- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 3,751
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Ever been called the "n" word with a "w" in front of it?
No, you're the first.
You can't legislate the mind, it doesn't exist because it is impossible to quantify. If anything, we have minority privilege because of affirmative action. AA is racism because its favoring one race over another for no reason other than past "sins" that barely if at all affect the benefactors.
I'm not endorsing or condemning AA. But I have a couple or so questions.
In your opinion...
Say if AA didn't exist...that would be the end of racism? Or should I say...would any or all racial related inequities disappear in schools, the work place, etc?
Do you believe that there is any form of incentive possible to encourage people not be a racist... or that could be done in a more equitable for all races involved?
I think that AA has good intentions, but in reality it just continues the hate even if it has served its purpose in many cases. There are many people who just feel that they are being told that they should get to the back of the line because of their skin color on all sides of AA. IMO it would be better to just enforce anti-discriminatory laws rather than also enforce AA. A token minority in the workplace etc is still being racist. Personally I would be insulted if the only reason that I was hired was to meet a racial ratio quota. All that creates is animosity by people who perceive that they were judged by the color of their skin.
Seriously, a point system based on race alone is racist. It cant be anything but racist.
Certainly prejudice, bigotry, racism is almost impossible to regulate or deal with legislatively as it is a state of mind...just as "CalvinCoolidge stated in his post. Discrimination laws can be tough to enforce because of the complexities of exposing racial motives that are created inside prejudice minds. Yes, there are some levels of evidence in certain settings that can bring out discrimination...but the problem is...unlike criminals who are guaranteed legal counsel at no cost... same doesn't apply to people who must attempt to prove that they've been discriminated against.
Justice doesn't come cheap.
I'm not endorsing or condemning AA. But I have a couple or so questions.
In your opinion...
Say if AA didn't exist...that would be the end of racism? Or should I say...would any or all racial related inequities disappear in schools, the work place, etc?
Do you believe that there is any form of incentive possible to encourage people not be a racist... or that could be done in a more equitable for all races involved?
True justice doesnt come cheap, but if a law or policy employs the same problem that it is trying to fix then its just as bad. Or actually it is worse since it would be government backed.
The individual racist can be dealt with by employing ant-discriminatory laws (not claiming magic success here). But when the government engages in discriminatory policy and law there is no one thats going to even attempt to deal with those discriminations.
We can teach that racism is wrong. And some people will listen to that wisdom. We can outlaw people from engaging in racism in specific situations as we should be obligated to do IMO. But we cannot become the thought police and force people to not be racist. Freedom of speech says that we cannot control the thoughts of the people. In the protection of liberty and freedom we unfortunately have to accept that some people will act like idiots and be racist.
You can't legislate the mind, it doesn't exist because it is impossible to quantify. If anything, we have minority privilege because of affirmative action. AA is racism because its favoring one race over another for no reason other than past "sins" that barely if at all affect the benefactors.
A) No. But it would be the end of government sponsored racism, and employers/ college boards / etc could do what they want to.
B) No, because people will think what they think usually. Such policies like and including AA intensify racism IMO.
...I don't know how all of our nation's companies and schools can begin to effectively create and implement internal policies - until there are non-racists, non-bigots, etc...making sure that policies and laws are enforced. That's a major barrier in today's world...
Most larger businesses and institutions in the USA have anti-discrimination policies and procedures for handling complaints in place. Where these policies and methods for accountability are in place there are relatively few problems that aren't addressed appropriately. It is in specific areas with less accountability where there are the most problems, discrimination by individual cab drivers is a good example.
Probably the most significant area with accountability problems is law enforcement. There are laws and procedures that can significantly reduce racial bias in law enforcement, but they are not widely adopted, usually due to lobbying in opposition by police and prosecutors. (evidence of racists in their ranks since these reforms seem quite fair and reasonable.)
Her's some examples for addressing bias in police line-ups:
"•Blind administration: Research and experience have shown that the risk of misidentification is sharply reduced if the police officer administering a photo or live lineup is not aware of who the suspect is.
•Lineup composition: “Fillers” (the non-suspects included in a lineup) should resemble the eyewitness’ description of the perpetrator. The suspect should not stand out (for example, he should not be the only member of his race in the lineup, or the only one with facial hair). Eyewitnesses should not view multiple lineups with the same suspect.
•Instructions: The person viewing a lineup should be told that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup and that the investigation will continue regardless of the lineup result. They should also be told not to look to the administrator for guidance.
•Confidence statements: Immediately following the lineup procedure, the eyewitness should provide a statement, in his own words, articulating his the level of confidence in the identification.
•Recording: Identification procedures should be videotaped whenever possible – this protects innocent suspects from any misconduct by the lineup administrator, and it helps the prosecution by showing a jury that the procedure was legitimate.
Jurisdictions should also consider adopting sequential presentation of lineups: Research has shown that presenting lineup members one-by-one (sequential), rather than all at once (simultaneous), decreases the rate at which innocent people are identified. Research has also demonstrated that when viewing several subjects at once, witnesses tend to choose the person who looks the most like – but may not actually be – the perpetrator."
The Innocence Project - Fix the System: Priority Issues: Eyewitness Identification
It's because blacks are more likely to commit crimes for their percentage of the population. 48 out of 50 cabbie killings in (iirc it was NY) are committed by blacks or Hispanics. not all blacks would do this, but this is an example of this. The whites get stopped less because less of them percentage wise do crimes. Then you have to take into fact mitigating factors like past crimes, and individual case specifics that can't be quantified, including the judge himself. 50 years ago white privilege definitely existed but now it doesn't. Like I said before, you cannot legislate what people think, so (hypothetically) IF I'm wrong and it does exist, it is impossible to correct and therefore useless to try.Are you saying that white privilege doesn't exist because it can't be quantified? I can think of many things that exist but can't be quantifed with accuracy.
However, white privilege can be quantified. For example, there are plenty of statistics showing that whites are less likely to be stopped by police, less likely to be arrested, and given lighter for the same crimes as African Americans.
I just fessed up in my prior post...I don't have a clue as to what an equitable solution is for all parties concerned. Do you?
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?