California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Discrimination still exists including in hiring processes and college admissions. Minorities typically have to score higher or have better qualifications to get into the same college or get the same job as someone who isn't a minority.

Minorities having to score higher to get into college or get the same job is literally covered by the repealed law that is the topic of this thread. In fact, due to affirmative action, Asians (who happen to be a minority, in case you weren't aware) will have to score higher to get into universities. Crazy how a policy based on racial discrimination negatively impacts a minority. You don't think it be like that, but it do.

Your hypothetical doesn't even exist. You keep focusing on race when Affirmative Action takes into account more than simply race.

Because that's the topic of this conversation? the racial aspect of it?
Why doesn't my hypothetical exist? You know well over a million Europeans were enslaved by Berber pirates, right?

See above.

I saw above, and imagine my disappointment when it didn't answer my question. Are you saying that no white people convert to Islam?

The topic is about a law that was repealed that banned affirmative action. You want to focus on the racial aspect because it misrepresents how Affirmative Action actually works.

No, it banned racial discrimination, not affirmative action. Read the OP.

From the first paragraph:
Your own source fully admits Irish Americans faced no where near the torment minorities like African Americans did.

Duh. I didn't say otherwise. Are African-Americans the only group to benefit from affirmative action? No. Nice strawman.

So now your claiming college is more expensive for white people than minorities? Some actual numbers to back that up would be nice.

I'm not claiming it's more expensive, I'm claiming it's harder to get into. Please actually read what you reply to, would help you to avoid looking ridiculous.

[wanderwegger]

Most hispanics like Ted Cruz or the Youtuber Joe Vargas, and Spaniards and Portuguese look white to me.

I didnÂ’t say anything about Latinos, which I at least know are another thing.



Quote the supposed dog whistle please.

Ted Cruz is Irish/Cuban. Is it your understanding that most Hispanics in the US are half Irish, because if so you are wrong. I have met other who think Spaniards arenÂ’t white because of the moorish influence.

I am more interested in whether or not you know the history of the Americas and itÂ’s native peoples. Hispanics (Latinos) in the US share a diverse genetic heritage. In Brazil there are large black skinned populations. Dominicans and Haitians are all over the US. Does their African ancestry not count to you?

Dog whistles (pandering to the blacks, corn rows, braids). Are ponytails and let’s say, braids, not “natural” hair styles for whites?
America isnÂ’t in EuropeÂ’s League when it comes to such things.

[Vanoi]

Minorities having to score higher to get into college or get the same job is literally covered by the repealed law that is the topic of this thread. In fact, due to affirmative action, Asians (who happen to be a minority, in case you weren't aware) will have to score higher to get into universities.

Please provide some proof of that please.

Because that's the topic of this conversation? the racial aspect of it?

Why doesn't my hypothetical exist? You know well over a million Europeans were enslaved by Berber pirates, right?

Stop talking put of your ass.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

The highest number cited is 1,250,000 people and that includes many more people than just Europeans.

Now remind me. How many of these European slaves were subjected to continued discrimination and torment for over the next 100 years like African-Americans and other minorities in the US faced?

I saw above, and imagine my disappointment when it didn't answer my question. Are you saying that no white people convert to Islam?

You love strawmans don't you? As i stated multiple factors are taken into account with Affirmative Action. Not just simply race nor religion. I've explained that to you multiple times now.

No, it banned racial discrimination, not affirmative action. Read the OP.

Read the thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tion-aca5-vote

That anti-discrimination law also banned Affirmative Action. Its why the law was repealed in the first place. Hannibal pointed that out on the first page of this thread.

Duh. I didn't say otherwise. Are African-Americans the only group to benefit from affirmative action? No. Nice strawman.

Strawman? It was you who claimed the Irish faced heavy discrimination and that they deserved the benefits of Affirmative Action because they faced discrimination like African-Americans. Yet your own source points out this isn't true.

I'm not claiming it's more expensive, I'm claiming it's harder to get into. Please actually read what you reply to, would help you to avoid looking ridiculous.

You claimed it was harder for white people to get into college because of affirmative action. You then included an example where you implied white people pay more for college because of affirmative action.

You got any kind of proof for these claims?

[Sir Adrian]

For anybody supporting this decision made by literal fascists, I have but one thing to say: this was the first thing the fascists, and 5 years later, the communists, did when they came to power in each and every one of the European countries that suffered their malignant ideologies. The second measure was to censor politically incorrect speech and eventually completely remove any freedom of speech.

This is a undemocratic, this is disgraceful, this is the first step down the dark road to reeducation camps and work communities (gulags). Word to the wise, the first people Lenin sent to the gulag were the vocal supporters of measures like this one. The first people Hitler liquidated were the SA, the vocal supporters and enforcers of his policies.

I truly hope your country can correct its course and steer away from the madness, but the writing on the wall is pretty clear.

Good day, and God help you reverse this.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Please provide some proof of that please.

This isn't exactly news.

Stop talking put of your ass.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

The highest number cited is 1,250,000 people and that includes many more people than just Europeans.

I am relieved, it's not just my posts that you can't read. It's also your own sources:

According to Robert Davis, between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in North Africa and Ottoman Empire between the 16th and 19th centuries.

But yeah, my bad dude. 1.25 million is not well over a million, you sure got me there.

Now remind me. How many of these European slaves were subjected to continued discrimination and torment for over the next 100 years like African-Americans and other minorities in the US faced?

Yes, I'm sure the slaves were not discriminated against. They drank tea and ate biscuits all day. But good job moving the goalpost, it was almost seamless. My hypothetical was of a slave, you said none existed, I give evidence that they did, but oh no, now those slaves weren't oppressed enough!
Which minorities in the US other than African-Americans were slaves?

You love strawmans don't you? As i stated multiple factors are taken into account with Affirmative Action. Not just simply race nor religion. I've explained that to you multiple times now.

Surely the correct form is strawmen?
I feel like a broken record. This debate arose about the racial aspect of affirmative action. I'm not debating it's economic aspect, nor any other aspect of it. Those could have been implemented without the law in question being repealed.

Read the thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tion-aca5-vote

That anti-discrimination law also banned Affirmative Action. Its why the law was repealed in the first place. Hannibal pointed that out on the first page of this thread.

Read the amendment that was repealed, it's literally quoted:“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
Do you see the words affirmative action somewhere? nope.

Strawman? It was you who claimed the Irish faced heavy discrimination and that they deserved the benefits of Affirmative Action because they faced discrimination like African-Americans. Yet your own source points out this isn't true.

Do show me where I said "like African-Americans".
So, yes. Strawman. Repeatedly.

You claimed it was harder for white people to get into college because of affirmative action. You then included an example where you implied white people pay more for college because of affirmative action.

You got any kind of proof for these claims?

I don't even. It was a metaphor. I'll try again, in more plain terms: If a white person needs to score an A+ to pass the exam, but a black person only needs to score a B+, then it is easier for the black person to pass, and by comparison harder for the white person. I hope that this was simple enough and you won't question me about the specifics of this hypothetical example.

[Knight of Heaven]

Would it not make more sense to base this on socio-economic status than the colour of one's skin? Are those the only groups ever discriminated against? What of the Irish, for example?

This is the crux of the matter imo. Also aren't the Asian Americans suing a bunch of colleges, because of affirmative action is taken out their spots. As they are at the top of the qualifications usually for entry in college.

[wanderwegger]

I live in California. Repealing this law was not directed exclusively at affirmative action. The purpose is to allow the state to take direct action to solve systemic social disparities based on vile prejudices we wish to expunge from our society. The proposition repealed is from a bygone era. It has broad based support amongst the democratic electorate. We will vote these representatives back into office because they are carrying out the will of the people.

Freedom of speech has no part in this. To pretend so is silly. It has bipartisan support. Groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis and better meaning libertarians are pretty much the only opposition to it. Calling it in the beginning of fascism is the same tired old argument always made when societies strive to be more just at the minor inconvenience of entrenched institutional and cultural privilege.

[Sir Adrian]

Your people literally vote in a law that allows persecution based on racial profile and personal opinions. Of course free speech has something to do with this, it has everything to do with it.

The right to not be discriminated against is not from a bygone era, it is a basic human right.

[PointOfViewGun]

Your people literally vote in a law that allows persecution based on racial profile and personal opinions. Of course free speech has something to do with this, it has everything to do with it.

The right to not be discriminated against is not from a bygone era, it is a basic human right.

Nope. The law or the lack of it doesn't allow persecution based on racial profile or personal opinion. Why would you lie about something so basic?

[Sar1n]

Nope. The law or the lack of it doesn't allow persecution based on racial profile or personal opinion. Why would you lie about something so basic?

One of basics of modern law is a principle that anything that's not forbidden is allowed. Which means that with this law repealed, discrimination based on race or opinion are allowed, unless there are federal laws against discrimination that are sufficient to cover the issue....if I understand the US legal mess.

[PointOfViewGun]

One of basics of modern law is a principle that anything that's not forbidden is allowed. Which means that with this law repealed, discrimination based on race or opinion are allowed, unless there are federal laws against discrimination that are sufficient to cover the issue....if I understand the US legal mess.

You really think this state law was the only law in state, federal and international legislature as well as all the SCOTUS rulings?

Heck, this is not even a rollback of a discrimination bill...

[Love Mountain]

One of basics of modern law is a principle that anything that's not forbidden is allowed. Which means that with this law repealed, discrimination based on race or opinion are allowed, unless there are federal laws against discrimination that are sufficient to cover the issue....if I understand the US legal mess.

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke

The Supreme Court, in a highly fractured ruling (six separate opinions were issued), agreed that the university’s use of strict racial quotas was unconstitutional and ordered that the medical school admit Bakke, but it also contended that race could be used as one criterion in the admissions decisions of institutions of higher education. Although the ruling legalized the use of affirmative action, in subsequent decisions during the next several decades the court limited the scope of such programs, and several U.S. states prohibited affirmative action programs based on race.

Affirmative Action isn't racism. Racism is discrimination based on race. Affirmative Action is a policy of aiding disadvantaged groups, especially ones that are discriminated against. This again, goes back to the idea that everything is necessarily an attack on your own person.

[Sir Adrian]

You really think this state law was the only law in state, federal and international legislature as well as all the SCOTUS rulings?

Heck, this is not even a rollback of a discrimination bill...

Federal laws on the topic only apply to Federal agencies and institutions. State level agencies as well as private entites can do as they please now that this law has been repealed.

Affirmative Action isn't racism. Racism is discrimination based on race. Affirmative Action is a policy of aiding disadvantaged groups, especially ones that are discriminated against. This again, goes back to the idea that everything is necessarily an attack on your own person.

You are describing racism and sexism and saying it isn't racist. Affirmative action until now has been almost entirely about race and this law was repealed specifically to allow for affirmative action based entirely on race, whithout the token poor white kids. You are literally giving one race preferential treatment over another. How in great Belisarius beard is that not racism. You are discriminating a race. An entire race. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

[Love Mountain]

Federal laws on the topic only apply to Federal agencies and institutions. State level agencies as well as private entites can do as they please now that this law has been repealed.

Your own link disagrees with you. Very first law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


You really going to tell me that the Civil Rights Act only applies to federal employers?

You are describing racism and sexism and saying it isn't racist. Affirmative action until now has been almost entirely about race and this law was repealed specifically to allow for affirmative action based entirely on race, whithout the token poor white kids. You are literally giving one race preferential treatment over another. How in great Belisarius beard is that not racism. You are discriminating a race. An entire race. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

Racism is wrong because you are selecting based purely on race and race alone. In fact, if you look into the history of racism, the justifications for such racism are rooted in White Supremacy. This is why racism is wrong. Affirmative Action seeks to provide aid to disadvantaged groups (not even based on skin color a lot of the time) due to their social and economic circumstances that stem from their group membership. For example, poverty and police brutality are something African Americans suffer from far more than many other groups. And they do so, in a way that's unique to African Americans, due to the color of their skin.

There is also the fact that race is social construct, as are nationalities. Affirmative Action seeks to give these people an opportunity because they suffer hardship due to their group identity. That's not racism, and if you're upset that more white kids aren't getting into college, then perhaps you should join the same people who are campaigning for free college.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Racism is wrong because you are selecting based purely on race and race alone. In fact, if you look into the history of racism, the justifications for such racism are rooted in White Supremacy. This is why racism is wrong. Affirmative Action seeks to provide aid to disadvantaged groups (not even based on skin color a lot of the time) due to their social and economic circumstances that stem from their group membership. For example, poverty and police brutality are something African Americans suffer from far more than many other groups. And they do so, in a way that's unique to African Americans, due to the color of their skin.

Okay, so let me see if I understand this correctly. You're saying that the reason that racism is wrong is that race is the only criteria? Hating someone for their race is racist, hating someone for their race and because they're poor is not racist?
Similarly, giving someone preferential treatment (read: racial discrimination) purely based on race is bad, but giving someone preferential treatment based on race and economic status is okay?
And another question: You state that racism is wrong because it's rooted in white supremacy. It white supremacy in some way inherently different than, say, black supremacy or asian supremacy?

[Love Mountain]

Okay, so let me see if I understand this correctly. You're saying that the reason that racism is wrong is that race is the only criteria? Hating someone for their race is racist, hating someone for their race and because they're poor is not racist?

Racism is wrong because we judge people solely on the color of their skin.

Similarly, giving someone preferential treatment (read: racial discrimination) purely based on race is bad, but giving someone preferential treatment based on race and economic status is okay?

That would depend on the context of the situation. It's not like black or white.

And another question: You state that racism is wrong because it's rooted in white supremacy. It white supremacy in some way inherently different than, say, black supremacy or asian supremacy?

It's not wrong simply because it's rooted to white supremacy. It's wrong because it only takes skin color into account for the insidious purpose of keeping certain people out. Affirmative Action does the exact opposite. It tries to identify marginalized groups and gives them the opportunity to be included.


Now I'm sure you're wondering if affirmative action can ever be racist. Of course. Negative consequences can occur and insidious agenda can hide behind the veneer of "affirmative action". Like I said before, it's about context.

[Cope]

Racism is wrong because you are selecting based purely on race and race alone. In fact, if you look into the history of racism, the justifications for such racism are rooted in White Supremacy. This is why racism is wrong. Affirmative Action seeks to provide aid to disadvantaged groups (not even based on skin color a lot of the time) due to their social and economic circumstances that stem from their group membership.

"Social and economic circumstances" can be controlled for without racial considerations. You have no point.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Racism is wrong because we judge people solely on the color of their skin.

You did not answer my question. If I were to remove the word "solely" from what you've just said, would it still hold true?

That would depend on the context of the situation. It's not like black or white.

Really now? So it's okay to hate poor black people (whilst not hating poor white people), just not black people in general? Is this your position?

It's not wrong simply because it's rooted to white supremacy. It's wrong because it only takes skin color into account for the insidious purpose of keeping certain people out. Affirmative Action does the exact opposite. It tries to identify marginalized groups and gives them the opportunity to be included.

And it identifies these marginalized groups based on.. what? Oh, that's right, race. In other words: within the span of 2 lines of text you go from "judging based on race is bad" to "judging based on race is good". I'm impressed, well done. The next step, of course, is to contradict yourself within the same sentence, so I eagerly await your reply.

[Sir Adrian]

Your own link disagrees with you. Very first law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


You really going to tell me that the Civil Rights Act only applies to federal employers?

Read it.

Besides even if you are correct, in 1-2 years time you will come asking to rescind that. Better to nip this in the bud and stop this cancer at the root, before it blossoms into systemic racism.

Racism is wrong because you are selecting based purely on race and race alone. In fact, if you look into the history of racism, the justifications for such racism are rooted in White Supremacy. This is why racism is wrong. Affirmative Action seeks to provide aid to disadvantaged groups (not even based on skin color a lot of the time) due to their social and economic circumstances that stem from their group membership. For example, poverty and police brutality are something African Americans suffer from far more than many other groups. And they do so, in a way that's unique to African Americans, due to the color of their skin.

There is also the fact that race is social construct, as are nationalities. Affirmative Action seeks to give these people an opportunity because they suffer hardship due to their group identity. That's not racism, and if you're upset that more white kids aren't getting into college, then perhaps you should join the same people who are campaigning for free college.

No, racism is wrong because it uses criteria other than merit to dole out advantages. Positive racism is still racism. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. As long as race is a factor, even among 1 million others, it's racism and it needs to die. The idea that only whites can be racist or that racism only stems from whiteness is not even idiotic, it's evil. If you ever bother looking though Mein Kampf you will see almost identical arguments in favor of the germans and in excuse of antisemitism.

[saxdude]

I'd be shocked at the profound idiocy of your post Settra, if I wasn't absolutely positive you get what Love Mountain point of view, but are just extremely, irrationally bitter at the idea of black people and 'hispanics/latinos' (terms we'll just bandy about without attempting to even acknowledge what it means) getting a fair shake, just throw out whatever asinine analogy about Nazi Germany you can think of while heavily armed, unmarked and masked federal troopers storm US cities cause yeah, California is definitly coming after you.


It's all bootstraps and scary Black stormtroopers with you, affirmitive action is "positive racism", fairer distribution of wealth is "reverse classism", social security is "ageism towards the young and fit". What a world to live in.