that word "merit."Just what does it mean as applied to hiring practices?. What particular merit are you referring to that would distinguish one government hire from another if both are qualified to do the job?

Liar! AA is entirely based on race. Blacks the beneficiaries. Whites the victims.

Typical liberal MO. Redefine reality to fit their agenda.

I can't help you with your ignorance if you don't bother to do some research. Your blind bias and racism has made you stupid. Everyone knows white women have benefited from Aa more than any group. Yet, some are coming out agaist the very program that removed obstacles in education and employment for them. I suspect ignorant rw white males like you are influencing even more ignorant females around.you to think that way and act against their own interests.

 

[bgrouse]

90% of institutional racism over the past 50 years has been Affirmative Action discrimination against whites

This still exists in 42 states where this abomination still exists.

That's just plain stupid. Affirmative Action couldn't exist without the approval of Whites But the fallacy of " "racism" associated with AA doesn't end there. White women benefitted from it too. That fact completely annihilates your inane claim of Affirmative Action being racist against Whites.

So you're saying it's against white men? How does that make it better? How does a government policy promoting hiring based on race a good thing? Shouldn't hiring be based on merit?

Some rw white male spin doctors have made it seem that AA is against white men but in fact, as I detailed in post #30 , the white husbands of women using AA are benefitting too. Two high paying jobs beats one high paying job any day of the week. It's much easier to send the kids to college, have a nicer home and automobile with AA helping your white female spouse to succeed.

Are you going to answer the question?

How does a government policy promoting hiring based on race a good thing? Shouldn't hiring be based on merit?

I've answered your question. I've shown that hiring or ediucational opportunity under AA in it's present form is independent of race. Any underrepresented group is eligible as long as the individual is qualified.

And is race at least one of the characteristics used to determine who belongs to a "group?"

Let's take a look at that word "merit."Just what does it mean as applied to hiring practices?. What particular merit are you referring to that would distinguish one government hire from another if both are qualified to do the job?

Ability? Experience?

"Qualifications" are often the minimum requirements to apply for a job, like a $50 license to perform a certain activity for profit. There's far more to selecting a good candidate.

 

[Marion Morrison]

race race race!

Marsha Marsha Marsha!

 

[Syriusly]

I saw this video on a friend's FB page. I think it is a very good explanation of what some people call reverse racism. I especially like the scale and the way it talks about evening the playing field

The Root


Mod Edit (FCT) --- to include OP statement with link.

Not going to watch a video.

But there is only racism.

Reverse racism would be not being racist.

 

[Spare_change]

There is no such thing as "reverse racism".

Racism is racism.

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism
"Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
noun: racism


ANYONE can be racist.

As Chris Rock once said, the most racist person on the planet is an Old black man, you just don't notice it because he is so used to hiding it.

Chris Rock is a comedian.....I base none of my personal beliefs on anything he says to get a laugh.

I have seen so many definitions of racism. Older ones say it is discrimination and segregation. Newer ones define it as a more individual belief. I still believe racism is institutional and that prejudice is personal.

I believe you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[JQPublic1]

That's just plain stupid. Affirmative Action couldn't exist without the approval of Whites But the fallacy of " "racism" associated with AA doesn't end there. White women benefitted from it too. That fact completely annihilates your inane claim of Affirmative Action being racist against Whites.

So you're saying it's against white men? How does that make it better? How does a government policy promoting hiring based on race a good thing? Shouldn't hiring be based on merit?

Some rw white male spin doctors have made it seem that AA is against white men but in fact, as I detailed in post #30 , the white husbands of women using AA are benefitting too. Two high paying jobs beats one high paying job any day of the week. It's much easier to send the kids to college, have a nicer home and automobile with AA helping your white female spouse to succeed.

Are you going to answer the question?

How does a government policy promoting hiring based on race a good thing? Shouldn't hiring be based on merit?

I've answered your question. I've shown that hiring or ediucational opportunity under AA in it's present form is independent of race. Any underrepresented group is eligible as long as the individual is qualified.

And is race at least one of the characteristics used to determine who belongs to a "group?"

Let's take a look at that word "merit."Just what does it mean as applied to hiring practices?. What particular merit are you referring to that would distinguish one government hire from another if both are qualified to do the job?

Ability? Experience?

"Qualifications" are often the minimum requirements to apply for a job, like a $50 license to perform a certain activity for profit. There's far more to selecting a good candidate.

"And is race at least one of the characteristics used to determine who belongs to a "group?"
Yes! Yes but let's get down to the brass tacks. Under AA guidelines, an employer, including the government, is not required to hire unqualified people of any race. But government HR Managers and contractors are "encouraged" to search for and recruit qualified applicants in underrepresented groups. Look, pal...your underlying theme is that you believe any time a Black person is hired, regardless of how qualified they are ,
Its at the expense of a more qualified white person. But you don't hold that same view in respect to white women
Who may have been hired to a position with identical qualifications to the black guy you think was hired unfairly. How do you reconcile that?
In regards to the consideration of merit in hiring you posted this:
"Ability? Experience?
"Qualifications" are often the minimum requirements to apply for a job, like a $50 license to perform a certain activity for profit. There's far more to selecting a good candidate".

If you really believe what you posted in that last sentence, I'm puzzled as to why you would think AA dilutes merit in some way when it's applied to Blacks and not Hispanics or White women?

 

[bgrouse]

So you're saying it's against white men? How does that make it better? How does a government policy promoting hiring based on race a good thing? Shouldn't hiring be based on merit?

Some rw white male spin doctors have made it seem that AA is against white men but in fact, as I detailed in post #30 , the white husbands of women using AA are benefitting too. Two high paying jobs beats one high paying job any day of the week. It's much easier to send the kids to college, have a nicer home and automobile with AA helping your white female spouse to succeed.

Are you going to answer the question?

How does a government policy promoting hiring based on race a good thing? Shouldn't hiring be based on merit?

I've answered your question. I've shown that hiring or ediucational opportunity under AA in it's present form is independent of race. Any underrepresented group is eligible as long as the individual is qualified.

And is race at least one of the characteristics used to determine who belongs to a "group?"

Let's take a look at that word "merit."Just what does it mean as applied to hiring practices?. What particular merit are you referring to that would distinguish one government hire from another if both are qualified to do the job?

Ability? Experience?

"Qualifications" are often the minimum requirements to apply for a job, like a $50 license to perform a certain activity for profit. There's far more to selecting a good candidate.

"And is race at least one of the characteristics used to determine who belongs to a "group?"
Yes! Yes but let's get down to the brass tacks. Under AA guidelines, an employer, including the government, is not required to hire unqualified people of any race. But government HR Managers and contractors are "encouraged" to search for and recruit qualified applicants in underrepresented groups.

Why should they be? Let's say the qualifications for a heart surgeon at a particular hospital is a set of degrees/licenses and 3 years of experience. I get a white guy with 10 years of experience who performed 100 complicated heart surgeries with 100% success. I follow AA and find some black guy with the same degrees from some "historically black" negro college with 3 years of experience who did 10 surgeries and every single patient died. I hire the negro and the white guy collects unemployment.

Is that how business should be operated?

Look, pal...your underlying theme is that you believe any time a Black person is hired, regardless of how qualified they are ,
Its at the expense of a more qualified white person.

Where did I say that? I'm just saying it's a bad policy, not that it always causes the worst possible outcome.

But you don't hold that same view in respect to white women

I don't think race or gender should be enforced or "encouraged" by the government unless it directly relates to the job, and even then I think they should only enforce it for government jobs. I don't believe I ever said white women should be forcefully employed.

Who may have been hired to a position with identical qualifications to the black guy you think was hired unfairly. How do you reconcile that?
In regards to the consideration of merit in hiring you posted this:
"Ability? Experience?
"Qualifications" are often the minimum requirements to apply for a job, like a $50 license to perform a certain activity for profit. There's far more to selecting a good candidate".

If you really believe what you posted in that last sentence, I'm puzzled as to why you would think AA dilutes merit in some way when it's applied to Blacks and not Hispanics or White women?

I'm puzzled where you pulled this bullshit white women and hispanics strawman.

 

[Moonglow]

I saw this video on a friend's FB page. I think it is a very good explanation of what some people call reverse racism. I especially like the scale and the way it talks about evening the playing field

The Root


Mod Edit (FCT) --- to include OP statement with link.

Ahem, do we always get a free circle to make up rules for the game?

 

[JQPublic1]

Let's say the qualifications for a heart surgeon at a particular hospital is a set of degrees/licenses and 3 years of experience. I get a white guy with 10 years of experience who performed 100 complicated heart surgeries with 100% success. I follow AA and find some black guy with the same degrees from some "historically black" negro college with 3 years of experience who did 10 surgeries and every single patient died. I hire the negro and the white guy collects unemployment.

Is that how business s6hould be operated?

Now I see where you're coming from.
Your hate for African-Americans is clear now. Your use of the word "negro" and your obvious biased attitude highlights your lack of decorum and underlines your disrespect for any black person who might venture into this forum.

But i'll leave you with a parting shot.
Suppose the "Negro" in your scenario was Ben Carson? He says he believes AA allowed him to get his education...and look what that affirmative action baby accomplished.

Dr. Ben Carson - Beyond Affirmative Action

But wait... have you ever heard of Vivien Thomas? He wasn't even a doctor but incredible, circumstanes put him in the
Key role of solving the "blue-baby syndrome". Degreed white surgeons who had oddles of experience could not compete with a black man who had been hired as a janitor and was paid accordingly. Dont believe me? Here is the link...or google Vivien Thomas.
Vivien Thomas - Wikipedia

 

[bgrouse]

Let's say the qualifications for a heart surgeon at a particular hospital is a set of degrees/licenses and 3 years of experience. I get a white guy with 10 years of experience who performed 100 complicated heart surgeries with 100% success. I follow AA and find some black guy with the same degrees from some "historically black" negro college with 3 years of experience who did 10 surgeries and every single patient died. I hire the negro and the white guy collects unemployment.

Is that how business s6hould be operated?

Now I see where you're coming from.
Your hate for African-Americans is clear now. Your use of the word "negro" and your obvious biased attitude highlights your lack of decorum and underlines your disrespect for any black person who might venture into this forum.

But i'll leave you with a parting shot.
Suppose the "Negro" in your scenario was Ben Carson? He says he believes AA allowed him to get his education...and look what that affirmative action baby accomplished.

Dr. Ben Carson - Beyond Affirmative Action

But wait... have you ever heard of Vivien Thomas? He wasn't even a doctor but incredible, circumstanes put him in the
Key role of solving the "blue-baby syndrome". Degreed white surgeons who had oddles of experience could not compete with a black man who had been hired as a janitor and was paid accordingly. Dont believe me? Here is the link...or google Vivien Thomas.
Vivien Thomas - Wikipedia

I'm not saying I don't believe in your two examples, I'm just saying two anecdotes don't validate a policy affecting hundreds of millions. That's like saying playing the lottery is a good idea because these two people won. Furthermore, who can say a white would not have made a better breakthrough in the same place?

And I'm still puzzled about the white women and hispanics. Could you elaborate on that?

Or you can just pretend you're right because I used the word "negro."

 

[JQPublic1]

'm not saying I don't believe in your two examples, I'm just saying two anecdotes don't validate a policy affecting hundreds of millions.

Both Carson and Thomas are real people. Your anecdote is something you made up...a hypothesis. But aside from that, AA as it relates to Blacks doesn't affect hundreds of millions. The entire. Black population is only 41 million.
But here is the real question: why do you think Affirmative Action was necessary in the first place ?
Here is a clue:
Myth: Affirmative Action Disregards Merit
In a study on employment discrimination, potential employers prevented African-American job applicants from advancing to equivalent interviews or hiring levels as white applicants with the exact same qualifications at least twenty percent of the time. Another study suggested that, "Hispanic testers were three times as likely to encounter unfavorable treatment when applying for jobs as were closely matched Anglos."

That's like saying playing the lottery is a good idea because these two people won

If you assume white men are only hired on" merit" that might hold water. But merit is such an ambiguous term it is useless except to identify something nebulous that you think minorities are bereft of. The analogy you concocted is misplaced. There could be thousands of Blacks with the same potential.

And I'm still puzzled about the white women and hispanics. Could you elaborate on that?

Sure, no problem. What I'm saying is that white women, Hispanics and Asians were locked out of the skilled labor and proffessional job markets just like Blacks until AA loosened things up.
All benefitted but your focus is on Blacks...Why?

Or you can just pretend you're right because I used the word "negro."

Did it make you feel superior somehow by using the N word?

 

[bgrouse]

'm not saying I don't believe in your two examples, I'm just saying two anecdotes don't validate a policy affecting hundreds of millions.

Both Carson and Thomas are real people. Your anecdote is something you made up...a hypothesis.

No, dumbass, it's not. Or at least it doesn't have to be. First definition I found:
noun

• 1A short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

But aside from that, AA as it relates to Blacks doesn't affect hundreds of millions. The entire. Black population is only 41 million.

If the white guy doesn't get the job, obviously it affects him, too. Don't be obtuse.

Even if it's only 41 million, that's hardly a good statistic (2 out of 41 million).

But here is the real question: why do you think Affirmative Action was necessary in the first place ?
Here is a clue:
Myth: Affirmative Action Disregards Merit
In a study on employment discrimination, potential employers prevented African-American job applicants from advancing to equivalent interviews or hiring levels as white applicants with the exact same qualifications at least twenty percent of the time.

I thought we were over this. The same "qualifications" might just mean they have met the requirements to apply. It doesn't necessarily mean the extra experience or other factors above and beyond minimum qualifications were the same.

Another study suggested that, "Hispanic testers were three times as likely to encounter unfavorable treatment when applying for jobs as were closely matched Anglos."

What does "closely matched" even mean? Does it mean they both have the same education, but the hispanic has 10 rape convictions, too? No really, what does it mean? What is the criteria for "closely matched?"

That's like saying playing the lottery is a good idea because these two people won

If you assume white men are only hired on" merit" that might hold water. But merit is such an ambiguous term it is useless except to identify something nebulous that you think minorities are bereft of. The analogy you concocted is misplaced. There could be thousands of Blacks with the same potential.

Lot's of maybes, not too many facts to support your policy.

And I'm still puzzled about the white women and hispanics. Could you elaborate on that?

Sure, no problem. What I'm saying is that white women, Hispanics and Asians were locked out of the skilled labor and proffessional job markets just like Blacks until AA loosened things up.
All benefitted but your focus is on Blacks...Why?

My first sentence in this thread:

So you're saying it's against white men?

Which was a response to your post. As you can see, I specifically mentioned gender as well.

Or you can just pretend you're right because I used the word "negro."

Did it make you feel superior somehow by using the N word?

Why would I need that to feel superior? I already know I'm superior.

Anyway, answer this: Even if whites are favored over truly equally qualified blacks (if that can even happen, how can two people have identical resumes, lives, and perform identically on the interview? Let's just assume it did happen just for now), what does AA really accomplish? At the end of the day, one equally qualified person will get the job and the other will not. Either way it sucks for the guy who didn't get it. Why are you so concerned with making sure the workplace is racially diverse? Should short people be a protected group? What about people with one testicle? What about bald people? Why are you making such a big deal out of making sure that out of 100 equal whites and 100 equal blacks going for 100 jobs that the jobs are filled in a way that is racially proportional to the population demographics? If blacks make up 20% of a country, do we have to make certain that every shop you visit that has 5 employees that precisely 1 is black? Why the hell does it matter so much? In a 50/50 country of blacks and whites, let's say you are picking a President and Prime Minister. Does one have to be white and the other black? What if I chime in and say it's more important to protect short people? WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT?!

 

[JQPublic1]

'm not saying I don't believe in your two examples, I'm just saying two anecdotes don't validate a policy affecting hundreds of millions.

Both Carson and Thomas are real people. Your anecdote is something you made up...a hypothesis.

No, dumbass, it's not. Or at least it doesn't have to be. First definition I found:
noun

• 1A short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

But aside from that, AA as it relates to Blacks doesn't affect hundreds of millions. The entire. Black population is only 41 million.

If the white guy doesn't get the job, obviously it affects him, too. Don't be obtuse.

Even if it's only 41 million, that's hardly a good statistic (2 out of 41 million).

But here is the real question: why do you think Affirmative Action was necessary in the first place ?
Here is a clue:
Myth: Affirmative Action Disregards Merit
In a study on employment discrimination, potential employers prevented African-American job applicants from advancing to equivalent interviews or hiring levels as white applicants with the exact same qualifications at least twenty percent of the time.

I thought we were over this. The same "qualifications" might just mean they have met the requirements to apply. It doesn't necessarily mean the extra experience or other factors above and beyond minimum qualifications were the same.

Another study suggested that, "Hispanic testers were three times as likely to encounter unfavorable treatment when applying for jobs as were closely matched Anglos."

What does "closely matched" even mean? Does it mean they both have the same education, but the hispanic has 10 rape convictions, too? No really, what does it mean? What is the criteria for "closely matched?"

That's like saying playing the lottery is a good idea because these two people won

If you assume white men are only hired on" merit" that might hold water. But merit is such an ambiguous term it is useless except to identify something nebulous that you think minorities are bereft of. The analogy you concocted is misplaced. There could be thousands of Blacks with the same potential.

Lot's of maybes, not too many facts to support your policy.

And I'm still puzzled about the white women and hispanics. Could you elaborate on that?

Sure, no problem. What I'm saying is that white women, Hispanics and Asians were locked out of the skilled labor and proffessional job markets just like Blacks until AA loosened things up.
All benefitted but your focus is on Blacks...Why?

My first sentence in this thread:

So you're saying it's against white men?

Which was a response to your post. As you can see, I specifically mentioned gender as well.

Or you can just pretend you're right because I used the word "negro."

Did it make you feel superior somehow by using the N word?

Why would I need that to feel superior? I already know I'm superior.

Anyway, answer this: Even if whites are favored over truly equally qualified blacks (if that can even happen, how can two people have identical resumes, lives, and perform identically on the interview? Let's just assume it did happen just for now), what does AA really accomplish? At the end of the day, one equally qualified person will get the job and the other will not. Either way it sucks for the guy who didn't get it. Why are you so concerned with making sure the workplace is racially diverse? Should short people be a protected group? What about people with one testicle? What about bald people? Why are you making such a big deal out of making sure that out of 100 equal whites and 100 equal blacks going for 100 jobs that the jobs are filled in a way that is racially proportional to the population demographics? If blacks make up 20% of a country, do we have to make certain that every shop you visit that has 5 employees that precisely 1 is black? Why the hell does it matter so much? In a 50/50 country of blacks and whites, let's say you are picking a President and Prime Minister. Does one have to be white and the other black? What if I chime in and say it's more important to protect short people? WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT?!

Enough is enough...your entire post is so full of hate and misiformation there is no good reason to engage you further. You don't want a debate you came here to vent. But i did see something worthy of a response. Here is the exchange:

You are too damn stupid for words. I was talking specifically about YOUR anecdote being made up. ..and YOUR anecdote was indeed a hypothesis.
My anecdote was not hypothetical. Geesshhh. Do I have to guide you every step of the way? Bye fool.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Chris Rock is a comedian.....I base none of my personal beliefs on anything he says to get a laugh.

I have seen so many definitions of racism. Older ones say it is discrimination and segregation. Newer ones define it as a more individual belief. I still believe racism is institutional and that prejudice is personal.

Oh, that's convenient that you've embraced the suddenly trendy liberal narrative that colored people can't be racist because they allegedly lack the institutional power.

 

[rightwinger]

Chris Rock is a comedian.....I base none of my personal beliefs on anything he says to get a laugh.

I have seen so many definitions of racism. Older ones say it is discrimination and segregation. Newer ones define it as a more individual belief. I still believe racism is institutional and that prejudice is personal.

Oh, that's convenient that you've embraced the suddenly trendy liberal narrative that colored people can't be racist because they allegedly lack the institutional power.

They can be racist, but their racism lacks any power or influence over whites

 

[JQPublic1]

Chris Rock is a comedian.....I base none of my personal beliefs on anything he says to get a laugh.

I have seen so many definitions of racism. Older ones say it is discrimination and segregation. Newer ones define it as a more individual belief. I still believe racism is institutional and that prejudice is personal.

Oh, that's convenient that you've embraced the suddenly trendy liberal narrative that colored people can't be racist because they allegedly lack the institutional power.

The key ingredient in racism
Is hate based on feelings of superiority over another race. When some members of the target race respond or react to hundreds of years of hate, prejudice and oppression imposed on their people...thats not racism...they are just trying to regain some collective sense of stolen dignity. Any hate found there is, in a historical context, justified.
Thankfully, though...most American Blacks are Christians who seek peace,
even as they are smitten by the likes of Dylan Roof in a place of worship.

 

[Conservative65]

I saw this video on a friend's FB page. I think it is a very good explanation of what some people call reverse racism. I especially like the scale and the way it talks about evening the playing field

The Root


Mod Edit (FCT) --- to include OP statement with link.

There's no such thing as reverse racism. The reverse doesn't refer to what's being done, it refers to those doing it. It's the racism part that matter and if it's using color as a factor, it's racism. Reverse refers to those using something that they said was wrong when used against them but justifying it as valid when it's used to benefit them.

 

[Conservative65]

Chris Rock is a comedian.....I base none of my personal beliefs on anything he says to get a laugh.

I have seen so many definitions of racism. Older ones say it is discrimination and segregation. Newer ones define it as a more individual belief. I still believe racism is institutional and that prejudice is personal.

Oh, that's convenient that you've embraced the suddenly trendy liberal narrative that colored people can't be racist because they allegedly lack the institutional power.

They can be racist, but their racism lacks any power or influence over whites

Not when the government backs it up.

 

[Conservative65]

The Root

Reverse racism would be no racism

Reverse references the very group that complained using race was bad until they use race to benefit. Suddenly using race is OK although no less racist.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Chris Rock is a comedian.....I base none of my personal beliefs on anything he says to get a laugh.

I have seen so many definitions of racism. Older ones say it is discrimination and segregation. Newer ones define it as a more individual belief. I still believe racism is institutional and that prejudice is personal.

Oh, that's convenient that you've embraced the suddenly trendy liberal narrative that colored people can't be racist because they allegedly lack the institutional power.

They can be racist, but their racism lacks any power or influence over whites

Racism and effects of racism are two different topics...

Putting that aside: White liberals telling blacks that they're "powerless".