Is it wrong to be racist?

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Okay, so let's say we operate under meritocracy.

You now acknowledge it'd mostly be Asians and Jews, yes? You also acknowledge that blacks/Hispanics would be largely kept from entering such schools. Do you also, then, see that those who are able to continue pursuing higher education will therefore have kids who are better-and-better prepared for entering higher education themselves, while those who were initially barred would have to work much harder? Their kids, too, will encounter the same barriers as they are made to compete against multiple generations of competition that have undergone higher education and resource access.

As this divide continues, the statistical truths inherent within each race would continue to perpetuate.

[fido123]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Everybody however is offered the same and equal services and resources to learn. If that's the way the cookie crumbles so be it. I don't give a crap if somebody is of a different race, their race has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with what they can achieve. Their situation at home might tell a different story though so instead of helping disadvantaged black kids why can't we just help disadvantaged kids?

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

"Everybody however is offered the same and equal services and resources to learn"

Simply untrue. Again, you're assuming all families start out on the same ground.

You can certainly aim to help disadvantaged kids. Most of them will be black.

[fido123]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

"Everybody however is offered the same and equal services and resources to learn

Simply untrue. Again, you're assuming all families start out on the same ground.

I mean everybody is given a library, and a school to learn at. I understand there is a problem with poorer communities don't have quite as nice schools cause those schools are so burdened, but again, it's not a racial issue rather than a poverty issue.

You can certainly aim to help disadvantaged kids. Most of them will be black.

They probably will, and this is how I think things should be leveled out. Instead of targeting people by race, target them by what actually puts them at a disadvantage.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Okay, so how will you deal with the backlash that will result? Again you're right that race has no biological basis for things, but those who are poor are primarily composed of a couple races -- there are more, say, poor blacks than poor whites/Asians.

Are you aware that programs like AA, meant to help disadvantaged kids (you'd think blacks) actually best benefit white females?

[fido123]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Okay, so how will you deal with the backlash that will result? Again you're right that race has no biological basis for things, but those who are poor are primarily composed of a couple races -- there are more, say, poor blacks than poor whites/Asians.

Are you aware that programs like AA, meant to help disadvantaged kids (you'd think blacks) actually best benefit white females?

I agree but what backlash would there be if a program helped disadvantaged people rather than helping only disadvantaged black people?

Also isn't AA alcoholics anonymous? If so I would understand cause a lot of white girls I know really do drink too much lol. I would think that would come about because a lot of smaller towns have mostly white people in it, like my town. Here, a lot of girls wanna show guys how drunk they are so they they'll think they're down to ****...stupid really.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

AA = Affirmative Action

And yes helping the disadvantaged sounds rather noble -- but how do you implement it? How do you deal with the racial overlaps? Who funds it?

[fido123]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

I don't pay that close attention to American programs, don't really know what it is. Either way what backlash are you talking about?

[Cavernio]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

"In Canada recently, our government had an online application. If you checked off your race and gender as anything but a female aboriginal, the page would simply display an error. The government just said it's their way of diversifying their departments. **** diversification, just stop giving even half a **** what anybody is race wise, and look at how good they will preform on the job based off other merits that actually have to do how that person will do in that job."

Perhaps it might seem unfair to give someone with aboriginal status who lives on a reserve where the quality of life and general happiness and success is very low more of an opportunity than another candidate, but that doesn't make it wrong.
It is possible that those few aboriginal people on that reserve have a profound, long-lasting effect on the rest of the community and their kids, making them strive more, have higher goals and ultimately making them achieve more, making it so these 'unfair' highering policies will eventually be unfair because there will be no difference between the people on the reserve and the non-aboriginal people living next door to it.
I think that if such an outcome were to happen, it would be deserving of biased highering practices. Ideally, biased higering practices will make it so that the equal opportunity that we all strive for will be closer to a reality.

As far as AA helping one group of people more than another, apparently white females...that's a rather bleak way to look at it. What is wrong with helping white females, especially ones who need help? It's not wrong to help one individual and not another, but people seem to think it is. People always seem to come up with the ever logical sounding argument that 'I don't like charity X or political policy Y because it doesn't help who I think needs the most help, and people should be spending their time and resources elsewhere.' I don't think it is wrong, in most cases.

MrRubix, I have to say, your perception is completely backwards to me. You talk about needing to implement things from a macro level, and examine everything from a macro level, and that will have an effect on individuals. I see the world as a series of individuals and their decisions which we can then examine through a macro perspective if we want to. You talk about needing to implement policy and change in some large way in order for effects to happen, whereas I think we as individuals have to change, and that each of our individual choices will cause an overall effect. I mean, obviously individuals need to change for change to occur, but I don't think we need to start or implement the change using a macro way.
Another 'general' thing about what you say MrRubix, all your talk about what the stats say...the stats people choose to study, what they define them as, those are biased. For instance, we're talking about racism right now, but the very fact that racism is 'an issue' is completely human generated. I experience negative 'bias' everday because I'm only 5 feet tall, and sooooo many things made just aren't designed for short people. Tables, chairs, desks, cupboards, counter tops, cars, grocery store shelves...I'm sure that if we used statistics we could have some sort of proof that I'm worse off than someone of average height, I'm more likely to be in a car accident, I'm more likely to get tendonitis, etc. But the statistics aren't really there and its not an issue, and that is a biased of statistics. People research hot topics, and science itself advances hot topics further than others, and as a result, our knowledge and very perception of the world itself is still skewed and biased, even using statistics. Because of that, it is very hard to fully implement any change that will affect everyone 'evenly', even if the stats showed that it did.

[fido123]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

I have to still disagree with you for many reasons. Firstly, many aboriginals live in ****ty conditions because they have they're own land, which they govern and manage themselves. They have funding from the government, and if their area is impoverished, it's their choice to live there or not. If the want the resources other people have, they're free to live off of the reserve, not saying I think it would be best for them if they should. Everybody wants different things out of life, and can see how people would be happier living like their aboriginal ancestors.

The jobs will probably go to aboriginals with University educations since they are government office jobs, so I don't see how it'll really help out the community anyway. Why not just hire people based on how they will preform the job? Again I'm actually kinda disgusted no offense people think this way. In my opinion it's flat out racism. Sorry if that offends anybody but that's how I feel.

[Reach]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Okay, so let's say we operate under meritocracy.

You now acknowledge it'd mostly be Asians and Jews, yes? You also acknowledge that blacks/Hispanics would be largely kept from entering such schools. Do you also, then, see that those who are able to continue pursuing higher education will therefore have kids who are better-and-better prepared for entering higher education themselves, while those who were initially barred would have to work much harder? Their kids, too, will encounter the same barriers as they are made to compete against multiple generations of competition that have undergone higher education and resource access.

As this divide continues, the statistical truths inherent within each race would continue to perpetuate.

The implications of this go far beyond simply race though. This applies to the very nature of human beings as a whole.

Some people, regardless of race, simply have more than other people when it comes to certain variables, and this gives them a subsequent advantage in life. This is an inherent fact that arises from statistical variance.

In my eyes this problem is a human problem, not a racial problem. As such, I think it should be addressed as one. I'm not against things like ensuring access to a quality education for everyone, and additional aid given to those with disadvantages.

However, this should function on an individual level, not a racial one, and it certainly doesn't mean we should deface meritocracy by introducing systems like AA. We function as a meritocracy because it works. Some people are more qualified to do things than others.


My biggest problem with a program like AA is that it doesn't address the fundamental problem mentioned above. It's just a facade. The achievement gap remains exactly the same, which means the only thing you've managed to achieve is the appearance of racial equality and a selected pool of applicants that is weaker than before.

In addition, you create problems. You've now created within-race divides that only complicate current ones. I.e. You help upper class blacks while hindering lower class whites. Put another way, you're compensating for between-race variance by increasing within-race variance. Our species is no better off; you've simply taken some people, denied them and replaced them with someone of a different skin color.

And the point of this is what?

I fear it only goes to patch our perpetual, inherent racism.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

Just to be completely clear, I am in full agreement with you guys. I'm just entertaining the other end of the argument.

How do you target and help those who are poor? How do you get them ahead? How do you solve the scaling problem?

[DossarLX ODI]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

I'm not sure if this has already been addressed, but how does racism work in the first place?

I think one step to help lower racism is to examine why it exists in the first place (its history).

[stepmanias]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

My sister wasn't able to go to a magnet school her freshman year because of a less qualified black guy that was let into the school through AA

[ersttu]

Re: Is it wrong to be racist?

in middle of 2006 4.6% (+/- .1% i might be forgetting) of black men were in prison whereas .7% of whites were in prison

u might say But dude there poor!

24% of black people are under the poverty line

8% of white people are under the poverty line

7x as many blacks in prison
3x as many poor blacks

thats a bit of a discrepancy man

i dont look at every black person walking on the street and think theyre gonna steal my tv but sitting back and looking at it from a macro standpoint theres somethin goin on there