Minority Groups "Special Rights"

[PhantomWolf]

Fascinating. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone talking about this. Who are you hearing this from? Also, who's "more people"? Is it people you already hear from, who have recently switched to this topic? Is it new people you didn't used to hear from, that you're now hearing from? Some other possibility I haven't thought of?

Mostly on talk back radio where they are ringing in or emailing one of the rather right-wing, libertarian, climate-change denying, Trump supporting hosts. (No, not Alex Jones, we have our own ones.)

Dude, people on the left can't even explain it to you. In fact, it's beginning to look like you just want to do some explaining of your own, refuting an argument nobody here, and nobody you can be bothered to cite, is actually making. What is that? Mansplaining? Leftsplaining? Blogging? I have been hearing more and more people think this discussion forum is their personal blog. Maybe one of our resident bloggers can explain it to me, cause I don't get it.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that doesn't get it.

 

[The Atheist]

I have been hearing more people talking about the "Special Rights" that minority groups are getting, and how scary it is.

It is, and I'm surprised you didn't mention the excellent example of a minority group making rules for everyone in Auckland the other day.

A Maori panel, appointed solely on the basis of race, voted for by nobody at all, unilaterally decided to ban cars from the peaks of Auckland's volcanoes.

I'm not too flash on the history of the other maunga, but One Tree Hill was given to ALL Aucklanders by John Logan Campbell, not just the brown ones

 

[The Atheist]

Bizarre coincidence' straight after posting I went to my emails, among which was a survey request, which I completed.

It was on the subject of Maori and the maunga and whether they should have the right of say over them.

Strongly disagree on all counts.

 

[The Don]

Whites are already a minority in California, and not even the biggest one. And no, there has not been any easing of AA. So, in fact, AA is anti-minority at this point.

I wonder at which point we can start a NAAWP without being considered racists?

I would imagine it's the point when it can be clearly be demonstrated that whites are being regularly and unfairly discriminated against in US society - IMO that's still a long way away.

Examples would include:

• White defendants being more likely to be imprisoned and imprisoned for longer than society in general
• White people being subjected to voter suppression legislation
• White people having lower incomes and less wealth than society at large
• White people being subjected to routine stop-and-search when people of other races are not
• White people being grossly under-represented in local and national government

Remember, Rosa Parks did not want AA, she only wanted equality. But nowadays, I am expected to get out of the line, not just wait my turn.

Do you really have a large number of cases where you have been discriminated against, or is it more a case of your advantages of being white and male being removed ?

As has been pointed out in another thread, as a white, nominally Christian, middle aged, middle class man living in the UK I am playing the game of life on the lowest difficulty setting.

 

[uke2se]

As has been pointed out in another thread, as a white, nominally Christian, middle aged, middle class man living in the UK I am playing the game of life on the lowest difficulty setting.

I think this is one of the things that stick in the eyes of many white, nominally Christian, middle aged men that have not succeeded in life, who might live a more or less chaotic existence and who feels like all these priviliges people are talking about simply don't exist for them. That, I think, is the great problem with talking about White Privilige and such. It is true on the whole, but it over-generalizes and alienates all those people who's lives are crap despite being white.

That priviliges exist isn't really controversial, and that African-Americans are under-priviliged isn't (for thinking people) controversial either, but I think privilige runs deeper than skin-color. It's a combination of many factors. Poor whites and African-Americans have a lot in common and should find ways to combine as a political force.

ETA: For "African-American" read any minority in the same situation in your native country.

 

[Craig B]

Whites are already a minority in California, and not even the biggest one. And no, there has not been any easing of AA. So, in fact, AA is anti-minority at this point.

I wonder at which point we can start a NAAWP without being considered racists?

Remember, Rosa Parks did not want AA, she only wanted equality. But nowadays, I am expected to get out of the line, not just wait my turn.

In California white passengers on buses and trams are required to give up their seats to persons of colour? I recommend a public transport boycott.

 

[Belz...]

Less than 2% of Carpenters are women. Why?

Because women in general aren't very interested in that? Men aren't very interested in hairstyling, either. There are more women educators and social workers, and such. It's no surprise, given that men and women are different in a lot of respects.

Affirmative Action would be starting Woodworking classes for girls at school.

Specifically for girls? I wasn't aware that carpentry classes were men-only. Well, actually, they're not. Anyone can get in. How does AA change that?

If they manage to get an Apprenticeship, one of the lucky ones, most of them don't make it through because of the levels of harassment and mistreatment.

How will forcing more women into the industry help with that? The men who engage in this sort of behaviour have to be prosecuted. Again, that has nothing to do with AA.

Nearly half of women in these trades suffer sexual harassment and more of them have to make their way through a hostile environment with fellow workers who are more then clear they don't want them there.

That's also part of the social change I talked about: changing attitudes towards women and minorities will be the most important aspect, but it takes a long time.

Add to this that women are often the first ones let go of when the work starts to dry up

I'd like to know why that is. Is it discrimination? If so, why aren't the courts doing something about this? But could it be something else? Going to discrimination as a catch-all explanation for different outcomes or situations is not very helpful.

Groups like Chicago Women in Trades are running courses that can attract up to 150 women at a time that want to learn and get jobs in the trades, the thing is that few of them can get through the barriers beyond that training to become fully qualified and employed trades people.

Have you considered the possibility that they simply become uninterested during the course of the class? You're saying that "not interested" is not true but how would you know? When you ask women in general why they don't go in STEM, what's the answer? Same for men, I'd think: not good in those fields, or not interested.

The reality is that there are enough women with the skills who want to train and do these jobs to reach the quote (6.9%) easily. That's not what is holding them back. Waiting on society to change is not a great idea. Can you imagine telling the Reverend Martin Luther King or other Civil Right's Leaders that they should just wait a few generations for society to change?

That's why we have _laws_ against discrimination, and if what you're telling me is correct, they need to be enforced.

And imagine for a second that you are a poor black man. You decide to go to university and have to work hard to pay for it while you study. After a very difficult number of years you graduate and then apply for a job somewhere rather prestigious. You go to the interview, things go well, and you are later hired. Yay! Only some months later you learn that you got the job over some white over-achiever because you're black. How insulting would it be to learn that, no, it's not because you were more desirable than your competitors?

 

[Belz...]

This is only true if you're going to make the claim that those that "Missed Out" were better qualified for the positions than those that didn't. Let's look at the Federal Tradespeople quota. They are supposed to have 6.9% of women on the job. Are you going to claim that it's impossible to find 7 women who want to be a tradesperson and who are able to be as skilled as men in the job for every 93 men accepted? Would including those 7 women really make men who were better at the job miss out?

The reality is that with most "Quotas" all a business needs to do is stop hiring by gender, and they'd met their target easily. For instance women are often overlooked for management positions because they are seen as having family commitments and so they are excluded because of a gender bias. If this is removed and management hired based on performance, more women would be mangers and the quotas would naturally be filled without the need to actively discriminate against men.

It is possible to avoid bias for hiring and actually have a good variety of people, the trouble is that such biases are deeply ingrained and so need to be broken sometimes.

How about those places where they require 50% women? If only 20% of your applicants are women, you have to dig a big deeper to fill your quota, skipping potentially more qualified men. The reverse would be true as well, if you flip the genders around.

To give you an example: If you have a championship for a video game with the 100 best players or teams in the world for this specific game, you'll usually end up with something like 98% men. And that's selecting the best, not by proportion. Why is that? Well, first, because there are a LOT more men playing these games competitively, and second because male players just score better. So if you want your tournament to have the 100 best players or teams in the world, you're going to have to forget about equality. If you instead want to fill a quota of 50-50, then you're going to skip a LOT of much better teams or players in order to do that, and you'll end up with a much worse show.

 

[Belz...]

And you seem to be missing mine.

AA is not about about giving people in minorities bonuses for turning up, it's about removing the penalty they start with before they turn up.

How does that work? How do they remove those barriers if not by forcing the selection of women and minorities to meet a quota? And how do they know what quota to use?

 

[Ranb]

Whites are already a minority in California, and not even the biggest one. And no, there has not been any easing of AA. So, in fact, AA is anti-minority at this point.

Where are you getting your info from? The 2010 data I looked at on CA says 42% White, 38% Hispanic/Latino and 31% Mexican. If whites are minority then they're the largest one.

Ranb

 

[Belz...]

Did you think he meant the smallest minority?

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
And imagine for a second that you are a poor black man. You decide to go to university and have to work hard to pay for it while you study. After a very difficult number of years you graduate and then apply for a job somewhere rather prestigious. You go to the interview, things go well, and you are later hired. Yay! Only some months later you learn that you got the job over some white over-achiever because you're black. How insulting would it be to learn that, no, it's not because you were more desirable than your competitors?

Why insulted? I was more desirable than my peers because of skin color. It could have been my love of dogs that did it, or the fact that I married the boss's daughter/son. Maybe we both post on ISF and my stellar contributions won the day. None of this should be insulting. I got the job.

 

[Belz...]

Why insulted? I was more desirable than my peers because of skin color. It could have been my love of dogs that did it, or the fact that I married the boss's daughter/son. Maybe we both post on ISF and my stellar contributions won the day. None of this should be insulting. I got the job.

Well you and I might have different standards, but I want to have a job because of my qualifications. Hiring me because of my eye colour is stupid, and might prevent someone else from getting the job on merit. I find that insulting, both for me and the person who got passed over.

 

[Arcade22]

It's funny: white Americans oppress and exploit blacks for centuries and when, relatively recently during the 60's, they finally become treated as de jure equals throughout the entire country it's somehow reasonable to expect blacks to achieve the same level of economic and social prosperity as white Americans without any help along the way.

Hell black Americans are supposed to achieve that while still being undermined by discriminatory laws and state/local governments. I mean if they can't manage that then that surely means they deserve to remain the underclass.

Talk about high expectations.

 

[marplots]

Well you and I might have different standards, but I want to have a job because of my qualifications. Hiring me because of my eye colour is stupid, and might prevent someone else from getting the job on merit. I find that insulting, both for me and the person who got passed over.

You get the interview based on qualifications too. But guess who gets to set the qualifications? The company hiring. "We need a black guy" is a qualification, perhaps capricious, but it's just like any other qualification.

My experience has been in environments where the chore was to winnow down the resumes submitted. Everyone has the basic qualifications. Employers are left looking at "incidentals" to pick someone. They start looking at goofy stuff like shiny shoes or whether you can tell a good joke... anything to form a basis for selecting candidate A over B.

If the situation were reversed and the company is desperate to hire anyone who will do, then your hypothetical no longer works, since there isn't any competition to beat with my skin-color card.

 

[casebro]

Where are you getting your info from? The 2010 data I looked at on CA says 42% White, 38% Hispanic/Latino and 31% Mexican. If whites are minority then they're the largest one.

Ranb

2010 is out of date.Those numbers are reversed.

 

[casebro]

Really? When?

Whenever THE Rosa Parks is in line,

Are you allegorically challenged?

 

[casebro]

I....
Do you really have a large number of cases where you have been discriminated against, or is it more a case of your advantages of being white and male being removed ?

Twice. Once I didn't get a job. I had applied with inside info. Later the same insider told me that "it was time to hire a black".

Another was, as a low level manager, I wanted to fire a black for insubordination. Smoking in a no smoking area. Caught him at it many times. My bosses told me "him or me". I said "do I have the authority to fire employees?" They said "Do I REALLY want to fire him?", They never asked the rest of the crew whether he actually smoked, or whether I had given him plenty of chances to get his stuff together. Facts did not matter, only avoiding the appearance of racism. That was my last day there.

 

[Belz...]

You get the interview based on qualifications too.

Sure, but minimum qualifications is one thing. Regardless of how competent you are, however, I object to the hiring of people based on race or gender unless those are part of the job description.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sure, but minimum qualifications is one thing. Regardless of how competent you are, however, I object to the hiring of people based on race or gender unless those are part of the job description.

And if you find that white felons get more traction than black men with clean records that is just life and not anything anyone can do anything about.