Is Affirmative Action racist?

[GIF REACTION]

??

[CNNonceAgain]

Yes, by definition.

/thread

[UK2K]

I think its embarrassing.

If you assumed I needed special consideration and extra bonus points to get a job based on my skin color, I'd be pissed.

And then once I got the job, I feel ashamed knowing I wasn't actually the most qualified applicant, but I was hired because someone felt that I couldn't get the job on my own.

Kinda like... Special Olympics except nobody is actually handicapped. Like, 'you can't make it in this Olympics, but you can be in the special Olympics even though there's nothing actually wrong with you.'

[NumberSix]

Amy Schumer isn't funny.

[Cactus-Sack]

Amy Schumer isn't funny.
The worst thing about her is that there are younger, thinner, prettier,comediennes who are actually funny that don't get the same push that she does.

[AceManIII]

Maybe we should all take time to look up why Affirmative Action was even created...?

[DonDadda59]

The worst thing about her is that there are younger, thinner, prettier,comediennes who are actually funny that don't get the same push that she does.

It's all about who you know. Schumer (is that Semitic?) played the game the right way while all those pretty, funny, thin bitches thought they would just get by on their looks and/or talent.

Chess vs Checkers. Props to Amy for beating the system. :applause:

[GIF REACTION]

So it's racist and sexist

Gotcha

[DonDadda59]

Maybe we should all take time to look up why Affirmative Action was even created...?

Shhhh. Everyone knows actual racism started only when Obama took office. Before that the United States was a racial Utopia.

Now the White man in this country is the most persecuted group in Earth's History. And there's a war on Christmas too. Such tough times the White Christian has to endure. But they shall overcome. A change is gonna come (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbO2_077ixs) :cry:

[GIF REACTION]

Fight racism with more racism?

Gotcha

[UK2K]

No because it's for women too.

AA doesn't guarantee darker skin people or women jobs, it's there to make sure all candidates and applicants get a fair chance to be interviewed.

Originally.

It's changed now.

[QUOTE]Under a diversity program launched during the Patrick administration, a percentage of state contracts is already set aside for businesses owned by minorities, women, and service-disabled veterans.

Under a diversity program launched during the Patrick administration, a percentage of state contracts is already set aside for businesses owned by minorities, women, and service-disabled veterans. Under an executive order just signed by Baker, the program will expand to include businesses owned by all veterans and people with disabilities

[Giaodollo]

Originally.

Which makes you wonder, how do you know a business owner is a lesbian?

Why does that matter?

[West-Side]

Edward Norton in American History X already answered this question.
Next.

[UK2K]

Why does that matter?

Why does it matter if the business owner is a lesbian? Great question. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't. At least, I think your sexual preference is irrelevant when applying for a state contract.

But, in order to be able to qualify for that % of state contracts set aside, it does.

So maybe the question you really want to ask is... Why does your sexual preference make you eligible for state contracts that you otherwise wouldn't be given?

[Nick Young]

Amy Schumer isn't funny.
She is a relatable average icon for fat girls everywhere, and an attainable fat girl for fat men across the USA to fantasize about.

Talentless ugly Amy Schumer is famous because of the coddling PC pro-fatty society she is living in.


The talented hotties aren't famous because women would feel bad every time they looked at her and get jelly. Then they'd tell their boyfriends they aren't allowed to watch hotty comedian, and then her push will end.

No one getting jelly of Amy Schumer. She is the safest investment.

[Nick Young]

Why does it matter if the business owner is a lesbian? Great question. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't. At least, I think your sexual preference is irrelevant when applying for a state contract.

But, in order to be able to qualify for that % of state contracts set aside, it does.

So maybe the question you really want to ask is... Why does your sexual preference make you eligible for state contracts that you otherwise wouldn't be given?
How do you prove your sexual preference to the government? What's stopping everyone from claiming that they're gay or "identify as the opposite gender" in order to take advantage of affirmative action laws?

[ISHGoat]

How do you prove your sexual preference to the government? What's stopping everyone from claiming that they're gay or "identify as the opposite gender" in order to take advantage of affirmative action laws?

You have to suck the minister's dick.

[NumberSix]

How do you prove your sexual preference to the government? What's stopping everyone from claiming that they're gay or "identify as the opposite gender" in order to take advantage of affirmative action laws?
If you have a wife, just tell them you're a monogamous bisexual and 1/32 Native American.

[Giaodollo]

Why does it matter if the business owner is a lesbian? Great question. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't. At least, I think your sexual preference is irrelevant when applying for a state contract.

But, in order to be able to qualify for that % of state contracts set aside, it does.

So maybe the question you really want to ask is... Why does your sexual preference make you eligible for state contracts that you otherwise wouldn't be given?

But it doesn't say it should be set aside for homosexuals, it says it should be set aside for minorities, women, and service-disabled veterans.

So that begs the question, why does someones sexual prefrence matter?

[NumberSix]

But it doesn't say it should be set aside for homosexuals, it says it should be set aside for minorities, women, and service-disabled veterans.

So that begs the question, why does someones sexual prefrence matter?
What about trans-blacks? Do they count as a minority?

[UK2K]

But it doesn't say it should be set aside for homosexuals, it says it should be set aside for minorities, women, and service-disabled veterans.

So that begs the question, why does someones sexual prefrence matter?

Are you having trouble reading...?

[QUOTE]Under an executive order just signed by Baker, the program will expand to include businesses owned by all veterans and people with disabilities

[UK2K]

How do you prove your sexual preference to the government? What's stopping everyone from claiming that they're gay or "identify as the opposite gender" in order to take advantage of affirmative action laws?

Gonna be like that scene from In the Army Now.

"We're gay"
"You're gay? I see. Well, prove it"
"Prove it?"
"Sure. If you're really that gay... then kiss each other."

[Giaodollo]

Are you having trouble reading...?



So the answer to your question is...

Your sexual preference matters to the government, if you want a piece of that 'set aside for people who can't make it on their own' budget.

Apparently so, totally missed that. Pardon me, sir.

[RidonKs]

yeah its racist. but it was an overcompensation at a time when some form of compensation was desperately needed.

when framed in the following sense; "hey we have been discriminating against these people for centuries, maybe we should discriminate FOR them for a little while"; its not exactly irrational

certainly the degree of anti-white discrimination since 1964 falls somewhat short in comparison to the degree of wholesale anti-black dehumanizastion between say 1776 and 1964

nevertheless it was unpredictable and potentially harmful and virtually unenforceable and, at the end of the day, it's just bad policy. there were better strategies available even way back when. but executive orders putting the onus on ordinary people are a lot easier to pass then truly comprehensive reform... reform they would achieve shortly thereafter anyway

has it had some positive effect?

probably. while it has further stimulated the resentment of the majority, which we're all witnessing right this minute in these inane race wars currently engulfing the country...

it definitely accelerated the normalization of relations between minorities and say, 'moderate racists'. you got a bunch of shop owners and middle managers and university administrators, working white collar jobs, presumably just settled careerists not too concerned with social issues... watching the wild abandon out on the streets, the strikes and the sit ins and the marches and rallies... with some confusion. since around the office, in the store, all over the university... it was predominantly white faces

but then they actually began to interview these candidates. meet them, recognize their skills, hell just come to terms with their god given humanity, and you had some serious reconsiderations going on. mostly by yuppie baby boomer types who weren't so accustomed to the unusually racist traditions that had been a driving force in the american economy since its inception.

understand at that time, in a 100% white organization of any kind, the manager who took the onus to hire the company's first ethnic minority? would be labeled out of step or a radical, even worse an apologist or a traitor. they were probably called 'black sheep' as a joke...

which is why the federal coercion of accepting and indeed choosing black applications over white applications, when no other criteria could be used to differentiate the candidates, was so important. it forced the hands of many people of moderate/traditional/family value politics persuasion to just give in and make that first or second or third hire.

which, arguably, helped change the nation





is it still necessary? absolutely not. that much is obvious by turning on the television for 15 minutes.

but was it a huge mistake with unbearable consequences for people who believe in freedom?

:roll:
:no:

it was not

[Akrazotile]

yeah its racist. but it was an overcompensation at a time when some form of compensation was desperately needed.

when framed in the following sense; "hey we have been discriminating against these people for centuries, maybe we should discriminate FOR them for a little while"; its not exactly irrational

certainly the degree of anti-white discrimination since 1964 falls somewhat short in comparison to the degree of wholesale anti-black dehumanizastion between say 1776 and 1964

nevertheless it was unpredictable and potentially harmful and virtually unenforceable and, at the end of the day, it's just bad policy. there were better strategies available even way back when. but executive orders putting the onus on ordinary people are a lot easier to pass then truly comprehensive reform... reform they would achieve shortly thereafter anyway

has it had some positive effect?

probably. while it has further stimulated the resentment of the majority, which we're all witnessing right this minute in these inane race wars currently engulfing the country...

it definitely accelerated the normalization of relations between minorities and say, 'moderate racists'. you got a bunch of shop owners and middle managers and university administrators, working white collar jobs, presumably just settled careerists not too concerned with social issues... watching the wild abandon out on the streets, the strikes and the sit ins and the marches and rallies... with some confusion. since around the office, in the store, all over the university... it was predominantly white faces

but then they actually began to interview these candidates. meet them, recognize their skills, hell just come to terms with their god given humanity, and you had some serious reconsiderations going on. mostly by yuppie baby boomer types who weren't so accustomed to the unusually racist traditions that had been a driving force in the american economy since its inception.

understand at that time, in a 100% white organization of any kind, the manager who took the onus to hire the company's first ethnic minority? would be labeled out of step or a radical, even worse an apologist or a traitor. they were probably called 'black sheep' as a joke...

which is why the federal coercion of accepting and indeed choosing black applications over white applications, when no other criteria could be used to differentiate the candidates, was so important. it forced the hands of many people of moderate/traditional/family value politics persuasion to just give in and make that first or second or third hire.

which, arguably, helped change the nation





is it still necessary? absolutely not. that much is obvious by turning on the television for 15 minutes.

but was it a huge mistake with unbearable consequences for people who believe in freedom?

:roll:
:no:

it was not


http://s23.postimg.org/yc9y41149/berneydidnotread_gif_1318992465.gif

[CNNonceAgain]

What about trans-blacks? Do they count as a minority?
Of course. How else you think Rachel Dolezal got her job at the Spokane NAACP?

[Akrazotile]

Of course. How else you think Rachel Dolezal got her job at the Spokane NAACP?


To be fair, you don't have to be black or even trans-black to be a part of the NAACP. Notable philanthropists Fred Phelps and Donald T. Sterling have both been featured standout members.

[longtime lurker]

Maybe we should all take time to look up why Affirmative Action was even created...?

Are you kidding me? That would actually take some critical thought which the mouth breathers that always whine about affirmative action seriously lack.


I think its embarrassing.

If you assumed I needed special consideration and extra bonus points to get a job based on my skin color, I'd be pissed.

And then once I got the job, I feel ashamed knowing I wasn't actually the most qualified applicant, but I was hired because someone felt that I couldn't get the job on my own.

This is the problem with stupid people who rail against affirmative action. You make the assumption that just because someone isn't a white male that makes them automatically less qualified. Does your simple mind ever comprehend the fact that there are qualified and over qualified people for positions that simply aren't ever given a chance because of racial/gender bias? This reminds me of the idiot college student who claimed she couldn't attend her top school because of minority students, only to find out that more white students that were less qualified then her were accepted into the school.

[NumberSix]

yeah its racist. but it was an overcompensation at a time when some form of compensation was desperately needed.
This is actually true.

It's one thing in 2015 to tell someone to provide for themselves. But in a time when people were specifically banned from being able to provide for themselves, what they he'll are they supposed to do? Live out in the woods? When the government STEALS a person's freedom, when that freedom is given back, you can't just be like "ok, everything is completely fair now".

[poido123]

It's all about who you know. Schumer (is that Semitic?) played the game the right way while all those pretty, funny, thin bitches thought they would just get by on their looks and/or talent.

Chess vs Checkers. Props to Amy for beating the system. :applause:


She f.cked her way to the top.



How else did she do it? :confusedshrug:

[Dresta]

No because it's for women too.

AA doesn't guarantee darker skin people or women jobs, it's there to make sure all candidates and applicants get a fair chance to be interviewed.
Nah - it's literally the opposite of that. It's there to deliberately discriminate in favour of the so called-disenfranchised, but on the basis of race or gender (so usually the people who benefit the most aren't poor or needy or in difficult circumstances in the first place) - it's clearly not about helping minorities, as there are plenty of minority groups who do not get benefitted by such programs, and are in fact discriminated against by them. What this essentially means is that Affirmative Action programs are there for demographic groups were supposed to feel sorry for - that is its basis: the most saccharine maternalism.

[UK2K]

Are you kidding me? That would actually take some critical thought which the mouth breathers that always whine about affirmative action seriously lack.



This is the problem with stupid people who rail against affirmative action. You make the assumption that just because someone isn't a white male that makes them automatically less qualified. Does your simple mind ever comprehend the fact that there are qualified and over qualified people for positions that simply aren't ever given a chance because of racial/gender bias? This reminds me of the idiot college student who claimed she couldn't attend her top school because of minority students, only to find out that more white students that were less qualified then her were accepted into the school.
No..

Actually the program assumes they are less qualified.

If they were as qualified, they wouldn't need special consideration and their own set of rules to go by.

I can see it now.

"Yeah that black guy was a great candidate. Too bad he's black."
"Yeah, too bad"
"Welp, let's go get that less qualified white guy instead."

I can see this playing out in HR offices all across the country.:roll: