Affirmative Action (split from shooting du jour)

[TomC]

STAFF EDIT: This thread is split from

At least 6 dead in Mass Shooting du Jour

I wonder why there isn't a thread on this already. Elixir, I know how much you love threads about mass shootings. Asleep at the switch? Or is it something else? Sacramento shooting: At least six dead in centre of California state capital What we know about the 6 people killed in downtown...

iidb.org

Unfortunately people are still judged as wanting because they are black. Or have a ‘foreign accent.’ Or practice a ‘funny’ religion. Or are gay or trans. Or female.

I know you don’t see it. But I’ve watched it, and have experienced my share.

Nobody important disagrees with that.
The question is more like, "Is continuing a policy of institutional racism still a net benefit to society?"

Back in the 70s it certainly was. But is it still?
Tom

 

[Elixir]

"Is continuing a policy of institutional racism still a net benefit to society?"

WUT?
I think you need a warped definition of either “benefit” or “society” to claim institutional racism as a benefit to society.

 

[TomC]

"Is continuing a policy of institutional racism still a net benefit to society?"

WUT?
I think you need a warped definition of either “benefit” or “society” to claim institutional racism as a benefit to society.

Affirmative Action is institutional racism.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

"Is continuing a policy of institutional racism still a net benefit to society?"

WUT?
I think you need a warped definition of either “benefit” or “society” to claim institutional racism as a benefit to society.

Affirmative Action is institutional racism.
Tom

Anything else?
If no, why didn't you specify AA? It's not the only form of institutional racism y'know, and when you refer to institutional racism without specifying, then the entirety of institutional racism is what you have opined to have been "beneficial".
It reads as if you only consider it "institutional racism" if you think it works against white people.

 

[TomC]

Anything else?
If no, why didn't you specify AA? It's not the only form of institutional racism y'know, and when you refer to institutional racism without specifying, then the entirety of institutional racism is what you have opined to have been "beneficial".
It reads as if you only consider it "institutional racism" if you think it works against white people.

Sorry, I try to avoid the zillion nested quotes thing. Toni was responding to post #141.

Got a substantive response, or are you going to stick with criticizing posting style?
Tom

 

[Rhea]

This new talking point that “Affirmative Action equals institutional racism” is grasping at straws. It’s a cute and handy soundbite, but it so seriously mangles the power imbalance and the discussion of actual harm that it sounds most like an instinctive white supremacy retaliation.


I find it to be deeply immoral in it’s apparent attempt to whitewash harmful racism against marginalized communities with completely asymmetrical whataboutism.

 

[Elixir]

I find it to be deeply immoral in it’s apparent attempt to whitewash harmful racism against marginalized communities with completely asymmetrical whataboutism.

I suspect that as a gay man, Tom has experienced anti-gay discrimination that he conflates with or mistakes for anti-white discrimination. Just a guess, trying to explain his aggrieved attitude.

 

[Toni]

Unfortunately people are still judged as wanting because they are black. Or have a ‘foreign accent.’ Or practice a ‘funny’ religion. Or are gay or trans. Or female.

I know you don’t see it. But I’ve watched it, and have experienced my share.

Nobody important disagrees with that.
The question is more like, "Is continuing a policy of institutional racism still a net benefit to society?"

Back in the 70s it certainly was. But is it still?
Tom

The risk/benefit is not spread out evenly across the US nor across a region or a state or a city, for that matter. The US is generally more segregated now compared with 50-60 years ago. Maybe 5 - 6 years ago, at my place of work, I spent way too much time insisting that my white male co-worker was not allowed to call my black male coworker 'Boy.' Or the women 'girls.' I did not want to get him fired but it did take me threatening to go immediately to the director if he said it one more time. I wish it were innocent, but he was known to make some public and nasty assumptions about our coworkers who were not white and male. For the most part, he was fairly benign towards the women except for assuming we all existed to help him although we all held exactly the same position with the same job duties and responsibilities, etc. That was benign because he a)had zero authority and b) women had zero problem failing to meet his expectations for doing his work for him.

Definitely a bunch more from the same workplace: A Black American woman quit because of what she said was blatant racism on the part of her coworkers. I was shocked...right up to the point when I heard a friend from that work unit describe her in some very typically racist charged terms.

List goes on and I saw men treat pretty young women in ways that should have had them fired immediately, heard nasty remarks about certain immigrant groups, and so on.

Mind you: this was a well known place this is ranked in the top 10 by Forbes and others for similar types of workplaces.

 

[laughing dog]

"Is continuing a policy of institutional racism still a net benefit to society?"

WUT?
I think you need a warped definition of either “benefit” or “society” to claim institutional racism as a benefit to society.

Affirmative Action is institutional racism.
Tom

There are many people who decry identity politics and victimization politics who approve of the above statement without even a hint of seeing its irony.

 

[Hermit]

Affirmative Action is institutional racism.

Germany is still paying war reparations today on behalf of a regime that ceased to exist in May 1945. Between 1952 and 1964 3 billion Deutschmarks went directly to the state of Israel. From Wikipedia's article titled Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany:

The reparations were paid directly to the headquarters of the Israeli purchase delegation in Cologne, which received the money from the German government in annual installments. The delegation then bought goods and shipped them to Israel, receiving its orders from a Tel Aviv-based company that had been set up to decide what to purchase and for whom. A great part of the reparations money went into purchasing equipment and raw materials for companies that were owned by the government, the Jewish Agency, and the Histadrut labor union. Notably, much of that money went into purchasing equipment for about 1,300 industrial plants; two-thirds of this money was given to 36 factories, most of them owned by the Histadrut. At the same time, hundreds of other plants, mostly privately owned ones, received minimal assistance with reparations money. From 1953 to 1963, the reparations money funded around one-third of investment in Israel's electrical system, helping it to triple its capacity, and nearly half the total investment in Israel Railways, which obtained German-made rolling stock, tracks, and signaling equipment with reparations money. The reparations were also used to purchase German-made machinery for developing the water supply, oil drilling, mining equipment for use in extracting copper from the Timna Valley mines, and heavy equipment for agriculture and construction such as combines, tractors, and trucks. About 30% of the reparations money went into buying fuel, while 17% was used to purchase ships for the Israeli merchant fleet; some fifty ships including two passenger liners were purchased, and by 1961, these vessels constituted two-thirds of the Israeli merchant marine. Funds from the reparations were also used for port development; the Port of Haifa was able to obtain new cranes, including a floating crane that was named Bar Kokhba. The Bank of Israel credited the reparations for about 15% of Israel's GNP growth and the creation of 45,000 jobs during the 12-year period they had been in effect, though the BoI report also noted that the funds received were not crucial in that Israel would have secured the funds in any case from other sources.[11]

Would you regard that as an example of institutional racism?

 

[TomC]

I find it to be deeply immoral in it’s apparent attempt to whitewash harmful racism against marginalized communities with completely asymmetrical whataboutism.

I suspect that as a gay man, Tom has experienced anti-gay discrimination that he conflates with or mistakes for anti-white discrimination. Just a guess, trying to explain his aggrieved attitude.

Your mind reading skills are weak.

True story:
When a friend and I were starting the local Gay/Straight Alliance, one of staunchest straight supporters was Paul. Paul was a black dude, SJW in the best sense of the term. He had a job to earn a living, but his real life was about social justice across the board. Women's issues, racial issues, orientation issues, voters rights, everything. At a planning meeting, someone asked him, "You're on the board of the NAACP. They have experience fighting bigotry. Would they help us?" He got a pained look on his face. "No. Just the opposite. They'll get mad at you for saying that you're being discriminated against. Discrimination is their word. They're Christians and will hate on you more than most people will."

At first I was a little surprised. But then it occurred to me. What had I ever done for them and their issues? Nothing really. Why would they care about my issues?

So I went to a NAACP meeting and joined. A couple of years later I was elected to the local board. Imagine that. I'd gotten enough done furthering their agenda that a white atheist faggot got elected to the board.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Your mind reading skills are weak.

I ain't paid to read minds.

https://iidb.org/account/alerts

So I went to a NAACP meeting and joined. A couple of years later I was elected to the local board.

Interesting, and kudos.
As a board member, were you able to get them to lend more "help" (money? manpower?) to the GS Alliance?

 

[Politesse]

I find it to be deeply immoral in it’s apparent attempt to whitewash harmful racism against marginalized communities with completely asymmetrical whataboutism.

I suspect that as a gay man, Tom has experienced anti-gay discrimination that he conflates with or mistakes for anti-white discrimination. Just a guess, trying to explain his aggrieved attitude.

Your mind reading skills are weak.

True story:
When a friend and I were starting the local Gay/Straight Alliance, one of staunchest straight supporters was Paul. Paul was a black dude, SJW in the best sense of the term. He had a job to earn a living, but his real life was about social justice across the board. Women's issues, racial issues, orientation issues, voters rights, everything. At a planning meeting, someone asked him, "You're on the board of the NAACP. They have experience fighting bigotry. Would they help us?" He got a pained look on his face. "No. Just the opposite. They'll get mad at you for saying that you're being discriminated against. Discrimination is their word. They're Christians and will hate on you more than most people will."

At first I was a little surprised. But then it occurred to me. What had I ever done for them and their issues? Nothing really. Why would they care about my issues?

So I went to a NAACP meeting and joined. A couple of years later I was elected to the local board. Imagine that. I'd gotten enough done furthering their agenda that a white atheist faggot got elected to the board.
Tom

Did you find that the NAACP was, in fact, full of racist prejudiced bigots? Did you tell them that before they elected you to the board?

 

[TomC]

Interesting, and kudos.
As a board member, were you able to get them to lend more "help" (money? manpower?) to the GS Alliance?

Of course not.
I don't think I ever brought up the subject.

Paul was correct about them, overall.

That didn't really matter to me though. That's not why I did what I did.

Perhaps I nudged a few people away from the assumption that gay men are all sleazebag liberals. I'm really pretty conservative on some other issues, like irresponsible sex and fiscal responsibility.
I dunno.

But I never brought up GSA, as far as I recall.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Did you find that the NAACP was, in fact, full of racist prejudiced bigots? Did you tell them that before they elected you to the board?

Wut?
Why would you even ask such an insulting question?
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Did you find that the NAACP was, in fact, full of racist prejudiced bigots? Did you tell them that before they elected you to the board?

Wut?
Why would you even ask such an insulting question?
Tom

Why tell the story, then? I find it a gross misrepresentation of an organization that to the best of my knowledge has always been open to helping with the problems of any politically underrepresented group. One guy's opinion back in the day is not a fair basis for publically slandering an organization that has consistently stood up for the rights of LGBTQ individuals for more than a decade at least, and which the conservative wing is constantly gunning for. I for one would not to see what this country would look like if not for the last fifty years of NAACP advocacy.

 

[TomC]

I find it a gross misrepresentation of an organization that to the best of my knowledge has always been open to helping with the problems of any politically underrepresented group.

I don't pretend to understand California. Maybe things are different there.
Here in southern Indiana the NAACP didn't have any interest in addressing queer issues. Quite the contrary.

And I can't help but remember when California prop 8*, an effort to put marriage inequality into the California State Constitution, passed. It passed mainly because while white people mostly voted against it, black people voted overwhelmingly in favor. Exit polls showed that 70% of black Californians voted to add discrimination to their Constitution. Wipepo voted by a small margin against it. Black people voted overwhelmingly for orientation discrimination. And they got their way. An amendment to the California State Constitution limiting marriage to straight people passed the referendum.
Tom

*I think the prop was #8.

 

[Politesse]

I find it a gross misrepresentation of an organization that to the best of my knowledge has always been open to helping with the problems of any politically underrepresented group.

I don't pretend to understand California. Maybe things are different there.
Here in southern Indiana the NAACP didn't have any interest in addressing queer issues. Quite the contrary.

And I can't help but remember when California prop 8*, an effort to put marriage inequality into the California State Constitution, passed. It passed mainly because while white people mostly voted against it, black people voted overwhelmingly in favor. Exit polls showed that 70% of black Californians voted to add discrimination to their Constitution. Wipepo voted by a small margin against it. Black people voted overwhelmingly for orientation discrimination. And they got their way. An amendment to the California State Constitution limiting marriage to straight people passed the referendum.
Tom

*I think the prop was #8.

Yeah, I remember Prop 8. Everyone remembers Prop 8. And not only did the NAACP oppose Prop 8, it actively campaigned against it. And no, not just the Californian NAACP - the national committee took a strong stance against it. Said Todd Jealous, then-president of the organization:

“The NAACP’s mission is to help create a society where all Americans have equal protection and opportunity under the law. Our Mission Statement calls for the ‘equality of rights of all persons.’ Prop. 8 strips same-sex couples of a fundamental freedom, as defined by the California State Supreme Court. In so doing, it poses a serious threat to all Americans. Prop. 8 is a discriminatory, unprecedented change to the California Constitution that, if allowed to stand, would undermine the very purpose of a constitution and courts – assuring equal protection and opportunity for all and safeguarding minorities from the tyranny of the majority.”​

They also supported the lawsuit that overturned Prop 8 and ultimately legalized gay marriage in this country, not just through endorsement but by standing as an amicus curiae, filing an extensive brief detailing the history of the 14th amendment and the similarity of the prosecution's case to the previously litigated Loving v Virginia decision which tied the fate of both cases together. "Tradition" was an insufficient reason to deny marriage rights to a party, in short, especially if it was a "tradition" aimed specifically at limiting rights of a minority group. You can read the brief yourself, it's been published.

You're right about one thing, Indiana is an objectively worse state where civil rights are concerned. But your apparent inability to distinguish between "Black people" and "the NAACP" is telling. What does the fact that the Black vote on Prop 8 was divided have anything to do with what the NAACP's position was? Even if it were true that Black support were really as overwhelming as you're claiming, which it wasn't (the actual percentage of the Black vote on this issue was 58%, not 70%), the position of the NAACP is not a synonym for the opinions of all Black people, nor must or should it be. In any case, the organization you are calling out here deserves much better treatment than you are trying to tar them with in this discussion.

 

[TomC]

In any case, the organization you are calling out here deserves much better treatment than you are trying to tar them with in this discussion.

"Calling out"?
I'm describing reality as I saw it.

Maybe Californian media was wrong about exit polls. I'm sure I mentioned a couple of times, "I don't pretend to know California."
But prop 8 passed. Was there a bigger racial demographic supporting it than black people?

It was years ago. I don't remember the details. But if 55% of white people voted against, Native and Hispanic people were near evenly split, and black people were strongly in favor, then prop 8 passed, who cares what NAACP thought(as an institution)? Black people(as a group) were fine with adding discrimination to the Constitution.
NAACP doesn't necessarily represent black people. Trust me when I say this. When I was on that board I heard some serious dissing of the NAACP national from local folks.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Affirmative Action is institutional racism.

Germany is still paying war reparations today on behalf of a regime that ceased to exist in May 1945. Between 1952 and 1964 3 billion Deutschmarks went directly to the state of Israel. From Wikipedia's article titled Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany:

The reparations were paid directly to the headquarters of the Israeli purchase delegation in Cologne, which received the money from the German government in annual installments. The delegation then bought goods and shipped them to Israel, receiving its orders from a Tel Aviv-based company that had been set up to decide what to purchase and for whom. A great part of the reparations money went into purchasing equipment and raw materials for companies that were owned by the government, the Jewish Agency, and the Histadrut labor union. Notably, much of that money went into purchasing equipment for about 1,300 industrial plants; two-thirds of this money was given to 36 factories, most of them owned by the Histadrut. At the same time, hundreds of other plants, mostly privately owned ones, received minimal assistance with reparations money. From 1953 to 1963, the reparations money funded around one-third of investment in Israel's electrical system, helping it to triple its capacity, and nearly half the total investment in Israel Railways, which obtained German-made rolling stock, tracks, and signaling equipment with reparations money. The reparations were also used to purchase German-made machinery for developing the water supply, oil drilling, mining equipment for use in extracting copper from the Timna Valley mines, and heavy equipment for agriculture and construction such as combines, tractors, and trucks. About 30% of the reparations money went into buying fuel, while 17% was used to purchase ships for the Israeli merchant fleet; some fifty ships including two passenger liners were purchased, and by 1961, these vessels constituted two-thirds of the Israeli merchant marine. Funds from the reparations were also used for port development; the Port of Haifa was able to obtain new cranes, including a floating crane that was named Bar Kokhba. The Bank of Israel credited the reparations for about 15% of Israel's GNP growth and the creation of 45,000 jobs during the 12-year period they had been in effect, though the BoI report also noted that the funds received were not crucial in that Israel would have secured the funds in any case from other sources.[11]

Would you regard that as an example of institutional racism?

Is Germany a race?

Where is this money coming from? Tax revenue? Does Germany tax people of different races differently to help pay for these reparations?

Payments from one sovereign nation to another isn't affirmative action.