General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Link | 2,714]

39 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Hahaha trying to get me on semantics ol' boy, good job!

I don’t believe I am. You said “Apu is modelled after an Indian immigrating to America, not an Indian-American.” That didn’t make sense to me, so I sought clarification.

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

We are talking about I didn't versus American-Born Indians. As I mentioned earlier, in the Chinese / Taiwanense communities, there is a huge difference between these groups, I'm not going to highlight them here but you can do some research if you desire. 

That’s what you want to talk about. To me it’s stone cold obvious. I’m rather shocked that you think it’s something that needs to be said. I don’t need to “do research” or for you to highlight anything, to know that people who live in different countries, nay continents, nay hemispheres, have different lifestyles and cultures. Yes, even if they have some ancestry or touchstones in common. Do you think your explanations are necessary for people to know that? Oh please.

And you promised you would be gone for at least 8 hours!  

[Californication | 1,477]

2 hours ago, Rhino said:

That's f*cked up plain and simple. This is exactly what I'm getting at. Turning away someone OR hiring someone just because of their skin color is messed up and should not be tolerated.

People don't get hired JUST because of their skin color, that is not the way affirmative action works. A persons ethnicity may be a factor but just because a person is a certain race doesn't mean they walk in and get the position/job etc. The reason there is affirmative action is because white people continue to get benefits in this country above other ethnicities as they have done for hundreds of years. It's weird that when ever I hear people complain about affirmative action they don't try and think of other ways ethnicities could be treated more fairly instead of using affirmative action.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Californication

[Link | 2,714]

2 hours ago, captmorgandrinker said:

What's your opinion on the Rooney Rule in pro football? 

Now here is something that I did actually have to “research”, since I don’t pay attention to pro sports. Thank you for the example! Now we can truly examine the issue, instead of relying on conjecture.

I think it’s a great idea. When there is a dearth of minorities in positions, change should be required. Especially in pro sports, where the racial makeup numbers are different from gen pop numbers. That’s one step toward a more just world, and it actually encourages the meritocratic standard that Rhino and Estil claim they want to see. And it doesn’t seem to have elevated any underperformers. 

It’s too bad that some teams seem to be following the letter of the rule but not the spirit this year and in 2012. I hope the proposed revisions will make it more effective.

[Rhino | 105]

13 minutes ago, Californication said:

People don't get hired JUST because of their skin color, that is not the way affirmative action works. A persons ethnicity may be a factor but just because a person is a certain race doesn't mean they walk in and get the position/job etc. The reason there is affirmative action is because white people continue to get benefits in this country above other ethnicities as they have done for hundreds of years. It's weird that when ever I hear people complain about affirmative action they don't try and think of other ways ethnicities could be treated more fairly instead of using affirmative action.

Not what I said. Everyone should be allowed to apply to any job fairly and given the same treatment throughout the hiring process. I STRONGLY believe the most qualified person for the job should be hired. End of story. 

You want a possible solution to affirmative action? When resumes are submitted, take off the names and ages, gender, etc. Anything that could be cause for bias. Then have the employer go through all the resumes and pick solely based on their job skill sets. If you're having a really tough time between a few candidates, this is when an in person interview should happen. I realize most interviews happen in person. I think the resume should be the first step and if the interviewee doesn't get the job, there should be an explanation and if there is a pattern of turning away a certain group, this should be investigated. 

If you really want to get creative with an in person interview do it like a blind date where you never see the person, and their voice is disguised until the end after you've made your decision. That'd probably get rid of a lot of bias and really hone in on actually hiring the most qualified candidates.

[Rhino | 105]

3 minutes ago, Link said:

Now here is something that I did actually have to “research”, since I don’t pay attention to pro sports. Thank you for the example! Now we can truly examine the issue, instead of relying on conjecture.

I think it’s a great idea. When there is a dearth of minorities in positions, change should be required. Especially in pro sports, where the racial makeup numbers are different from gen pop numbers. That’s one step toward a more just world, and it actually encourages the meritocratic standard that Rhino and Estil claim they want to see. And it doesn’t seem to have elevated any underperformers. 

It’s too bad that some teams seem to be following the letter of the rule but not the spirit this year and in 2012. I hope the proposed revisions will make it more effective.

I actually agree with the Rooney rule because it does what affirmative action should do. Give minorities the same CHANCE, but not hand them a job. They still need to earn it and prove they're the best. There are tons and tons of very qualified minority coaches. After all, most NFL players are minorities and are damn good players, so naturally they'd know what they're talking about when they're a coach. Patrick Mahomes will be an incredible coach one day.

[OptOut | 8,889]

1 minute ago, Rhino said:

If you really want to get creative with an in person interview do it like a blind date where you never see the person, and their voice is disguised until the end after you've made your decision. That'd probably get rid of a lot of bias and really hone in on actually hiring the most qualified candidates.

And you don't get to see what they look like or what gender they are until you wake up in bed next to them the morning after! 

Should certainly see a huge drop in family-based nepotism in big companies, at the very least!!! 

[Californication | 1,477]

6 minutes ago, Rhino said:

Not what I said. Everyone should be allowed to apply to any job fairly and given the same treatment throughout the hiring process. I STRONGLY believe the most qualified person for the job should be hired. End of story. 

You want a possible solution to affirmative action? When resumes are submitted, take off the names and ages, gender, etc. Anything that could be cause for bias. Then have the employer go through all the resumes and pick solely based on their job skill sets. If you're having a really tough time between a few candidates, this is when an in person interview should happen. I realize most interviews happen in person. I think the resume should be the first step and if the interviewee doesn't get the job, there should be an explanation and if there is a pattern of turning away a certain group, this should be investigated. 

If you really want to get creative with an in person interview do it like a blind date where you never see the person, and their voice is disguised until the end after you've made your decision. That'd probably get rid of a lot of bias and really hone in on actually hiring the most qualified candidates.

That doesn't make sense. Even if you can get past trying to implememt something that complicated, if the discrimination is at the employer level how would anything you said make any difference?

 

[Link | 2,714]

2 hours ago, Rhino said:

Don't they take steps every time?

Sure doesn’t seem like it to me. McConnell & co. like to block whatever they can, making it a partisan issue ‘cause they’re in the NRA’s pocket. 

2 hours ago, Rhino said:

And why do you have to only take steps after a shooting?

Not at all. I only meant that we’re in a cycle where immediate response is shut down by the t&p’ers, and later response never gets a focus. 

2 hours ago, Rhino said:

? It should be a thing 24/7.
... It can't just be one.

100% agree

2 hours ago, Rhino said:

Turning away someone OR hiring someone just because of their skin color is messed up and should not be tolerated.

Exactly. That’s why Affirmative action is not complete bullsh!t. Things are out of balance. We must attempt to correct it. If there are occasional overcorrections (like Tabonga’s story) that doesn’t mean you throw the whole thing in the garbage. You adjust.

And Tabonga’s story really doesn’t have a bad ending, either. The unqualified person didn’t get the promotion. In any case, when these things do not tend to move toward The Right Thing To Do all by themselves, we ought to do something about that.

[Californication | 1,477]

16 minutes ago, Rhino said:

I actually agree with the Rooney rule because it does what affirmative action should do. Give minorities the same CHANCE, but not hand them a job. They still need to earn it and prove they're the best. There are tons and tons of very qualified minority coaches. After all, most NFL players are minorities and are damn good players, so naturally they'd know what they're talking about when they're a coach. Patrick Mahomes will be an incredible coach one day.

Affirmative action doesn't hand unqualified minorities a job, I don't know why you keep saying that.

Do you think if a student has a GPA that isn't good enough to get into Cal Poly and then they apply for Harvard they could get into Harvard because of affirmative action? No. The candidate has to be qualified to be considered. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Californication

[OptOut | 8,889]

I think the biggest source of disagreement and conflict surrounding racial matters does NOT actually come from "racists" vs. "non-racists". In fact, avowed, out and out "racists" are an incredibly tiny minority in society, thankfully.

No, rather the problem comes from the fact that basically most people WANT to live in a society that isn't at all racist in any way, and WANT everybody to be treated equally regardless of race. However, the conflict really is THIS: whilst some people think this is how the world already works or can work with little to no effort or change, others realise that change, perhaps even significant change, is necessary before this world can be borne out.

 

So, in a perfect world WITHOUT racism, Apu really could be voiced by a white guy, and people of any race could dress up as each other in black face or yellow face or brown face or whatever, and it wouldn't be a problem because in a world without racism nobody would think this was harmful, they wouldn't even notice the skin colour of others more than we currently do with eye colour or height or something relatively benign. That kind of thing would be as innocent as dying your hair or wearing colourful contact lenses. Also, In a perfect world we also wouldn't have words such as the N word or other pejoratives, there would be names for people of different races of course, but they would never be hurtful names, just shorthand or nicknames or whatever.

Similarly, in a perfect world, affirmative action WOULD in fact be racist, because in a perfect world without racism job opportunities etc. would already be fully equal, and so affirmative action would actually be creating an unfair imbalance in that case. I think even the greatest advocates of affirmative action dream of a day when it is no longer necessary.

 

However, it goes without saying, we are not there yet. This is the thing I hope BOTH SIDES will realise one day, we're not really fighting about the kind of world we want to see, we're just arguing about how close or how far we are from that goal, and the things that might have to change or be done in order to get there. I mean, at least that's how it looks to me. It's not racists vs. non-racists, it's people, of all kinds, talking and squabbling, and sometimes, regrettably, fighting, to shape the world how they think it will be for the better. And no, we're not there yet, but... well I'm an optimist at heart! 

[fcgamer | 4,729]

3 hours ago, Link said:

I don’t believe I am. You said “Apu is modelled after an Indian immigrating to America, not an Indian-American.” That didn’t make sense to me, so I sought clarification.

That’s what you want to talk about. To me it’s stone cold obvious. I’m rather shocked that you think it’s something that needs to be said. I don’t need to “do research” or for you to highlight anything, to know that people who live in different countries, nay continents, nay hemispheres, have different lifestyles and cultures. Yes, even if they have some ancestry or touchstones in common. Do you think your explanations are necessary for people to know that? Oh please.

And you promised you would be gone for at least 8 hours!  

No,. I'm telling you to do some research on the relationship between and issues that the so-called American-born Chinese population and Taiwanense who grew up on the island have with each other. It's easy to try to dismiss this, as you did above, but that just highlights an ignorance on your part, i.e. you don't know what I'm referring to, therefore you dismiss as a mere "no shit, bro" . 

Regarding Apu, you said he was an Indian-American ; I disagreed, I think he would identify as an Indian and also as an American, though the term Indian-American would not be appropriate, as it suggests he was born and grew up there, something he did not. Therefore his life story and experiences are much much different from the Indian-American documentary guy, sort of strange the latter guy is the one up in arms about it, rather than the Indians who did immigrate to the USA and become naturalized citizens.

[Link | 2,714]

Interesting thoughts, @OptOut. I can’t say I fully agree with everything, but very interesting. For instance, I do think we should notice race — respectfully. And celebratorily.

But I can’t say I dislike your notion of it being a deal no bigger than eye or hair color. 

 

 

Yet I think there is value in diversity and variety. And to discount it, would lose something. We should want to hear and respect and learn from all. 

Yes. We do want to see a better world. (I hope) all of us do. I just don’t think the way to get there is to say: we’re all the same at heart  :   and leave it at that. You know, there’s a large faction that feels that merely loving your family means you are a good person. And yet dictators and terrorists and just plain mediocre run of the mill jagoffs and assholes the world over, usually do love their families, just like everybody else.

What if we said, they’re all just video games? Tennis for Two, Pong, Super Mario 1, Super Mario Oddyssey, Link to the Past, Defender, Robotron, Doom, Halo, TMNT, Tomb Raider, Cuphead, Ultimate Chuchu, SnipperClips, Shovel Knight, Terminator 2, Myst, SimCity, Sim Tower, The Sims, Pig Out, CyberDogs, Ico...

long-running franchises and one-offs and everything in between, on platforms galore... Do we say, ‘well, they’re all just video games’? and ‘none of them are better than any of the others’, The End?

No we do no not. We value them and we appreciate and celebrate and recognize and criticize them for what they are. 

[Estil | 1,265]

Think that's something @Link check out this one:

 

[cartman | 195]

4 hours ago, Link said:

What if we said, they’re all just video games? Tennis for Two, Pong, Super Mario 1, Super Mario Oddyssey, Link to the Past, Defender, Robotron, Doom, Halo, TMNT, Tomb Raider, Cuphead, Ultimate Chuchu, SnipperClips, Shovel Knight, Terminator 2, Myst, SimCity, Sim Tower, The Sims, Pig Out, CyberDogs, Ico...

long-running franchises and one-offs and everything in between, on platforms galore... Do we say, ‘well, they’re all just video games’? and ‘none of them are better than any of the others’, The End?

No we do no not. We value them and we appreciate and celebrate and recognize and criticize them for what they are. 

Yes we do value those games differently but we atleast have the decency to say "to each their own" on those that we value less that's the key factor here. But these days it has become a righteous thing to do to declare "what i don't like should not be sold", you get elevated to a hero fighting for peoples rights. When in reality you're doing the exact opposite. That's the goodguy-card that some get to use and be justified in oppressing others.

Edited July 6, 2020 by cartman

[Tabonga | 2,324]

7 hours ago, Link said:

And Tabonga’s story really doesn’t have a bad ending, either. The unqualified person didn’t get the promotion. In any case, when these things do not tend to move toward The Right Thing To Do all by themselves, we ought to do something about that.

It didn't have a bad ending for me. (And the woman* wasn't unqualified - just not as qualified (there is a difference) per the testing) as the other people.   It did arguably have a bad ending for the displaced person - who may or may not have gotten the position - we will never know as that is the realm of what if - but through no fault of his he wasn't given what I would consider a fair chance. 

* She wasn't unhappy with not getting the offer - it was for a really undesirable position in the library - she did want to get on the list though since it was good for a year for any other positions that opened up - if she had been offered the position and refused it she would have been taken off the list and had to wait not only a year but until the next position opened up and then a new list generated for that position.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Tabonga

[Silent Hill | 276]

10 hours ago, Californication said:

Do you think if a student has a GPA that isn't good enough to get into Cal Poly and then they apply for Harvard they could get into Harvard because of affirmative action? No. The candidate has to be qualified to be considered.

What happens with Affirmative Action is two prospective students apply for Cal Poly and the minority will be accepted due to their race, even with lower (even unqualified) academic ability, leaving a non-minority without acceptance, even with higher academic ability. 

It's also part of the reason why college drop-out rates are higher for minorities as well. 

If equality of opportunity is the goal, then Affirmative Action should be abolished. 

[Rhino | 105]

10 hours ago, Californication said:

That doesn't make sense. Even if you can get past trying to implememt something that complicated, if the discrimination is at the employer level how would anything you said make any difference?

 

Because the employer can't discriminate because they can't see the person?

10 hours ago, Link said:

Sure doesn’t seem like it to me. McConnell & co. like to block whatever they can, making it a partisan issue ‘cause they’re in the NRA’s pocket. 

Not at all. I only meant that we’re in a cycle where immediate response is shut down by the t&p’ers, and later response never gets a focus. 

100% agree

Exactly. That’s why Affirmative action is not complete bullsh!t. Things are out of balance. We must attempt to correct it. If there are occasional overcorrections (like Tabonga’s story) that doesn’t mean you throw the whole thing in the garbage. You adjust.

And Tabonga’s story really doesn’t have a bad ending, either. The unqualified person didn’t get the promotion. In any case, when these things do not tend to move toward The Right Thing To Do all by themselves, we ought to do something about that.

It's not just Republicans. What did Obama and his administration do to address gun violence when he was in office and mass shootings happened? You can't just blame one party if neither party has made many improvements over the years.

Affirmative action is bullsh!t the way it's set up now. What it should be is everyone is given the same fair opportunities when applying to jobs or colleges or whatever. They should be graded the same so to speak. No special privileges. You earn your way in. You earn your job. The most qualified gets the job. The best prospect gets accepted to school. 

10 hours ago, Californication said:

Affirmative action doesn't hand unqualified minorities a job, I don't know why you keep saying that.

Do you think if a student has a GPA that isn't good enough to get into Cal Poly and then they apply for Harvard they could get into Harvard because of affirmative action? No. The candidate has to be qualified to be considered. 

See @Silent Hills post. Your hypothetical scenario is comparing apples to oranges. For Harvard, when two highly qualified people submit an application, but one is more qualified, they should get it plain and simple. Race should not go into the decision making.

6 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

What happens with Affirmative Action is two prospective students apply for Cal Poly and the minority will be accepted due to their race, even with lower (even unqualified) academic ability, leaving a non-minority without acceptance, even with higher academic ability. 

It's also part of the reason why college drop-out rates are higher for minorities as well. 

If equality of opportunity is the goal, then Affirmative Action should be abolished. 

Thank you! Someone finally gets it. 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

11 hours ago, Rhino said:

When resumes are submitted, take off the names and ages, gender, etc. Anything that could be cause for bias.

This is a terrible idea. Diversity absolutely should be considered when hiring. Diversity is one of the most important things a team of workers can have. It offers multiple perspectives and makes finding solutions to problems much easier. Considering diversity during the hiring process is a must IMO. I'd rather have a diverse team capable of making dynamic decisions than a team of 5 white guys who were all trained the same way and have the same mindset. 

10 hours ago, OptOut said:

we're not really fighting about the kind of world we want to see, we're just arguing about how close or how far we are from that goal, and the things that might have to change or be done in order to get there.

This viewpoint makes sense to me I guess but it doesn't really change anything. If you wanna look at things in the perspective of "how far is the goal" instead of "racist or not racist", that's fine. But every time a person says things like "systemic racism doesn't exist" or "we should abolish affirmative action", they are moving that goal further and further away. It's detrimental to POC.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

28 minutes ago, Rhino said:

one is more qualified

What makes one qualified for a position? Simply numbers on a paper? Test scores? What about character? What about life experience? 

[avatar! | 1,819]

I don't think they like the mayor...

https://twitter.com/SBANYPD/status/1279763959982231554/photo/1

[Californication | 1,477]

That unqualified part just isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it on Fox news and other racist news networks.

White people get to attend college  at a higher rate than equally capable minorities that is the racist part of the system. How do some white people manage to complain as they are getting the better part of the deal. Up is down, black is white.

Silent Hill why do minorities drop out at a higher rate?

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Californication

[Silent Hill | 276]

27 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Considering diversity during the hiring process is a must IMO. I'd rather have a diverse team capable of making dynamic decisions than a team of 5 white guys who were all trained the same way and have the same mindset. 

I understand the benefits of a diverse workforce, but I really hope you're not implying that all "white guys" have the same training background and thought process because of their skin color. Like somehow having white skin compromises your ability to think dynamically.

[Silent Hill | 276]

11 minutes ago, Californication said:

That unqualified part just isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it on Fox news and other racist news networks.

Silent Hill why do minorities drop out at a higher rate?

Certainly there are multiple factors, but Affirmative Action is definitely one of them. You have students being accepted into schools based on their skin color, even though they don't necessarily have the academic skills that put them on par with the majority of accepted students. It leads to overwhelming curriculum, exam failures and feelings of inadequacy that leads them to drop out. 

[Silent Hill | 276]

18 minutes ago, Californication said:

White people get to attend college  at a higher rate than equally capable minorities that is the racist part of the system. How do some white people manage to complain as they are getting the better part of the deal. Up is down, black is white.

Where are you seeing white students being favored over minorities for college acceptance today? If anything, it's the other way around due to Affirmative Action. 

[Californication | 1,477]

Just now, Silent Hill said:

Certainly there are multiple factors, but Affirmative Action is definitely one of them. You have students being accepted into schools based on their skin color, even though they don't necessarily have the academic skills that put them on par with the majority of accepted students. It leads to overwhelming curriculum, exam failures and feelings of inadequacy that leads them to drop out. 

Lol. Feelings of inadequcy? You come up with some off the wall stuff. It couldn't be that they face more obstacles than their white counterparts as a whole.