Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is something that's bothered me since the 3rd fckin grade (yea, 3rd graders can see thru politicians' bull**** but indoctrinated adults can't, decadence....)...
dis·crim·i·na·tion [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
-noun
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit Origin: 1640–50; < L discrīminātiōn- (s. of discrīminātiō) a distinguishing.
What's the "reverse" of that? I'd say ABSENCE OF discrimination... But wait...
re·verse dis·crim·i·na·tion [ri-vurs di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
-noun
1. the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities.
Origin: 1965–70
Hmm, sounds like a lot like DISCRIMINATION to me and what do ya know it originated in 1965-70. A politicians word... A made-up, bull**** word... My point is there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination." DISCRIMINATION IS DISCRIMINATION, there are no subcategories or anything like that, the definition covers ALL bases, it requires no adjective.
And yes, Affirmative Action is discrimination. It makes a "distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group." If you want an adjective, try this: "Legalized Discrimination"
Affirmative Action is not discrimination. It's giving the minority group member a boost if all other things are equal. It is not giving a job away to an unqualified applicant. You might want to read some of the EEO laws that govern discrimination based on age, race, sex, religion, national origin and/or color. And now, I believe, disability.
There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" in the law. Discrimination is discrimination.
Perhaps you want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen; African Americans working as slaves and having crosses burned on their lawns, and lynchings for looking at the "dominant" group; and Hispanics picking produce. But that's not the way it is, nor should it be. There are brilliant, able and dedicated people of all minorities working in the US, we need their diversity to grow and thrive.
Not sure what I said to deserve that but okay... I guess I'll ignore the personal attack and address what little substance you included.
"It's giving the minority group member a boost if all other things are equal. It is not giving a job away to an unqualified applicant."
This "boost" is treatment in favor of a person based on the group which that person belongs rather than on individual merit.
Also, if there are quotas to meet, then yes, it might be an UNDER/UNqualified applicant.
Anything else to say? Be sure to tack on the part where you call me a baby killing, church burning, senior citizen mugging pedophile who firebombs indigenious tribes and pees in the shower...
kleer, that was not a personal attack. I was questioning your premise.
This "boost" is treatment in favor of a person based on the group which that person belongs rather than on individual merit. That's neither what I said nor what affirmative action is about.
You're using a lot of "ifs" in your statement. The law looks at the actual incidents. I have a little experience in the world of law. And, I'm old and lived through a lot of civil rights changes.
I have no idea what any of your ideology is aside from what you wrote in your first post. Have you considered that until affirmative action was implemented, lesser qualified white men got jobs that they were unqualified for or as qualified as minority members; that the white man got that job, not the minority member. Remember that minorities couldn't get accepted into college until the 1960s, women were granted the roles of housekeeper, teacher and nurse. Minorities were relegated to laborer positions.
But for affirmative action, that trend might continue through to today.
Affirmative Action is not discrimination. It's giving the minority group member a boost if all other things are equal. It is not giving a job away to an unqualified applicant. You might want to read some of the EEO laws that govern discrimination based on age, race, sex, religion, national origin and/or color. And now, I believe, disability.
There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" in the law. Discrimination is discrimination.
Perhaps you want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen; African Americans working as slaves and having crosses burned on their lawns, and lynchings for looking at the "dominant" group; and Hispanics picking produce. But that's not the way it is, nor should it be. There are brilliant, able and dedicated people of all minorities working in the US, we need their diversity to grow and thrive.
Sorry, but your post doesn't describe my America.
How about this, we take in "minorities" who have the scores necessary to compete with other "majorities". However, we don't take in "minorities" who don't have the scores to get in? This is not how the system in Affirmative Action has taken place. We take in "minorities" whose scores are well-below the threshold for jobs, education, etc. etc.
Many 'African Americans' are quite resentful of the success of Black (Nigerian, etc) immigrants from Africa who do so well here-------in the former group's eyes: they are all but 'White'------never mind their ebony skin tone.
Affirmative Acton is the modern version of the 'white man's burden'.
To help those who are of course unable to compete on a level playing field due to their race.
If AA isn't a form of racism I don't know what is.
But it IS embraced by the race hustlers and those suffering from white guilt.
How about this,we simply do not have race,sexuality,gender or anything else mentioned at allin the hiring process and if a company doesn't want to hire you,too bad.
How about this, we take in "minorities" who have the scores necessary to compete with other "majorities". However, we don't take in "minorities" who don't have the scores to get in? This is not how the system in Affirmative Action has taken place. We take in "minorities" whose scores are well-below the threshold for jobs, education, etc. etc.
I have never seen anything that supports that either. Why would a business knowingly hurt themselves? Makes no sense. These urban legends get spread around and cause a lot of misplaced angst.
Affirmative Acton is the modern version of the 'white man's burden'.
To help those who are of course unable to compete on a level playing field due to their race.
If AA isn't a form of racism I don't know what is.
But it IS embraced by the race hustlers and those suffering from white guilt.
How about this,we simply do not have race,sexuality,gender or anything else mentioned at allin the hiring process and if a company doesn't want to hire you,too bad.
The whole point is that in reality companies aren't able to disregard their bias regarding race, gender etc. so the reason they may not want to hire you would be based on discrimination. Affirmative action's goal is to alleviate this problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
n]
