Affirmative Action

[mad4u689]

Locke, out of everyone who argued against affirmative action, your's was by far the worst and weakest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, while I still disagreed with it, I found it to be more intelligent and well-articulated than most others I've seen here. I find his arguments worthy of reading and response, whereas certain others (i.e. jirka) are just not worth responding to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your argument, whether you want to admit it or not, is that minorities should act like whites if they want to avoid racism. Not only is that comment ludicrous in whether or not that actually works, it is both racist in its pretense and oppressive.

 

 

 

While I might not have worded it so... aggressively... I do think you are basically right. Locke, yes, I *was* the one who introduced the word "white" to describe the mentality you were embodying. And I will continue to maintain that the ideals you are setting - the "standards of professionalism" which provide an image of a well-tailored suit, the "respectable"ness - come from a foundation on white, Western, wealth-valuing culture. Your conception of people who don't act "respectable" seems, to me, to actually be formed largely from classist concerns (perhaps NOT racist). Also, I would like to point out that respectably dressed Middle Eastern and Asian students were discriminated against in the communities I've experienced, as well. However, I acknowledge that your view is one held by many, and that you are not likely to change your opinion, or to see how the opinions you hold are the result of an interesting interplay of sociological forces. So I'll agree to disagree :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the claim about your user name was irresistible and quite relevant- your admiration for a man like Locke certainly speaks volumes as to your credibility on a topic like this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but that's just kind of out of line. I'm pretty sure it's okay to respect someone for some of the things they did, and not everything - all humans are flawed, after all.

[The Dark Lord]

I'm against affirmative action. I've learned that it was meant to be short-term, yet it is still around, even after like ... 20+ years?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways there's a prime example at my school. It uses racism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say I'm white and I can't go to a school that's 88% white. They claim I must be a minority in order to attend the school or I'll upset the 'racial balance.' Well for one, the school's already imbalanced, adding me wouldn't hurt. So it's basically unconstitutional because it is descrimination of race. It shows favoritism toward minorities, rather than everyone having equal opportunities. The minorities get extra benefits. That's not fair.

[chris1216]

I disagree with you as to Locke's arguments. The basic premise of everything he said, that everything is the fault of the minorities because they look up to bad role models and don't act like others (which generalizes and stereotypes to a degree that becomes even painful to watch) is ignorant to the point of laughability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of his ability to word his arguments well, wrapping the droppings in a nice box in no way disguises its contents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On an irrelevant note, my aggressive wording is what's necessary to shake people out of their ignorance- something that eloquent grammar and artful wordplay sometimes doesn't have the power to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for me taking amusement in his choice of thread coinciding with his choice of screenname, it was certainly worth pointing out, seeing as how few people probably knew of Locke's stance on enslavement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, that does taint Locke's musings on things like a social contract, because it is impossible to separate his view on a social relation like slavery and his views on governments and the governed. Your example of Martin Luther King Jr. does not apply because the fact that he was an adulterer does not make him a hypocrite on civil rights. If he owned slaves, on the other hand, that would certainly apply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do agree with Mad4u in that your worldview is highly unlikely to change, but i will leave you with this grain of salt: white teenagers that act "gangster" have the ability to hide their taste in music simply by speaking differently and wearing different clothing- a black person has no way to hide the fact that they are black, and thus extremely likely to be stereotyped as a thug gangster that wants to do nothing but rape and steal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm also too lazy to respond to people that rehash what someone said earlier in the thread, so either say something new or give an answer to one of our statements from earlier.

[Tigra00]

There's a huge difference between racism and stereotyping, and a lot of people don't seem to see that difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Racism = Hating a race, just 'cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stereotyping = What you're all talking about. Can be wrong, can be funny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Racism is, of course, wrong. Stereotyping isn't, however. Most stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. If someone DOESN'T belong in the group their perceived to, then unfortunately, they have to break that stigma about themselves and help others do the same. Black people are portrayed as loud-mouthed thugs, hispanics are portrayed as fence-hopping, kid-popping, 10-kids-in-a-Geo-Metro type people...Stuff like that. For the most part, it's absolutely true. Are ALL black people that way? No. All hispanics? Nope. But like I said, they're stereotypes for a reason. People see it once, they see it again, and again still, and it sticks. From what I see generally, things like that remain true. There are of course exceptions though...I have a black friend who's really cool and laid back, aswell as educated. No loud-mouthed thug there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People can go ahead and say I'm racist for my saying stereotypes are mostly true, but you'd just be proving you didn't get it, so go ahead. :P

[Locke]

I disagree with you as to Locke's arguments. The basic premise of everything he said, that everything is the fault of the minorities because they look up to bad role models and don't act like others (which generalizes and stereotypes to a degree that becomes even painful to watch) is ignorant to the point of laughability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's laughable that I find concern that the majority of African-Americans have role models who sing about breaking the law and treating everyone with disrespect?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of his ability to word his arguments well, wrapping the droppings in a nice box in no way disguises its contents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You aren't showing the flaw in my argument, you just keep saying it is laughable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On an irrelevant note, my aggressive wording is what's necessary to shake people out of their ignorance- something that eloquent grammar and artful wordplay sometimes doesn't have the power to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it's not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for me taking amusement in his choice of thread coinciding with his choice of screenname, it was certainly worth pointing out, seeing as how few people probably knew of Locke's stance on enslavement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, that does taint Locke's musings on things like a social contract, because it is impossible to separate his view on a social relation like slavery and his views on governments and the governed. Your example of Martin Luther King Jr. does not apply because the fact that he was an adulterer does not make him a hypocrite on civil rights. If he owned slaves, on the other hand, that would certainly apply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point still is irrelevant because you are making a massive mistake with your point, and that is leaving out context. It is by no fault of Locke of the culture and time period he lived in, and the point you are trying to make about the choice of my screen name, is, once again, nothing but grabbing for staws. As said before, you seem excited to expand upon this point that has nothing to do with countering my argument, yet you continue to avoid actually tackling the meat of my argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do agree with Mad4u in that your worldview is highly unlikely to change, but i will leave you with this grain of salt: white teenagers that act "gangster" have the ability to hide their taste in music simply by speaking differently and wearing different clothing- a black person has no way to hide the fact that they are black, and thus extremely likely to be stereotyped as a thug gangster that wants to do nothing but [assault] and steal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They don't have to act or dress like a gangster, just like a white person does not have to. "Thug" is an appearance. Once again, you fail to respond to my actual points, like the point I made about "chavs" not being black but still be thought of in the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm also too lazy to respond to people that rehash what someone said earlier in the thread, so either say something new or give an answer to one of our statements from earlier.

[mad4u689]

 

 

 

It's laughable that I find concern that the majority of African-Americans have role models who sing about breaking the law and treating everyone with disrespect?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know that you can make that judgement call that the MAJORITY of African-Americans have role models who sing about breaking the law and treating everyone with disrespect. Not all black rappers have messages that are morally reprehensible; that is just often the white perception of them. (And of course, there are similar white rappers - i.e. Eminem, but we don't think about that as representing all white people). However, I do concede that there is an African-American culture which does value rap and hip-hop to a greater degree than the prevalent white culture does. However, I see no reason why this is a bad thing - it's just a bit different of a culture, and one that need not be looked down upon. The truth is, because that kind of culture is looked down upon, many African-Americans try to distance themselves from it and act more "white," or as you would say, "respectable." I would refer you back to gonpost's interesting quote perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On an irrelevant note, my aggressive wording is what's necessary to shake people out of their ignorance- something that eloquent grammar and artful wordplay sometimes doesn't have the power to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it's not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, in a way, it is, but in a way not. I used to think the same why the majority of people on this forum did, to be honest. And then I had five days of intensive "social justice training" where I was educated about issues of oppression, racism, prejudice, and how these can be and have been institutionalized and embedded, and how to break out of the cycle; and it really changed the way I think about EVERYTHING. It's weird, because at age 19, I assumed most of my world opinions were pretty much set - but this really shook me. I *was* shaken out of my ignorance. But it was through confrontational but savvy education - not mere aggressive "YOU'RE A STUPID RACIST."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do agree with Mad4u in that your worldview is highly unlikely to change, but i will leave you with this grain of salt: white teenagers that act "gangster" have the ability to hide their taste in music simply by speaking differently and wearing different clothing- a black person has no way to hide the fact that they are black, and thus extremely likely to be stereotyped as a thug gangster that wants to do nothing but [assault] and steal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They don't have to act or dress like a gangster, just like a white person does not have to. "Thug" is an appearance. Once again, you fail to respond to my actual points, like the point I made about "chavs" not being black but still be thought of in the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See, I do agree with a lot of the basic points Chris is trying to make. A white person - a "chav" - is able to live within this subculture, but break out of it at any time by wearing a suit or nice skirt when ze applies for an interview. A black person has to live with it day in, day out, for the rest of hir life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for why "chavs" are thought of in a prejudiced way, even though they're not black: just because racism exists, doesn't mean that other "isms" don't exist. We should work to break down all of them :) Including classism (which is, in a large part, what the hatred of "chavs" is). I would also argue that while "chavs" and black individuals are both discriminated against, they have very different experiences of prejudice throughout their lives.

[Locke]

I don't know that you can make that judgement call that the MAJORITY of African-Americans have role models who sing about breaking the law and treating everyone with disrespect. Not all black rappers have messages that are morally reprehensible; that is just often the white perception of them. (And of course, there are similar white rappers - i.e. Eminem, but we don't think about that as representing all white people). However, I do concede that there is an African-American culture which does value rap and hip-hop to a greater degree than the prevalent white culture does. However, I see no reason why this is a bad thing - it's just a bit different of a culture, and one that need not be looked down upon. The truth is, because that kind of culture is looked down upon, many African-Americans try to distance themselves from it and act more "white," or as you would say, "respectable." I would refer you back to gonpost's interesting quote perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are the one making the color distinction, as evident by your claim about Eminem. Eminem is white, yet he represents that same thug culture that is subscribed to mostly by African-Americans. That is my exact point. White people who act like thugs are looked as in the same group as black people who act like thugs because it is how the person presents himself that is noticed, not the skin color.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, in a way, it is, but in a way not. I used to think the same why the majority of people on this forum did, to be honest. And then I had five days of intensive "social justice training" where I was educated about issues of oppression, racism, prejudice, and how these can be and have been institutionalized and embedded, and how to break out of the cycle; and it really changed the way I think about EVERYTHING. It's weird, because at age 19, I assumed most of my world opinions were pretty much set - but this really shook me. I *was* shaken out of my ignorance. But it was through confrontational but savvy education - not mere aggressive "YOU'RE A STUPID RACIST."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's quite irrelevant to Chris' point about being aggressive. Aggression in a logical debate does nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See, I do agree with a lot of the basic points Chris is trying to make. A white person - a "chav" - is able to live within this subculture, but break out of it at any time by wearing a suit or nice skirt when ze applies for an interview. A black person has to live with it day in, day out, for the rest of hir life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree - and the reason being so is that black people who do not act like thugs, are not treated like thugs as evident by the amount of respectable looking and acting black people that have been successful. You can say it's a "white" look but then also need to explain why it is a look adopted throughout cultures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for why "chavs" are thought of in a prejudiced way, even though they're not black: just because racism exists, doesn't mean that other "isms" don't exist. We should work to break down all of them :) Including classism (which is, in a large part, what the hatred of "chavs" is). I would also argue that while "chavs" and black individuals are both discriminated against, they have very different experiences of prejudice throughout their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree with this as well. Chav's are looked down upon because of the attitude they have and the way they act. The fact is that society as a whole rejects people who act like thugs, whether it is the "gangster" in America that is mostly African-American, or if it is the "chav" in Europe. It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the appearance and attitude of the thug.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might be able to make the claim that it is a "white" look that is accepted. Even if you do so successfully, the "racism" falls on you, not the whites. It doesn't matter who came up with the look, what is "respectable" in society is just that, and it doesn't matter WHO is the one dressing respectable. Why do you think civil rights activists like Al Sharpton who believe in "embedded" and "institutional" don't dress like thugs? It is because no one likes the appearance of a thug. If he dresses respectable, which IS a look that is all across the world in multiple races, then he is thought of as respectable because it is his appearance NOT his skin color that matters.

[Celt23]

I don't know what the heck affirmative action is, but from some righties I've heard that it gives minorities a "level playing field".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Something tells me that statement is a load ofÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Satenza]

I agree with Locke, you need to look at the reality of it. Looking respectable for a black person is the same as looking respectable for a white person. Because their culture is different it doesn't mean they have to dress as thugs and swear every second word. Thats not black culture thats a disgrace to black culture. You think Martin Luther King would be looking up to these people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And judging Locke (the person) for his veiws on slavery when he lived in a time of slavery is absurd. Just like it is for judging Rousseau's stance on women.

[Jirka333]

I don't know what the heck affirmative action is, but from some righties I've heard that it gives minorities a "level playing field".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Something tells me that statement is a load ofÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[1_man_army]

 

I don't know that you can make that judgement call that the MAJORITY of African-Americans have role models who sing about breaking the law and treating everyone with disrespect. Not all black rappers have messages that are morally reprehensible; that is just often the white perception of them. (And of course, there are similar white rappers - i.e. Eminem, but we don't think about that as representing all white people). However, I do concede that there is an African-American culture which does value rap and hip-hop to a greater degree than the prevalent white culture does. However, I see no reason why this is a bad thing - it's just a bit different of a culture, and one that need not be looked down upon. The truth is, because that kind of culture is looked down upon, many African-Americans try to distance themselves from it and act more "white," or as you would say, "respectable." I would refer you back to gonpost's interesting quote perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are the one making the color distinction, as evident by your claim about Eminem. Eminem is white, yet he represents that same thug culture that is subscribed to mostly by African-Americans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually around 90% of rap records sales are made by white suburban teenagers.

[Locke]

 

 

I don't know that you can make that judgement call that the MAJORITY of African-Americans have role models who sing about breaking the law and treating everyone with disrespect. Not all black rappers have messages that are morally reprehensible; that is just often the white perception of them. (And of course, there are similar white rappers - i.e. Eminem, but we don't think about that as representing all white people). However, I do concede that there is an African-American culture which does value rap and hip-hop to a greater degree than the prevalent white culture does. However, I see no reason why this is a bad thing - it's just a bit different of a culture, and one that need not be looked down upon. The truth is, because that kind of culture is looked down upon, many African-Americans try to distance themselves from it and act more "white," or as you would say, "respectable." I would refer you back to gonpost's interesting quote perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are the one making the color distinction, as evident by your claim about Eminem. Eminem is white, yet he represents that same thug culture that is subscribed to mostly by African-Americans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually around 90% of rap records sales are made by white suburban teenagers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not talking about CD sales, I'm talking about attitude and personal presentation.

[Baemnt13]

As someone nicely pointed out earlier, sorry I forgot your name, the main beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are White Females. Now, Affirmative Action does seem like racism at first, but, as my American Government professor pointed out - You must READ between the lines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say a company is hiring 10 people. Out of those 10 jobs, the company decides 1 has to be a person who is classified as a "Minority" in that company. If a company has mostly white males, then that company would be looking for females of all ethnicities, and minority males. But, on the other hand, if a company is mostly made up of minorities, who would be the "Minority" of that group - yes it is awkward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am black, and would rather be accepted for a job because I am the most qualified, rather than because I was the only "Minority" to apply. Black males benefiting from Affirmative Action is a MAJOR stereotype, as well as some other stereotypes previously stated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affirmative Action is no longer as big as it was in the 90's, although it does happen. I just have one question, Why are people bugging over more minorities in Universities, Colleges, etc.? If those minorities decide that they want to improve their life, and USUALLY the lives of their community members, they should be encouraged to do so, rather than be accused of only making it of Affirmative Action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(As you probably figured, I'm against AA)