The problem is that white trash, as we love to call them are typically frowned upon within the white community, I think it is bad to use terms based on ethnicity however because, let's face it, trash is trash and anyone who chooses to let others supplement their welfare indefinitely or fail to take responsibility for themselves are drains on society as a whole, naturally there are exceptions, some people really try hard to improve, hope that number increases.vergiss said:Erm... aren't you familiar with the term "white trash"?
What can we do? Mandatory sterilisation. Eventually the bogans will all die out.
Timequake said:First, let it be known that I am setting all racial etiquette aside in this discussion because I feel this topic is one of the most imperative domestic issues America encounters today.
Over a year ago Bill Cosby publicly acknowledged the harsh standard of living in which he called an “epidemic” found in African American communities throughout the country. Kids are behind in school, if they stay in at all, violence is routine, marriage is a joke. What kind of society are we allowing ourselves to live in? I for one applauded this brave act by Cosby. How can we solve a problem if we are not willing to acknowledge it in the first place? White Liberals and African American leaders are quick to jump on this issue and call it racist, but African American poverty is not just a racial issue, it’s a domestic issue. How can you call Bill Cosby, an advocate for civil rights, racist? The fact is that in these communities, more than any other, children are having children, children aren’t being educated, and it’s considered a norm! Lifestyles where children are being raised not by the mother or father, but by the grandmother or great grandmother is unacceptable and ultimately the root of the problem. But what’s worse is that this lifestyle is being pasted from generation to generation as suitable and while doing so the age of were the problem starts decrease.
What I am asking is, as a nation what can we do? We can’t force people to want to go to school, stop having pre-marital sex, or obey laws. What can the President do?
Now, I’m ready for the backlash which talks of the oppression that the African American community has faced, but what can we do about the past? Nothing. All we can acknowledge is the future, fixing the problems at hand and trying to overcome the barriers that have been set.
Timequake said:Let's be honest here, who isn't a minority?
cnredd said:You know how you keep a minority a "minority"?
By continuing to tell them that they are a minority...
LaMidRighter said:I think there's a law of unintended consequences that have come about as well. For instance, Affirmative action, well, it sounds great, everyone represented in the workforce, but there's a problem, two actually:
1) how do you guage your merit as a person if you can't fail, taking away stumbling blocks like having to compete on a tilted playing field could, in my opinion cause those on the leveraged end to feel that because such leverage exists, then we as a country are no better off in race relations than the 50's, I know if I was put into a job under conditioned circumstances(like nepotism or bribery) I would always feel inferior because I just wouldn't know if I did it or if someone forced me to advance.(Just a theory, no pitchforks please.)
2) A negative backlash could occur and it gives those displaced a scapegoat, even if they were simply outperformed and the ligitimate candidate was also the member of the quota group. I think the Irish backlash(over labor jobs) in the early 1900's would suffice as circumstantial evidence.
I seriously think though, that quota systems do more harm to the target groups they are set for than good. I welcome all opinions on this.
LaMidRighter said:I think there's a law of unintended consequences that have come about as well. For instance, Affirmative action, well, it sounds great, everyone represented in the workforce, but there's a problem, two actually:
1) how do you guage your merit as a person if you can't fail, taking away stumbling blocks like having to compete on a tilted playing field could, in my opinion cause those on the leveraged end to feel that because such leverage exists, then we as a country are no better off in race relations than the 50's, I know if I was put into a job under conditioned circumstances(like nepotism or bribery) I would always feel inferior because I just wouldn't know if I did it or if someone forced me to advance.(Just a theory, no pitchforks please.)
2) A negative backlash could occur and it gives those displaced a scapegoat, even if they were simply outperformed and the ligitimate candidate was also the member of the quota group. I think the Irish backlash(over labor jobs) in the early 1900's would suffice as circumstantial evidence.
I seriously think though, that quota systems do more harm to the target groups they are set for than good. I welcome all opinions on this.
Good point, scary that we're stuck in this situation.HTColeman said:I agree, but the intention of Aff. Action is well founded. We realize that there is a problem about hiring in the workplace, so we need to fix it. The problem is no one has been able to think of a good plan that will fix it without being counterproductive. We can't simply do nothing and get rid of Aff. Action, but we can't keep Aff. Action either. We are kind of stuck.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?