what show is this?

To be fair though. In an equal world, doesn't Affirmative Action and NAACP need to die?

These things were designed to help promote integration and give it a jump start as it were. At some point, and im not saying we're there yet, but at some point, we're supposedly integrated enough that stuff like that is no longer needed, no?

What's the track record for organization that has outlived it's usefulness going away on it's own.

Not that i'm defending that racist POS. He's obviously a very angry person looking for someone to blame.

You are right Voodoo.

As soon as the genealogy of disadvantage born from forced immigration, slavery, segregation and racism are no longer evident in hindering ones prospects in society then these organisations have no legitimacy. As soon as America ditches the notion of total individual accountability that is so crucial to the "American dream" they might realise that their empire was built on the backs of an injustice that continues to this day. One either has to accept that there is something inherently inferior about being black that makes them predisposed to poverty (and by extension crime and lack of education) or accept that the social institutions that govern American life are complacent with not addressing past injustices.

@VoodooV That may be true but an "equal world" doesn't exist. Those social programs, not just the ones that help African Americans either, are there to if nothing else make it possible for someone from that prospective group to improve their situation. Even within that framework though, they still have tremendous obstacles to overcome.

It's very easy to chalk all this up to personal responsibility; but Donald Trump's son has arguably a much easier time making something of his life than a black boy born into a family that doesn't value education and is stricken with poverty. Sure the latter candidate can overcome his situation, probably by taking advantage of said programs; but again even within this framework, those are tremendous odds to overcome.

That was definitely the crux of my point. We definitely don't live in an equal world. We won't get there in our lifetimes, probably not even our children's lifetimes.

My only point is that, hopefully, one day they will not be needed. The problem is, when you've had an organization exist for so long...but then at some point is no longer needed. People have trouble letting go.

It's the same for racism. Hate and ignorance doesn't go away overnight. People don't want to let go of what they believe has worked for so long.

Anachronisms don't die easily

I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.

You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.

Psshhh... look it up. The show is called "Without Prejudice". Just like ALL other reality TV, it is completely scripted, edited and released for consumer Americans to shovel into our fat, retarded faces.

"That guy is so RACIST!!! I'm not racist cause I'm better than that. Let's order some Domino's pizza. I love their tacos!!"

The Balls on this mother fucker ! *deblankfist this fucker!

"You're like a minority yourself!" That was the moment, right? I was hoping I wouldn't miss it.

Yeah, how dare those ******'s have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?

....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.

@Kofi @JiggaJonson

If affirmative action was about remedying past injustices, we wouldn't be promoting official discrimination against Asian Americans. http://videosift.com/poll/Is-discrimination-against-Asian-Americans-in-college-admissions-good-or-bad

Also, many Asian Americans come from even lower income family backgrounds than the beneficiaries of affirmative action in the US, so if we promote discrimination against Asian Americans, affirmative action doesn't appear to be about giving a helping hand due to low income.

There is no need to lie to make your point. Stick to the facts and a robust discussion can be had. If not, you're no worse than a teabagger hack that thinks everything is "official" discrimination against white people.



>> ^chilaxe:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since October 18th, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Kofi">Kofi @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since June 11th, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/JiggaJonson">JiggaJonson
If affirmative action was about remedying past injustices, we wouldn't be promoting official discrimination against Asian Americans. http://videosift.com/poll/Is-discrimination-against-Asian-Americans-in-college-admissions-good-or-bad
Also, many Asian Americans come from even lower income family backgrounds than the beneficiaries of affirmative action in the US, so if we promote discrimination against Asian Americans, affirmative action doesn't appear to be about giving a helping hand due to low income.

>> ^longde:

Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.

@longde

Just show us how discrimination against Asian Americans isn't discrimination, and you'll have proved your debate opponents are lying, rather than yourself.

That poll shows that 88% of sift members disagree with you.

I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.

>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.

@chilaxe Grasping at straws are we? Sift-polls as evidence of anti-asian discrimination; are you serious? And a poll with a loaded question at that. What's the next question: "who thinks that these cute puppies should be drowned in a bathtub"?

The burden of proof is on you to prove discrimination. Why is that so hard, if it's so true?

OK, I'll drop the issue. It seems you'd rather talk to people who have no idea about the nuances of the issue, than talk to someone who has literally spent years reading and thinking about this important subject, and has a solid grasp of statistics to boot.

>> ^longde:

I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.
>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.



I think you missed the part where Enzo said "stereotypical black man".

those polynesians are so racist... wait domino's has tacos?

I've gotta admit, linking that poll in support of any argument is the worst thing you could do. 28 people total (meaning hundreds, thousands? didn't bother to vote), and the question/description states "X is bad. Is x good yes or no?"

I think you just shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. You shouldn't be forced to hire someone BECAUSE they're a minority, that's discrimination too! Hard to enforce "don't be discrimanatory", though.

It's hard for someone who isn't racist, never has been, and never has had a racist thought even begin to cross their mind to consider anti-discrimination policies. If i saw (random imagined example) 10 white guys pay to get on a train, then a black guy turned down, then some more white guys allowed on, i'd probably not even consider it could be racism unless i thought about it for a while. I'd assume he didn't have the right ticket or money or something. Whereas someone who's had to deal with racism every day might immediately think racism.

Tough to get an unbiased viewpoint on a topic like that; i think no one is racist where i live when there clearly may be racist people there, and the other guy might think there's at least x amount of racists in my area when there might not be any.

@longde

Your disagreement is with statistics, not with the videosift community:

"[Researchers] found what looks like different standards for different racial groups. They calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100. Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans."

@chilaxe My disagreement is not with statistics, but with the erroneous use of statistics; and of the SAT as a measure of "merit". I addressed these points and your above paragraph in your poll thread, but you didn't have an answer for any of my concerns. Shall I go over them again?

Also, of course I don't have a beef with the videosift community; I just question the worth of a poll question that is so loaded.

@chilaxe said: "don't expect people to reply to your oblivious racism"

How is it racist to scrutinize the facts? Is your aim to be "fair" or is your aim to pack universities with as many asians as possible? If it's to be fair, then let's address the facts and our assumptions.

No, I got that part. I'm just wondering how does one distinguish a "stereotypical" black man from one who simply likes hip hop styles?


>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^longde:
I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.
>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.


I think you missed the part where Enzo said "stereotypical black man".

I call it like it is. Affirmative Action is racism. It's sole purpose is to tell ethnic groups that they are too inferior to accomplish something without troweling them into some artificial quota bin. The only quota system that has any value is individual merit and accomplishment. Everything else is a bunch of PC crap that punishes or rewards people based entirely on the color of their skin. It's the most racist policy in US history except for (A) slavery and (B) Japanese internment camps. That's some really good company it's keeping, isn't it?

Good intentions? Let me point you to a place where that road leads...

Racism and projects that attempt to offset the affects of discrimination/racism.....there's a lot of ways to look at it. I can only speak to my viewpoint on it, and that's as a white male who is currently unemployed.

In my local area the majority of the population is made up of white and blacks, a few Indians, very few Mexicans that only seem to be around in the summer months, and a smattering of other races...but the vast majority are whites and blacks. According to the census it's about 50% white and 40% black of total population. And for every 100 females there's about 90-94 men....so a few more women than men.

And one would think that if you walked into a government facility such as the unemployment compensation department housed in the same place they handle food stamps and other welfare programs that you would see the population reflected in their employees. However I noticed that at least 70% of the people I saw working there were female, and the largest represented race there were blacks making up probably 6-7 out of every 10 people I saw who seemed to work there.

Now this is in a time when there are A LOT of people looking for jobs and the government programs are being flooded by the sheer amount of people using the services. I would have taken a job there, even though it looked like a pretty hectic place to work. They hired 3-4 times last year and I never saw any noticeable change in the sex and race of the people employed there.

And they were still overburdened, making mistakes......not calling back...and generally just bungling everything I had to turn into them for unemployment and the extensions. So it's not like they were getting high quality personnel by hiring the people they did. I can only conclude they did this because of a quota in the overall government or because the people in charge of hiring showed preference. How do you prove something like that? If the job were something more like what I'd like to do, I might have cared enough to ask them.

But it made me question at what point does giving non-whites a leg up start to become discrimination against whites?

It also made me wonder why we can't have any "whites only" programs, when there are plenty of programs for blacks only? Some of them even receive government funding.

If anyone needs more help to get a job or more help to get into college, there should be organizations to help with that....non-discriminatory in nature. If you are close, but not quite there..whether it be financially or education based you should be able to receive help. Then they could go back to admitting/hiring the best person they can get for the money, and then if the non-discriminating organization sees that there's bias ...they have some authority to speak from. Where as a black-only program doesn't know if bias is taking place because they are biased themselves.

I still remember all the black only clubs they had at college. I think there were even some Indian only clubs....which they probably wouldn't have let in my US born Indian friend because Indians born in India didn't like US born Indians....the TAs who were mostly India in the tech fields of study would barely talk to him.

Basically, if you're white........it's OK if you don't get a group of your own. You'd automatically be a racist if you even asked to have a white only club, because you'd know it'd be people bitching about the double standard......which would basically be bitching about other races.

Mmmm... yeah... fuck Texas...

>> ^Porksandwich:

Racism and projects that attempt to offset the affects of discrimination/racism.....there's a lot of ways to look at it. I can only speak to my viewpoint on it, and that's as a white male who is currently unemployed.
In my local area the majority of the population is made up of white and blacks, a few Indians, very few Mexicans that only seem to be around in the summer months, and a smattering of other races...but the vast majority are whites and blacks. According to the census it's about 50% white and 40% black of total population. And for every 100 females there's about 90-94 men....so a few more women than men.
And one would think that if you walked into a government facility such as the unemployment compensation department housed in the same place they handle food stamps and other welfare programs that you would see the population reflected in their employees. However I noticed that at least 70% of the people I saw working there were female, and the largest represented race there were blacks making up probably 6-7 out of every 10 people I saw who seemed to work there.
Now this is in a time when there are A LOT of people looking for jobs and the government programs are being flooded by the sheer amount of people using the services. I would have taken a job there, even though it looked like a pretty hectic place to work. They hired 3-4 times last year and I never saw any noticeable change in the sex and race of the people employed there.
And they were still overburdened, making mistakes......not calling back...and generally just bungling everything I had to turn into them for unemployment and the extensions. So it's not like they were getting high quality personnel by hiring the people they did. I can only conclude they did this because of a quota in the overall government or because the people in charge of hiring showed preference. How do you prove something like that? If the job were something more like what I'd like to do, I might have cared enough to ask them.
But it made me question at what point does giving non-whites a leg up start to become discrimination against whites?
It also made me wonder why we can't have any "whites only" programs, when there are plenty of programs for blacks only? Some of them even receive government funding.
If anyone needs more help to get a job or more help to get into college, there should be organizations to help with that....non-discriminatory in nature. If you are close, but not quite there..whether it be financially or education based you should be able to receive help. Then they could go back to admitting/hiring the best person they can get for the money, and then if the non-discriminating organization sees that there's bias ...they have some authority to speak from. Where as a black-only program doesn't know if bias is taking place because they are biased themselves.
I still remember all the black only clubs they had at college. I think there were even some Indian only clubs....which they probably wouldn't have let in my US born Indian friend because Indians born in India didn't like US born Indians....the TAs who were mostly India in the tech fields of study would barely talk to him.
Basically, if you're white........it's OK if you don't get a group of your own. You'd automatically be a racist if you even asked to have a white only club, because you'd know it'd be people bitching about the double standard......which would basically be bitching about other races.


I think your unemployment office offers a pretty good slice of the overall picture, at least where female employees are concerned. My theory (if you could call it that) is that women take those jobs because they're used to being underpaid for shit work. They're also used to being treated like shit by people they serve, and to society having a negative view of them in general. And I'm not talking about the experience of a lot of todays pampered little princesses. I'm talking about a deeply embedded genetic instinct. Perhaps the situation of the black employees could be similar.

One thing's for sure, the women in the office you go to aren't there because of some female affirmative action plan, and yet they're still out of balance with the local population.

@Porksandwich I can sympathize; but did you know that the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites? I think the demographics of this shitty government agency reflect the fact that, before the downturn, whites who have better options in the workforce chose not to take those jobs. And during the downturn, the public agency you saw just happened to be one which didn't have much turnover. I bet they laid people off though, and the inefficiency you witnessed is due to individual employees doing jobs meant for 2 or 3 people.

As far as college groups, there are indeed white groups that exclude others. Just take a walk down frat row for instance, where you may see the occasional token in some of the houses. The asian/black/latino groups you saw cannot exclude white people, and in my college experience, some white people did join those groups to get exposure to other cultures. But most whites didn't; they either ignored or complained about the groups.

Also, it seemed like every year, there were whites who started a Whites Club----but these organizations never lasted, because what's the point? The damn campus is majority white, and everything is tailored towards white people and white culture. And, as I said above, if you really want to be around whites only, there are plenty of options on campus to do so, not limited to frats. This truth, incidently, extends to greater society.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I think your unemployment office offers a pretty good slice of the overall picture, at least where female employees are concerned. My theory (if you could call it that) is that women take those jobs because they're used to being underpaid for shit work. They're also used to being treated like shit by people they serve, and to society having a negative view of them in general. And I'm not talking about the experience of a lot of todays pampered little princesses. I'm talking about a deeply embedded genetic instinct. Perhaps the situation of the black employees could be similar.
One thing's for sure, the women in the office you go to aren't there because of some female affirmative action plan, and yet they're still out of balance with the local population.

It's a possibility. And I can't prove one way or another as I could never find any specific information on what I'm about to repeat from others.


The state I am in requires people to work for their food stamps, medical coverage for their kids, any cash they may receive towards rent and other costs. They are called "Work Experience Program" (WEP) workers. When they are categorized into that program, they are basically required to work a fixed amount of hours each month or they get cut off to some extent. For single women these hours are drastically less (I would guess half or more) if they have kids because they would rather them be with their kids than have to pay for daycare. For instance some guy told me he was laid off from a job working for the county, they refused to pay unemployment and they could do so by law. So he didn't have any unemployment to buffer him while he looked for work and he had to go on welfare. Since he was married and had 2 kids, he was eligible for medical coverage on the kids, food stamps, and cash to help cover costs. For that he had to work something like 150 hours each month at Goodwill as a "WEP worker". So basically he was working a full time job and he told me it worked out to under 4 dollars an hour if his kids didn't need any medical stuff...which I will admit medical coverage could be a huge cost if his kids had something bad happen. So there's incentive to find work if you're a man because you're basically getting screwed hard for your time, but you're also required to work so many hours it's hard to find time to look for work unless you do it at night. He said they scheduled hours for him and he could miss hours and make them up on the weekends and sometimes in the evenings, but only if they had work for him and only if he got permission. Otherwise he fell short on his hours and would be potentially booted.

So for a single mother, these hours are cut down to half maybe more because they are expected to work only if they have someone to take care of their kid or while they are in school allowing for time for them to be there when they leave and be there when they get home. Which if they are forced to ride the bus, their hours are going to be even shorter of actual "work". But they would still get the same benefits as the married man from above. Now......there's another program I've heard about from my parents where one of their renter's claimed to be in it after she alluded otherwise. And it was semi-confirmed by a friend of my dad whose mother gets a home health care provider provided to her by the state.

I don't know the name of the program, but it basically puts single women receiving welfare into the role of home health care provider to some degree. Where they go to the senior citizens houses and stay there some portion of the day for some period of each week. Where they do some picking up, organizing, make sure the senior citizen is generally OK as far as they are able to determine and help them with tasks they might be able to do. The friend of my dad...his mom's home health care provider overdosed on pills while she was at his mom's house. Died on the couch. She called him up and told her the lady was dead on her couch and called 911 to tell them...then went to bed. There are suspicions of mine and my parents that these ladies steal drugs from the old folks and use em or sell em....they had problems with a lot of "visitors" at their rental when a lady there claiming to be a "home health care provider" on her application but then later admitted it was a government program...no idea what it's called. I have never heard of a man being in or being asked to be in this program.

So...they have programs which seemed to be tailored to women. I am more likely to believe that they also give preference to women in hiring. I will tell you one thing I did see while I was at those offices though. Young women especially if they are in fairly attractive get treated poorly by a lot of the women there. They also never once had any sort of training program, employment hunting assistance (beyond searching on their system yourself), or anything else to offer or suggest to me when I asked. But I heard them repeatedly tell women they offer programs to help find part-time work....if they are successful or not, I have no idea. I don't know if preference is given to people who have kids or not....didn't go around asking everyone if they had kids.

No I was not aware they were capable of breaking unemployment rates down by race. I looked up how they actually determine unemployment rates. It is by a finding a pool of people they feel represent demographics the census shows them and calling them to ask if they are working or not.....basically. Then they use that to state the overall unemployment rates. I read that they don't use the number of people drawing unemployment benefits, I mention this because I suspected the unemployment fluctuations were because lots of people were being dropped from the counting when they exhausted their benefits. However I now believe that the way they sample could account for a pretty big fluctuation considering they might get a sampling that isn't true to reality.... I couldn't determine any other kind of metric they employ that even sounds remotely like they verify anything they claim as fact.

My experiences with their department is that they just routinely gave me wrong information or sent me documents in error. Causing me to have to contact them to find out what was going on....and having to call them 2-3 times to actually get in contact with someone who would take the time to answer my questions. And then those answers were 50/50 on their accuracy as well. It's one thing to be overburdened, it's another to create more work and hassle for yourself and everyone else involved.....it may have been a stalling tactic but it ain't fun to be denied by letter, then told on the phone you were eligible....filling out your weekly form to find out you were actually denied. Spending the week getting that straightened out, waiting a week because they say it'll take a week. Then find out your denied again.....spending another week straightening it out and a month has gone by before you get forward progress.

Didn't go to a college that had frat houses that I was aware of, and I commuted so I didn't spend a lot of time on campus as it more of a commuter heavy college. They certainly didn't have anything greek "official" within sight of campus. Didn't care if I was in a frat, club, or group. I'm just saying it was announced on the college radio that these clubs were around for these folks....not based on interests such as chess or even a greek/frat system.

And I don't really care what races Im around as long as they are on an even footing with me and have the common courtesy to take showers, wear deodorant, and try to control their breath or at least not get up in my face with stank mouth. Oh and if they must speak a foreign language at least try to include others in the conversation if we're working on a group project or having a group conversation. I've been trying to pick up other languages, but man...native speakers when they get going I can't tell what the hell they are saying.

And....what is "white culture" if everyone is included? Like.....country clubs? I figured they were more "rich culture".

>> ^longde:

@<Porksandwich I can sympathize; but did you know that the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites? I think the demographics of this shitty government agency reflect the fact that, before the downturn, whites who have better options in the workforce chose not to take those jobs. And during the downturn, the public agency you saw just happened to be one which didn't have much turnover. I bet they laid people off though, and the inefficiency you witnessed is due to individual employees doing jobs meant for 2 or 3 people. As far as college groups, there are indeed white groups that exclude others. Just take a walk down frat row for instance, where you may see the occasional token in some of the houses. The asian/black/latino groups you saw cannot exclude white people, and in my college experience, some white people did join those groups to get exposure to other cultures. But most whites didn't; they either ignored or complained about the groups.
Also, it seemed like every year, there were whites who started a Whites Club----but these organizations never lasted, because what's the point? The damn campus is majority white, and everything is tailored towards white people and white culture. And, as I said above, if you really want to be around whites only, there are plenty of options on campus to do so, not limited to frats. This truth, incidently, extends to greater society.

Is that all Asians or just Asian Americans?

If it is all Asians, that is unsurprising to me. Many oriental countries have extensive prep programs (not just courses) for the SAT, and GRE's. So it is not as good an indicator of success rate in graduate school or college as for Americans.

@MycroftHomlz

We could check for the existence of bias by looking at what happens when discrimination at colleges is made illegal.

After California made "racial engineering" illegal in our universities in 1996, the proportion of students of Asian descent at UC Berkeley, the best school in the UC system, skyrocketed to around 45%.

In California, all they did was trade one flawed system for another. They tweeked the dials and ended up with a system that was designed to give advantage to some groups (people of high income households of east asian descent and white descent) and disadvantage others (people of lower income household of african and chicano descent).

At a high level, it was just like the last system, just giving advantages to different groups. If the changes were truly about fairness (for individuals and for the state of cali) and not about stoking racial resentment for political expediency, they would have put in place some real reforms, like eliminating the SAT as a factor in admissions.

I must also note that there was/is no strong move to remove perceived racial advantages in other venues in California; like the enforcement of drug laws.

@longde

I think we'll probably agree that if the issue is leveling the playing field by income, we should 1. remove legacy admissions, and 2. expand the already existing fee waivers and scholarships given to lower income individuals.

It doesn't seem like enlightenment thinking to advocate that the child from a disadvantaged, rock-bottom Asian American family receive an additional racist disadvantage because he has the "wrong" skin color.

Mainstream opinion is that academic performance measures like the SATs correlate with both future performance and past effort. I don't see the mechanism by which academic performance measures are discriminatory against some poor groups, but not against other poor groups.

>> ^longde:

I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.
>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.



If you agree that holding your head high because you hold 3 jobs to put your kid brother through school and holding your head high because you have a gun in your pocket are two different things, then you'll understand what I'm saying. Those two different attitudes are visibly noticeable too.

I agree with these two points.

I think the bottom income asian kid is an aberration, given that asians are at the top of the income ladder in california at least. Again, making asians one group distorts the issue. I think Hmong and Filipinos have different demographic profiles and discriminatory experiences than chinese and koreans, for instance.

I'm not really interested in mainstream opinion; I'm interested in fairness and justice. That means in addition to your two above points, I consider the historical and current context of all of this, outside of the matriculation of a single individual.

No easy answers.


>> ^chilaxe:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since April 8th, 2009" href="http://videosift.com/member/longde">longde
I think we'll probably agree that if the issue is leveling the playing field by income, we should 1. remove legacy admissions, and 2. expand the already existing fee waivers and scholarships given to lower income individuals.
It doesn't seem like enlightenment thinking to advocate that the child from a disadvantaged, rock-bottom Asian American family receive an additional racist disadvantage because he has the "wrong" skin color.
Mainstream opinion is that academic performance measures like the SATs correlate with both future performance and past effort. I don't see the mechanism by which academic performance measures are discriminatory against some poor groups, but not against other poor groups.

I see what you are trying to say. I don't think you can distinguish from eyeballing, though. There is a third category to keep in mind: the brother who holds his head up in defiance in response to the attitude of some patronizing white person. The could happen across both of your hypothetical groups.

>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.
>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.


If you agree that holding your head high because you hold 3 jobs to put your kid brother through school and holding your head high because you have a gun in your pocket are two different things, then you'll understand what I'm saying. Those two different attitudes are visibly noticeable too.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by silvercord.

>> ^Kofi:

You are right Voodoo.
As soon as the genealogy of disadvantage born from forced immigration, slavery, segregation and racism are no longer evident in hindering ones prospects in society then these organisations have no legitimacy. As soon as America ditches the notion of total individual accountability that is so crucial to the "American dream" they might realise that their empire was built on the backs of an injustice that continues to this day. One either has to accept that there is something inherently inferior about being black that makes them predisposed to poverty (and by extension crime and lack of education) or accept that the social institutions that govern American life are complacent with not addressing past injustices.


beautifully put... but completely avoids addressing the issue when is there no need for affirmative action... who decides it, and is dependent on an outcome that is unattainable in the same vein you could philosophize that Utopia is unattainable?

not only that, but the whole concept of "two wrongs make a right" comes into play alot when discussing affirmative action... and the whole irony involved in disadvantaging someone based on the possible actions of an ancestor to advantage someone who's ancestor may have been the recipient of racism (and in any given situation isn't going to be a direct relationship of your ancestor did this to mine directly) and how that relates to personal responsibility

there's definitely a problem with the education system in the US, and race definitely plays it's part there... but it's not limited to race either... it's just that previously, race and economics were determining factors alot more in sync... where as today economics is ruining the education system with much broader strokes

there are plenty of examples of HAVES who waste their starting position, and plenty of examples of HAVENOTS who succeed despite their starting position... painting with broad strokes here tends to get people's back up for that very reason... and the line between HANDOUT and HANDUP is very indistinct and subjective

a question I put to you is now that we're 2-3 generations removed from the civil rights movement, do you think in our lifetime, we'll reach a point where affirmative action will no longer be needed? where actual equality will be attained and not "enforced"

my feeling is that when money is a VERY strong driving factor in that question... I don't think we will

*and to clarify that last statement... I mean BOTH sides of the for and against argument being motivated by money

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by VoodooV.