[jjbrr]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-25, 12:02, said:

Here is where I think you are mistaken. Affirmative Action is not based on race but rather based on racial discrimination. The original problem that the law tries to correct is based on race; the fix is based on a correction of the discrimination.

Right, if discrimination, racial or otherwise, didn't exist, programs like affirmative action wouldn't exist.

[olegru]

No.
Program based on race.
It has racial discrimination as justification.

[Winstonm]

 olegru, on 2018-January-25, 13:03, said:

No.
Program based on race.
It has racial discrimination as justification.

Now you are simply sounding like a bigot. Reading between your lines it sounds like you think the white race is suffering discrimination due to Affirmative Action.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-25, 15:14, said:

Now you are simply sounding like a bigot. Reading between your lines it sounds like you think the white race is suffering discrimination due to Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is program with intentional discrimination. It gives African-Americans priority over Caucasians in several areas. The fact that it is meant to repair past sins does not make it any less discrimination.

[ggwhiz]

 ldrews, on 2018-January-25, 16:40, said:

Affirmative Action is program with intentional discrimination. It gives African-Americans priority over Caucasians in several areas. The fact that it is meant to repair past sins does not make it any less discrimination.

I must admit to discriminatory behaviour. Against misogynists, bigots, Nazi's, many kinds of phobes etc.

When I see a room full of old white fat legislators debating the reproductive rights of women I support more such action and fail to see your point. Except for the ignorant racist part.

[cloa513]

 ggwhiz, on 2018-January-25, 17:15, said:

I must admit to discriminatory behaviour. Against misogynists, bigots, Nazi's, many kinds of phobes etc.

When I see a room full of old white fat legislators debating the reproductive rights of women I support more such action and fail to see your point. Except for the ignorant racist part.

What about the Republican women who support abortion restrictions.

[ldrews]

 ggwhiz, on 2018-January-25, 17:15, said:

I must admit to discriminatory behaviour. Against misogynists, bigots, Nazi's, many kinds of phobes etc.

When I see a room full of old white fat legislators debating the reproductive rights of women I support more such action and fail to see your point. Except for the ignorant racist part.

Why pretend something isn't what it is? Discrimination is just discrimination. Having high moral purposes doesn't change the reality of what it is.

[ggwhiz]

 cloa513, on 2018-January-25, 17:33, said:

What about the Republican women who support abortion restrictions.

What about them and where are they? I support their right to participate in the debate too.

https://www.cnn.com/...hoto/index.html

[Winstonm]

Quote

Myth 7: You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.
The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.

[olegru]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-25, 15:14, said:

Now you are simply sounding like a bigot. Reading between your lines it sounds like you think the white race is suffering discrimination due to Affirmative Action.

Now you are simply sounding like a person who has a nice conversation with voices in his head. I don't think my participation in your internal discussion is necessary; I have no interest in conversation with person who does not read lines I wrote, but reply on something he imagine between them.

[jjbrr]

He's right, though, olegru.

[kenberg]

Quarrels about affirmative action have been going on for a good part of my adult life so i doubt that anything I say here will be new.

Basically, I think there are better approaches which would get broader support and be more effective. Here in Maryland, and I think pretty much everywhere else, public education varies drastically based on where you live. This is especially true at the high school level. Certainly there are white students who go to lousy schools but the disparity in quality is tied to economics and is especially tough on minorities. The disparity is far greater than it was when I was growing up in Minnesota in the 40s and 50s.

People of differing political views could, many of them, agree that it would be good for us all if young people attended schools where they would have a good chance of growing up to become responsible self-supporting citizens. Of course that would require solid planning, cash and commitment. It's difficult. But it would have a pay-off.

Some forms of affirmative action are no doubt helpful. Mostly I am thinking of programs that expand a person's knowledge of possibilities. Expanding choice is good, but respecting choice is also good. I have known quite a few people who would take a dim view of any government program that was designed to turn them into mathematicians. My father, for example. But programs that enable youngsters to see options beyond what they see when they look around their immediate neighborhood, and then encourage them to choose whether one option or another is best for them, and then help then along their chosen path, now we are getting somewhere.

Much of what is thought of as Affirmative Action would in fact be illegal and thus does not much happen, at least not exactly. If two people apply for the same job you cannot, or at least I think you cannot, say I will hire this person rather than that person because s/he is African-American or because she is female. But you can hassle employers for not hiring women or minorities in numbers that are deemed suitable, and so things start to get unclear. Unclear to everyone. I was giving a young female colleague a ride home from some meeting, I forget the details, but we were having a reasonable frank discussion. She felt that she had been hired because she was female. I said "No, we don't do that here". She wasn't convinced. People like to be hired for their abilities. When it becomes unclear how much of a hiring decision is based on ability and how much is based on Affirmative Action I think everyone, including the person being hired, loses. This young woman wanted to work where she would be appreciated for her ability, not for making the numbers look good.

Summary: I support efforts at inclusion. I am a good deal more wary of efforts to make numbers look good.

[PassedOut]

 ldrews, on 2018-January-23, 17:45, said:

GDP growth 3%+ for last 3 quarters, projected to be 3+% for 2018.

The U.S. economy grew 2.3 percent in 2017, as growth slowed in fourth quarter

Quote

The U.S. economy grew 1.5 percent in 2016, 2.9 percent in 2015 and 2.6 percent in 2014. It has grown every year since 2009, when it shrank 2.8 percent.

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2018-January-25, 18:02, said:

Why pretend something isn't what it is? Discrimination is just discrimination. Having high moral purposes doesn't change the reality of what it is.

Because phrases have nuanced meaning in context, they aren't just the literal meanings of the words. When we use the term "racial discrimination", the implication is that someone is being deprived because of their race. It's not just any distinction being made due to race.

As for the purpose of AA, it's not just for reparations of past sins. It's also well known that diversity is good for organizations and society as a whole.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2018-January-26, 08:27, said:

Much of what is thought of as Affirmative Action would in fact be illegal and thus does not much happen, at least not exactly. If two people apply for the same job you cannot, or at least I think you cannot, say I will hire this person rather than that person because s/he is African-American or because she is female. But you can hassle employers for not hiring women or minorities in numbers that are deemed suitable, and so things start to get unclear. Unclear to everyone. I was giving a young female colleague a ride home from some meeting, I forget the details, but we were having a reasonable frank discussion. She felt that she had been hired because she was female. I said "No, we don't do that here". She wasn't convinced. People like to be hired for their abilities. When it becomes unclear how much of a hiring decision is based on ability and how much is based on Affirmative Action I think everyone, including the person being hired, loses. This young woman wanted to work where she would be appreciated for her ability, not for making the numbers look good.

Summary: I support efforts at inclusion. I am a good deal more wary of efforts to make numbers look good.

The problem is that if they don't make extra efforts to hire women and minorities, through programs like AA and quotas, the natural bias against them takes over. Which is worse: being hired because you're a woman, or NOT being hired because you're a woman?

It would be great if all hiring decisions could be color- and sex-blind, but we know that's not the case. Numerous behavioral studies have shown that most people have unconscious biases. So we have to do something to counter that. Neither solution is ideal, we have to choose the lesser of evils.

[Winstonm]

In the Affirmative Action discussion, we should not forget our female Fredo supporter who argued in the WC that businesses were not being biased in hiring whites because they had a fear that African Americans were more apt to sue. How does a culture overcome that bias without lawful intervention from government?

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2018-January-26, 09:58, said:

Because phrases have nuanced meaning in context, they aren't just the literal meanings of the words. When we use the term "racial discrimination", the implication is that someone is being deprived because of their race. It's not just any distinction being made due to race.

As for the purpose of AA, it's not just for reparations of past sins. It's also well known that diversity is good for organizations and society as a whole.

We all discriminate all of the time. That is what making a choice is all about. Who you marry, where you take a job, what brand of merchandise you buy, all are the result of discrimination. Some of us have chosen to call certain discriminations bad, unacceptable, hurtful, damaging, etc. We have actually codified some of those choices into law.

So I agree with you, "racial discrimination" is not desirable. But "discrimination" in general is a necessary function of life.

[ggwhiz]

 barmar, on 2018-January-26, 10:10, said:

It would be great if all hiring decisions could be color- and sex-blind,

The Canadian government just released the results of a 6-month experiment where the names and any other identifying details were removed from job applications for government positions and found little difference in the diversity of those granted interviews vs recent past practice. An indication that years of AA has had an effect?

I vaguely recall something along the lines of how many got consideration in the States with names like Ke'Shon that clearly identified a minority but don't recall the results.

[Winstonm]

Quote

America’s gross domestic product increased at a rate of 2.6 percent during the final period of 2017, weighed down by bigger business inventories and a wider trade deficit, according to U.S. Commerce Department data released Friday morning. The measure came in weaker than economists had expected, considering data that showed a surge in American consumer spending

Reality sucks, doesn't it?

At the same time, I do not take this as evidence of anything political - presidents and their policies have virtually zero effect on the economy other than in the long, long term so all we are seeing here is a continuum of the rebuild since the great recession.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-26, 12:08, said:

Reality sucks, doesn't it?

Yep. Trump is President. Sucks, right?

Stock market at record high. That really sucks.

Lowest unemployment in 17 years. That sucks, too.

Lots of people getting bonuses and jobs. Unbearable!

Illegal border crossings much reduced. Unbelievable!

Corporations returning jobs and money back to the US. How bad can it get!

80% of taxpayers receiving reductions in tax obligations. The nerve!

President proposing solution to Dreamer problem and Immigration reform. How dare he!