2858 réponses à ce sujet

[WildOrchid]

I can forgive her being a bratty thug, but I cannot forgive bad hair, ever.

 

Oddly, it suits her.

[prosthetic soul]

As a straight man, I can affirm that pranks and childish humor are not what I think about when I think about lesbians.

However, as a straight man that used to bounce at a strip club, I can tell you that what I think about when I think of lesbians probably isn't the normal sexual fetish either. One of my bosses was a lesbian, and while we were roommates for a time, I was never really interested in being involved in her activities. I'm probably the exception on that count, rather than the rule. I guess that's the problem when people look more at the stereotypes than the people though.

Well, LOOKIE here Cleetus! 

 

We gots one of them STRAIGHTIES!  *spits out gigantic wad of tobacco*

 

SJWs, CHAAAAAARGE

[Britcorp]

Snip.

So basically you're advocating the use of institutionalized racism to fight perceived racism.

[Nathair Nimheil]

For someone that isn't interested in discussing the failings of a particular program

I am not and I did not. I don't even know what the specific program or programs are, what their details are or even what country is being talked about. An umbrella sketch of affirmative policies is perforce going to seem to encompass any specific example.
 

the hypocrisy of legally mandating employers to make their hiring decisions based on gender or race as a way of "ameliorating systemic disadvantages" based on gender or race.

Except, of course, I don't see how it could be characterized as hypocrisy unless you are presupposing a certain set of selection rules which you deserve to have apply... exactly the point I was making.
 

Nobody comes out the better for it, you even encourage prejudices about whether women and racial minorities are actually qualified for the jobs they hold. Exactly how does this help?

This helps by providing equal (or more equal) access to opportunity despite accident of birth or circumstance.
 

Not to mention the point you make above would seem to support the idea that people have no right to object

Of course they do. Object away! Complain, protest and vote. That is how we have come to make these changes, if you want to turn back the clock feel free to try.
 

I see it as an imbalance that will then correct itself eventually, given time. You obviously disagree.

Emphatically. Hayes' Iron Law of Meritocracy applies here, in spades.

[robertthebard]

Affirmative action is a phrase for any number of programs or policies aimed at the amelioration of systemic disadvantage in countries all over the world. Support for taking remedial or ameliorative action doesn't mean that all programs or policies are appropriate or well thought-out or effective. I have no particular interest in getting into a debate over the merits or failings of some specific individual program or the effectiveness of some particular person in some particular job described in some particular anecdote. That being said...

The problem, and this has been said before by others, lies in the confusion between what we deserve and what we are entitled to. By what you morally deserve I mean something which should morally be yours by right of some particular virtue. The usual example given is the lottery ticket. Let's say that you buy a lottery ticket and your number comes up, you're the big powerball winner. Nobody is going to suggest that you somehow morally deserve to win that lottery. According to the rules by which the lottery is run, however, you certainly are entitled to your winnings now.

Likewise in applying for a job you are entitled to that job when the rules of applicant selection determine you to be the best qualified. If you have the qualities and characteristics set out in the rules of applicant selection you are entitled to the job. But! You are not entitled to having the rules of applicant selection laid out such that your qualities and characteristics are the ones most sought after. It may be in the best interest of society to place emphasis on things which tends to raise or lower the value placed upon your particular qualities, what those interests are determine to what you are entitled.

For example, a US Supreme Court Chief Justice earns $255,500 per year. Judge Judy earns $900,000 per day. Does a TV judge deserve to earn 185 times more than a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? However she is certainly entitled to the money she earns. Our culture clearly places a significant value on entertainment. However, were Judy to be translated into a Somali farming community or a Kogi village in Columbia she might find her talents less than ideal for success. Judy had the right combination of qualities and characteristics for success in the culture into which she happened to be born; she won the birth lottery.

So, a society might place some emphasis on reducing the harm caused by institutionalized racial and social stratification. It makes no sense to rail that you somehow morally deserve to live in a pure laissez faire meritocracy in which the qualities most prized shall correspond to the accidents of your birth and circumstance or the qualities you possess.

So what you're saying here, in context with the entirety of the post you snipped, is that it would have been socially acceptable for me to spend double, or more the time in prison I was sentenced to because a black woman needed the job. So we're going to wipe out perceived inequities in a system by bending over backwards to make sure we accommodate those that are unable, or perhaps simply unwilling to do the job that they have been given. In the instance of the SRS worker, she failed to process my paperwork, and then failed to communicate with me after the fact, mainly because she knew she failed to process my paperwork. Her actions cost me all of my health insurance, since Medicaid paid my Medicare. But that's ok, because she's an Asian woman, who needed that job more than somebody that may have been willing to actually do the work that the job entails?

I am in a position where I am at the mercy of these programs, since I am no longer able to work. But my livelihood should be subject to the terms and conditions that a minority feels are perfectly applicable. If I base my experience on your comic, for example, I am the one shackled, and the black woman, or Asian woman who got their jobs based solely on Affirmative Action are the ones up on the pedestal. So what inequalities have been fixed? Reversing the situation does not fix the situation. Jobs should be awarded based on qualifications. I don't want someone that doesn't know how to weld building high rise buildings, nor do I want them sitting in a cubicle, drawing a salary simply because they meet accreditation standards, ie a minority or female. If, on the other hand, they are qualified, I sincerely believe they should have the jobs. However, I don't believe that being a minority, or female makes them uniquely qualified, and my own personal experiences with this situation bear that out.

[prosthetic soul]

I am not and I did not. I don't even know what the specific program or programs are, what their details are or even what country is being talked about. An umbrella sketch of affirmative policies is perforce going to seem to encompass any specific example.
 
Except, of course, I don't see how it could be characterized as hypocrisy unless you are presupposing a certain set of selection rules which you deserve to have apply... exactly the point I was making.
 
This helps by providing equal (or more equal) access to opportunity despite accident of birth or circumstance.
 
Of course they do. Object away! Complain, protest and vote. That is how we have come to make these changes, if you want to turn back the clock feel free to try.
 
Emphatically. Hayes' Iron Law of Meritocracy applies here, in spades.

I have no idea what you just said.  But you sound smart.  You must read a lot. 

[robertthebard]

Well, LOOKIE here Cleetus! 
 
We gots one of them STRAIGHTIES!  *spits out gigantic wad of tobacco*
 
SJWs, CHAAAAAARGE

Actually, you're mistaken, and if you read some of the posts here that are likely to get me yet another board warning, you're going to find that out. That's the problem with knee jerk forum trolling, you usually just wind up looking like an idiot. Congratulations?

[prosthetic soul]

Actually, you're mistaken, and if you read some of the posts here that are likely to get me yet another board warning, you're going to find that out. That's the problem with knee jerk forum trolling, you usually just wind up looking like an idiot. Congratulations?

Oh come on I Was joshin ya bro.  I'm a straight guy too.  We need to stick together! 

 

No but seriously, fix your sarcasm detector! 

[hairlessOrphan]

However, I don't believe that being a minority, or female makes them uniquely qualified, and my own personal experiences with this situation bear that out.

 

So shall I now regale you with tales of incompetent white men? Do you think this would be any more sound an argument for Affirmative Action than yours is against? It turns out it isn't, I can fast forward us through this argument (last had in the late 90's), or we can do this again. I've got my Pearl Jam CD's right here.

 

Unless you're arguing that a white person would never have screwed up your paperwork. That's a different thing. I'm assuming you don't mean that.

 

Affirmative Action is not and never was guarantee of competence. But then, we had incompetence before Affirmative Action, too. RIght? I promise it was there. It just gives people of every color a chance to prove their competence or incompetence.

[prosthetic soul]

So shall I now regale you with tales of incompetent white men? Do you think this would be any more sound an argument for Affirmative Action than yours is against? It turns out it isn't, I can fast forward us through this argument (last had in the late 90's), or we can do this again. I've got my Pearl Jam CD's right here.

 

Unless you're arguing that a white person would never have screwed up your paperwork. That's a different thing. I'm assuming you don't mean that.

 

Affirmative Action is not and never was guarantee of competence. But then, we had incompetence before Affirmative Action, too. RIght? I promise it was there. It just gives people of every color a chance to prove their competence or incompetence.

Hell yeah Pearl Jam!  *high five*

 

....sorry I'll leave this thread now.  So much for trying to defuse the situation. 

[robertthebard]

So shall I now regale you with tales of incompetent white men? Do you think this would be any more sound an argument for Affirmative Action than yours is against? It turns out it isn't, I can fast forward us through this argument (last had in the late 90's), or we can do this again. I've got my Pearl Jam CD's right here.
 
Unless you're arguing that a white person would never have screwed up your paperwork. That's a different thing. I'm assuming you don't mean that.
 
Affirmative Action is not and never was guarantee of competence. But then, we had incompetence before Affirmative Action, too. RIght? I promise it was there. It just gives people of every color a chance to prove their competence or incompetence.

Regale away. You'll note that I never claimed those jobs should only be given to white people. I distinctly stated they should be given to people qualified to them. Being a minority, or a woman does not give you a certification in welding, nor does it give you whatever level of education is required to work for the SRS or the Department of Corrections. So regale me, how does putting someone in a job that directly effects the lives of others based solely on race or gender helping anyone but the person that now gets to draw a paycheck? I'm not speaking of flipping burgers at McDonald's here, in the aforementioned episode with the Department of Corrections, hiring that female minority could have cost the State 250,000 dollars a day for unlawful imprisonment. Once my release date came and went, the State is guilty of kidnapping. All because a minority needed a job? Who's responsible if that same woman gets a job welding on a high rise, and the building collapses, killing anyone in the immediate vicinity?

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

Guys...

 

While I think it's great that people are actually giving critical thought to social issues, perhaps it's best to steer the conversations back towards the pertinance of Sera and the game, instead of Real-World illustrations of privilege?

 

What say you?

[robertthebard]

Guys...
 
While I think it's great that people are actually giving critical thought to social issues, perhaps it's best to steer the conversations back towards the pertinance of Sera and the game, instead of Real-World illustrations of privilege?
 
What say you?

It would be my privilege.

/runaway and hide

[hairlessOrphan]

Once my release date came and went, the State is guilty of kidnapping. All because a minority needed a job? Who's responsible if that same woman gets a job welding on a high rise, and the building collapses, killing anyone in the immediate vicinity?

 

This is why that argument fails. Someone incompetent failed at his or her job. You interpret that as a racial issue. Actually, it should be interpreted as bad HR.

 

When a white man fails at his job, do you immediately leap to race as a cause? "He only got the job because his boss hates the coloreds! Man, if his boss wasn't a racist and had considered women, this would never had happened!" Is that a reasonable interpretation, to you?

[WarBaby2]

Affirmative Action is not and never was guarantee of competence. But then, we had incompetence before Affirmative Action, too. RIght? I promise it was there. It just gives people of every color a chance to prove their competence or incompetence.

That's a nice sentiment, but not the core of the problem... the real issue with affirmative action is, it easily devolves into blanket quotas, since people (especially those in government, for some odd reason ) are notoriously lazy, complacent and, above all, influenceable, when it comes to the way certain laws and regulations are put into action.

 

Take a look at the EU, in example... every couple of months, when the "time is right" (usually around the time of elections, or when one party is in need of a small reputation boost), the discussion about the implementation of gender quotas is pulled out of the drawer again. The industry knows that most of those positions they try to fill don't exist, and neither do qualified people to fill them, still, the attempt is made, since it's a topic that resonates with a certain demographic... not to mention it sounds good on the news.

 

Call my crazy, but that's not helping anyone... it's just a waste of taxpayers money.

[hairlessOrphan]

Guys...

 

While I think it's great that people are actually giving critical thought to social issues, perhaps it's best to steer the conversations back towards the pertinance of Sera and the game, instead of Real-World illustrations of privilege?

 

What say you?

 

Nah. Sera is only pertinent because of what she represents (and admittedly, she does it poorly. But the concept is enough). Her existence makes this topic pertinent, in my view.

 

I don't think we should be afraid of looking these problems in the eye. Everyone gets all squirrelly because hard problems are hard and hurt our feelings. But, really, if we don't practice looking at it, that emotional fear and adrenaline will always get the better of us.

 

The reason everyone makes fun of "Social Justice Warriors" is not because we actually think caring is awful or should be ridiculed. It's because we're afraid of hard problems, and we need some way to laugh it off. Ok, I get it. But every once in a while, we should all just look it right in the eye and squirm.

[Grieving Natashina]

Love or hate her, the theme song her writer picked out for her says it all:

 

[Nimrodell]

I can't hate her - she makes me laugh every time 'cause of her versions of the name Corypheus... I loved it every time she said it wrong and I think it was truly nice touch. She belongs to simple people and of course she doesn't understand 'big' pictures and issues, lack of education and knowledge, still, she makes me laugh... Reminds me on people I talk to in the market. They never get 'important' names right either.

[robertthebard]

This is why that argument fails. Someone incompetent failed at his or her job. You interpret that as a racial issue. Actually, it should be interpreted as bad HR.
 
When a white man fails at his job, do you immediately leap to race as a cause? "He only got the job because his boss hates the coloreds! Man, if his boss wasn't a racist and had considered women, this would never had happened!" Is that a reasonable interpretation, to you?

How does any of this affect what I said, in the slightest? I realize you have to stick to the rhetoric, but the fact of the matter is, she was a unit team member that wasn't qualified to do her job. If she had have been, I'd have been released when I was supposed to be. I wasn't. So tell me, how does an incompetent white man fit into this scenario? She wasn't white, and she wasn't a man.

[WarBaby2]

I can't hate her - she makes me laugh every time 'cause of her versions of the name Corypheus... I loved it every time she said it wrong and I think it was truly nice touch. She belongs to simple people and of course she doesn't understand 'big' pictures and issues, lack of education and knowledge, still, she makes me laugh... Reminds me on people I talk to in the market. They never get 'important' names right either.

Of course, she get's them wrong on purpose, you know that... she's hardly stupid, it's just another form of her constant need to "devalue" authority figures.

[Heimdall]

Yeah, maybe. Sometimes inequalities correct over time, and sometimes they just get worse. The thing is, "imbalance that will then correct itself eventually" doesn't just happen. Correction happens because someone or something acts to try to make it happen. So, you know, the "correct itself eventually, given time" thing is happening through blunt programs like Affirmative Action and through finer instruments like education programs aimed at inner cities.

Actually, that isn't necessarily true. I see the imbalance as something that was maintained by artificial barriers and, once they are removed, it will gradually balance out without further interference. I'm not against all intervention, just aware that trying to artificially speed the process can cause more harm than good.
 

Interpreting something like Affirmative Action as "inflicting inequality" relies on assuming the status quo is one of equality. Right? Like, if you were born holding two loaves of bread, and a Syrian refugee is born starving, and I take one of your loaves of bread and give it to the Syrian refugee, is that "inflicting inequality?" I don't know.

That analogy isn't not even remotely relevant to what I'm talking about. A better analogy, the Syrian refugee and I are both applying for a job I am more qualified for and you give him the job because you're legally mandated to favor Syrian refugees over me. We both need the job, I'm not somehow less deserving or require a job to live any less than he. But since the law thinks Syrian refugees are less equal, I'm left to the street. The argument that this is somehow equal relies on the Syrian refugee having a disadvantage even if we have all the same qualifications. In an ideal world, that means we'd both have an equal chance. Affirmative action does not create that. By forcing you to make the decision based on race, the mandate just shifts the inequality to me. It does not remove inequality from the situation. Tell me how that is in any way not an inequality imposed upon me?
 

We can argue it's wrong for other reasons, of course. But is it "inflicting inequality?"
 
EDIT: I am just going to stress the "we can argue it's wrong for other reasons" clause, here, in an attempt to progress the conversation to, like, modern day moral philosophy.

In a word, yes.

I'd also argue that its wrong because it makes broad assumptions about the social and economic status' of individuals based on race. What happens in the situation where a black woman from an affluent family and a white man from a poor economic background, assuming they have similar qualifications, compete for the same job? Would not affirmative action then assume the black woman has had the more challenging path based on her race and award her additional advantages? I just find the whole idea incredibly problematic.

But I honestly need to depart these arguments. I have work to do and I've spent too much time on it already. This is all off topic anyway.

[Nathair Nimheil]

is that it would have been socially acceptable for me to spend double, or more the time in prison I was sentenced to because a black woman needed the job.

No. I don't know the actual details behind your anecdote and did not wish to become entangled in it. It sounds, from your rendition, like a person incapable of doing the job was employed to do it. You assert that it was directly due to some affirmative action policy or other. If this is actually the case then it was clearly an ill considered or a poorly executed policy. However I think we can all agree that incompetence can be found anywhere, inept workers unable to meet the requirements of the job were not invented by affirmative action. Most important though is that adjusting standards to meet a broader social requirement does not require an either/or approach; selection should be influenced between otherwise qualified candidates. If your policy results in employing people who can not do the job, you're doing it wrong.

An excellent example is in employing doctors in Nunavut. Emphasis is placed on hiring indigenous doctors. Indigenous is preferred, doctor is required. Anything else would be insane.

[Danadenassis]

So what inequalities have been fixed? Reversing the situation does not fix the situation.

I am uncertain if this is a good post to post here...so I cleaned it out.

 

In short, like with biological chemistry. Imagine the environment getting too acidly to sustain the wanted healthy life. It is actually helpful to make it more base (or "reversing the situation" to get less acid").

Modifié par Danadenassis, 12 décembre 2014 - 12:55 .

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Errr....Why are people arguing about jobs & Affirmative action in a Sera thread?

[WarBaby2]

An excellent example is in employing doctors in Nunavut. Emphasis is placed on hiring indigenous doctors. Indigenous is preferred, doctor is required. Anything else would be insane.

Yet, it happens... I don't know if it happens to medical personal that often, but I know first hand it happens with - in example - executives in banks. Social politics are to delicate to be a ball in political power plays, and yet they are constantly used as such, because they resonate with peoples emotions.

 

@Danadenssis: Yea, that's why due process for men is pretty much gone from courts in northern Europe in "certain" cases... be careful where you look at, when it comes to social politics, it's not all gold that glitters.