Monday, March 30, 2009

organize race-baiting bake sales


Last month, an "affirmative action bake sale" was organized by the Conservative Coalition for American Values, a student group "aimed at promoting conservative values on Purdue University's Campus." The point was to "raise awareness" about affirmative action, by selling baked items for different prices to people with different identities. The group posted the following video about the event at YouTube.

The largest recipients of affirmative action have actually been women, especially white women. The Conservative Coalition students do seem to acknowledge that fact, by offering differently priced goods for "Caucasian Men" and "Caucasian Women." But notice how in this video, the conservative students present the issue of affirmative action as if it's all about race, and nothing else.




This is another instance of white people doing what they often accuse non-white people of doing--"playing the race card." In fact, I would call this bake sale (and others like it) "race-baiting" events, because identity-based preference happens in terms of many other categories besides race or ethnicity.

When most white Americans hear the term "affirmative action," the one relevant identity category that immediately comes to mind is "race." These conservative students are promoting this oversimplified and divisive association between the two terms, and they're also diverting attention from other common forms of college-admissions and hiring preference (they're ignoring the ongoing legacy of de facto historical preferences for whites as well).

As I said above, most white Americans don't seem to realize that the primary recipients of affirmative action have been white women. The single-minded focus on preferences for racial minorities is the kind of false "common sense" that recently led many white American voters to suspect that race-based preference accounts for much of Barack Obama's success. A sad irony is that in the process, they often overlooked how gender-based preference clearly did account for Sarah Palin's presence at the side of John McCain.

Aside from the prevalence of gender preferences for women, and of de facto racial preferences for white Americans in general, another fact apparently unknown or ignored by this conservative student group is that in the realm of university admissions, a wide variety of applicants receive preference based on who they are. These include children of alumni (also known as "legacy admissions") and, ironically enough, men.

Applicants whose parents and/or grandparents attended a school are commonly favored, in the hopes that their parents will donate money to the school. Male applicants are sometimes favored as well, because female students tend to outnumber male students. Some schools also grant preference based on where students are from, because they seek "geographic diversity," and others grant preference to military veterans and people with disabilities.

The politically conservative students who organize such events believe that, as one student says in the video, "It's not the American way to help someone just because they're different." But if that's what they believe, then why are they so obsessed in these "affirmative action bake sales" with race, when many other forms of identity-based preference exist as well?

One thing's for sure--that obstinate obsession with race exemplifies the same delusional condition that's imposed on most white people by their racial status. This is a pathology, and it takes the form of a false, fantasized view of the social world, and of how it actually works.

46 comments:

  1. Macon D,

    Once again you lament the consequences of your own ideology while simultaneously contradicting your own liberal principles of equality and non-discrimination.

    AA may have helped a lot of white women (can you say liberal feminism), but its premise was and will always be about expropriating real wealth from white people to black people for past injustices.

    You can liberally disassemble AA to give it whatever current understanding you like, but claiming it benefits mainly white women does nothing to explain the absolute embracing of AA among a majority of blacks.

    What is the end game for AA? When when will we "know" when it is no longer needed for blacks?

    This is what little political stunts like this bring to the forefront.

    It exposes its adversaries as intellectually vacant left positing "equal" scenarios as justification for more illiberal discrimination and claiming that the real beneficiaries were not the ones that were intended.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "This is another instance of white people doing what they often accuse non-white people of doing--"playing the race card.""

    this is an excellent point. i couldn't watch the whole video. it made me very uncomfortable...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I stopped the video at the point where the black lady was talking about how African-Americans should have to pay more than Hispanics, because "we're stronger..." (explaining that's why we were used in slavery). Nevermind that she is even humoring this ridiculous display, but for her to want to further stratify the races (and genders) on the display was all I could stand.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thordaddy, you don't know what my "ideology" is. I've grown weary of your constant bashing here against some phantom "liberal" monolith. It's irrelevant--this is a blog about some stuff that some white people do--common white tendencies. Some of those people could be classified as liberals, and some not. Enough with the irrelevant liberal-bashing--take it to the political blogs.

    AA may have helped a lot of white women (can you say liberal feminism), but its premise was and will always be about expropriating real wealth from white people to black people for past injustices.

    Says who? And what about present injustices, which are often an ongoing result of past injustices? You're once again jousting against a phantom, cartoonishly simplified opposition.

    You can liberally disassemble AA to give it whatever current understanding you like, but claiming it benefits mainly white women does nothing to explain the absolute embracing of AA among a majority of blacks.

    I'm not interested in explaining black opinion of AA. I'm interested in pointing out the many ways in which the common white rejection of AA is ironic and hypocritical. Stop trying to change the subject.

    What is the end game for AA? When when will we "know" when it is no longer needed for blacks?

    Why are you so obsessed with race? Why didn't you ask instead when will we "know" it is no longer needed for white women?

    ReplyDelete
  5. but claiming it benefits mainly white women does nothing to explain the absolute embracing of AA among a majority of blacks.
    You know, there are some black people among the readers of this blog. How about you talk to us instead of about us before you start talking about what the majority embraces.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great post; thanks!

    One of my favorite things to say about affirmative action is that America has had affirmative action for hundreds of years--it's just that until recently it was affirmative action for white men.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Macon D,

    You are attempting to broadbrush white people for their broadbrushing of black people.

    You imply that these bake sales are "race-baiting," but they are merely the reaction to liberal racial discrimination. Why do you fail to acknowledge this as you condemn others for not acknowledging their hidden racism?

    And isn't your worldview important in explaining your obsession with what "white people" do?

    Roxie,

    I debate with black people, but they invariably all go down the same path except for maybe Lockett. At least he claims to embrace objective truth and doesn't necessarily believe black perception of racism is always true.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are attempting to broadbrush white people for their broadbrushing of black people.

    Wrong. What part of "some" and "common" do you not understand? There are common tendencies among white Americans--I'm not working with an overly broad brush when I point that out.

    You imply that these bake sales are "race-baiting," but they are merely the reaction to liberal racial discrimination. Why do you fail to acknowledge this as you condemn others for not acknowledging their hidden racism?

    I'm not going to "acknowledge" as fact your gross oversimplifications, especially when they're off the point of the post, which is primarily about the common and ironic white condemnation of something that actually benefits a lot of white people. Why don't you acknowledge that these race-obsessed bake sales are "race-baiting" in that sense? The post is about that, so I don't want this comment thread to devolve into another rehashed debate over the legitimacy of affirmative action.

    And isn't your worldview important in explaining your obsession with what "white people" do?

    Of course. I'm a white guy, trying to understand what that means. Especially the white part, in myself and in others. Being a white guy makes that tough to do, but I'm working at it. Beyond that, I see no point in trying to characterize that effort of mine in terms of political ideology. So again, enough with the flailing, failed "liberal" bashing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thordaddy,

    Your understanding of what you term "liberalism" is facile at best. You seem to think that liberalism = absolute adherence to individual liberty. I assume you're thinking of classical liberalism, which does emphasize individual freedom as a primary political goal, although classical liberalism describes modern conservatives more than today's "liberals".

    You don't seem to understand that few of the "liberals" you condemn are classical liberals. This is obvious when you conflated terms such as "liberal progressives" and then suggested their ideology provides a "mandate" to principles of "absolute" freedom and equality. Freedom and equality remain important goals, but most "liberals" today tend to understand the need for checks against "freedoms" used to maintain inequalities of opportunity, such as individual acts of blatant racism, and historical inertia that created the various institutional inequalities targeted by affirmative action.

    The only thing intellectually vacant here is your crusade against the straw man of "liberalism" (as you seem to define it) that you're desperately trying to imagine into existence and then tear down.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. Your reply to Thordaddy rocked!
    2. When I see the word 'Conservative,' I automatically visualize a child covering its ears and singing London Bridge is Falling Down as someone patiently explains that yes the sky is blue.

    The modern day version of American conservatism leaves me speechless.

    ReplyDelete
  11. i go to purdue, but not this campus. this doesn't even surprise me. that's exactly why i chose not to go to the main campus. there are enough people like this at the campus where i go to school. they get really pissed when they say things like this and people challenge them. they'd just rather be misinformed.

    knowing the people i know, i think a lot of it is they don't have exposure to anything where they're from except daddy's views and fox news and who knows what else. my campus is pretty diverse but the rest of this part of indiana is less so. so i guess they have a lot of issues with that and this is how it comes out.

    and, thordaddy, we're right here. why are you kind of talking about generalities and theoretical this and liberal blah blah blah? the way you tend to put things, it sounds almost like you've read one article or one tv show and this makes you more of an expert than those of us with life experience and a different viewpoint.

    if you have a point to make about black people, why not... you know, talk to black people. there's quite a number of us who read this blog. we like that someone is talking about things we've observed and talked about with each other for years. hell, i'm 23 and none of this is news to me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Todd,

    It's not real tough to spot a modern liberal. All one has to do is have a "race-baiting" bake sale and they inexplicably come to the fore.

    The question is WHY? Why do they condemn "conservatives" who call for an end to state mandated racial discriminaton in college admissions? Isn't that really the liberal thing to do?

    Are these the modern liberal principles of equality and nondiscrimination just a ruse?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wonder what exactly this well off white boy is railing against. He got into Purdue, despite all the cards stacked against him (sarcasm folks). It must be tough to be upper middle class, conservative, white, male and attending Purdue University. Pfft.

    He sure is at a disadvantage because of Affirmative Action. But no, I'm sure he's taking up arms for his white brethren who were not able to attend Purdue with him because some greedy, under-performing minority took his "bros" spot. It's pure tragedy. Right up with disease infested blankets and forced labor. *rolls eyes*

    The fact that it even made the local evening news is the real tragedy. People like this need the least amount of pulpit they can get.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thordaddy: You imply that these bake sales are "race-baiting," but they are merely the reaction to liberal racial discrimination.

    What racial discrimination? Racial discrimination against what "race"?

    This appears to be a highly fictionalized idea of yours, Thordaddy, as well as an instance where you practice the very thing you preach against: abhorring or eschewing objective truth.

    Notice how you couldn't be bothered with the objective truth regarding White women being the biggest beneficiaries of AA which has expropriated how much real wealth from white people to black people?

    WHERE ARE YOUR FIGURES?
    (Your real wealth figures)

    And since when have White women failed the "white people" test?

    Simply put, "real wealth" can't be expropriated from White people via AA in the way you suggest when White women (and White men in certain categories) are and always have been major beneficiaries. That would be reappropriation if anything, Thordaddy (and that would also be why your claims of RACIAL discrimination ring hollow and utterly untruthful).

    But let's keep you focused on producing OBJECTIVE FACT/TRUTH when it comes to your claim that AA = "expropriating real wealth from white people to black people for past injustices."

    Once again, please present the REAL WEALTH numbers -- the numbers for how much "real wealth" AA has expropriated from white people and given to black people -- and, better yet, show us what the cost of the past injustices, in REAL WEALTH terms.

    Seems to me if AA is what you say it is, in terms of its premise, that producing those past-injustices-as-real-wealth figures would go a long way towards answering your "end game" question.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That's disgusting. Those privileged kids at Purdue should be ashamed...but I'm sure they'll never know what it's like to NOT be a wealthy white christian male.

    Thordaddy=troll. Go away, troll.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ Thordaddy,

    "It's not real tough to spot a modern liberal. All one has to do is have a "race-baiting" bake sale and they inexplicably come to the fore."

    --Nice evasion—the old “I know one when I see one” sort of argument.

    "The question is WHY? Why do they condemn "conservatives" who call for an end to state mandated racial discriminaton in college admissions? Isn't that really the liberal thing to do?
    Are these the modern liberal principles of equality and nondiscrimination just a ruse?"

    --No, because affirmative action is a countermeasure against discrimination and barriers to equal opportunity. Racism is about privilege, affirmative action is about opportunity. “Conservatives” who decry affirmative action as racial discrimination (reverse racism) choose to favor privileges for dominant groups over opportunities for those historically subjected to barriers to freedom and/or equal opportunities to achieve success. Modern liberals (which includes a wide spectrum of beliefs, btw) tend to see this as wrong, which is WHY they “condemn conservatives” who mischaracterize affirmative action (usually by imagining affirmative action as quotas, although this is patently wrong). Thus, there is nothing inexplicable about modern liberals coming to the fore against organized “race-baiting” sales.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Todd says,

    --No, because affirmative action is a countermeasure (my emphasis) against discrimination and barriers to equal opportunity.

    In an even more evasive manner, you substitute "countermeasure" for racial discrimination. At least have the guts to call it what it is and many like myself, who in no way are effected by AA, wouldn't be so adamant about its dismantling. Afterall, no one says thordaddy believes in equality.

    Racism is about privilege, affirmative action is about opportunity.

    This sounds like some 99 cent store slogan. Racism is about implied supremacy based on skin color and affirmative action is the attempt to claim we're all really equal.

    “Conservatives” who decry affirmative action as racial discrimination (reverse racism) choose to favor privileges for dominant groups over opportunities for those historically subjected to barriers to freedom and/or equal opportunities to achieve success.

    Actually, a coherent nation consisting of like-minded people always favor the historical majority. You can wrap this in modern liberal speak and claim "dominant groups" privileged themselves, but certainly Todd's mamma privileged him. Was she racist and bigoted?

    We've already seen in the video that even in instances of concocted racism, only a opportunity to exercise one's freedom exists in a liberal society. Can you not see this? You seem to conflate not getting everything you want as an abridgement of one's freedom?

    Modern liberals (which includes a wide spectrum of beliefs, btw) tend to see this as wrong, which is WHY they “condemn conservatives” who mischaracterize affirmative action (usually by imagining affirmative action as quotas, although this is patently wrong). Thus, there is nothing inexplicable about modern liberals coming to the fore against organized “race-baiting” sales.

    You imply that you want blacks to get at chance of success, but you feign outrage for the fact that they get to buy cookies at the lowest price. This in turn leaves more money in their pockets thus "equalizing" the effects of "racism."

    Again, why are you decrying "conservatives" who are actually acting like liberals?

    ReplyDelete
  18. THORDADDY:
    affirmative action is the attempt to claim we're all really equal.

    Ahh... the plot thickens.

    Please explain the problems you have with AA given your statement that AA is "the attempt to claim we're all really equal."

    It's like you have a problem with the idea of considering all human beings equal. It's like you're forwarding some kind of racial supremacy idea -- i.e. all human beings, all so-called races aren't equal.

    Anyway, when you're done with that, let's see your REAL WEALTH figures. The REAL WEALTH figures that (1) show the amount of "real wealth" AA has expropriated from white people and given to black people AND (2) the REAL WEALTH that was expropriated from Black people or REAL WEALTH that was otherwise denied Black people via the "past injustices" (your words).

    ReplyDelete
  19. "a coherent nation consisting of like-minded people..."

    Which nation is that?

    Can't be the USA. Obviously the "liberals" fuck that up for you every time. Unless you think like a liberal...

    And what the hell is a "historical majority"?

    After the projected demographic changes in 2050 occur and the trend continues to the point where White people are in a distinct minority in this country, say for 50 years or so... Will your idea still apply?

    ... Assuming the "coherent nation consisting of like-minded people" stuff was always rhetorical fluff, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  20. >”In an even more evasive manner, you substitute "countermeasure" for racial discrimination. At least have the guts to call it what it is and many like myself, who in no way are effected by AA, wouldn't be so adamant about its dismantling. Afterall, no one says thordaddy believes in equality.”

    Nice try, but wrong. The very next sentence that I wrote dealt with it explicitly. Affirmative action is not racial discrimination. This is not about guts. It’s about the failings of your second-rate logic.

    >”This sounds like some 99 cent store slogan. Racism is about implied supremacy based on skin color and affirmative action is the attempt to claim we're all really equal.”

    Perhaps my “slogan” was pithy and simplified, but it’s still far truer than what you wrote.

    >”Actually, a coherent nation consisting of like-minded people always favor the historical majority. You can wrap this in modern liberal speak and claim "dominant groups" privileged themselves, but certainly Todd's mamma privileged him. Was she racist and bigoted?”

    Listen to Nquest on this one. What fantasy nation do you live in? I think you proved Macon D right when he wrote “This is a pathology, and it takes the form of a false, fantasized view of the social world, and of how it actually works.”

    >”We've already seen in the video that even in instances of concocted racism, only a opportunity to exercise one's freedom exists in a liberal society. Can you not see this? You seem to conflate not getting everything you want as an abridgement of one's freedom?”

    Wrong again. I don’t happen to think that everyone should get everything they want. There are limits to freedoms in any society. However, being denied the same freedoms as others is by definition an abridgement of one’ s freedom.

    >”You imply that you want blacks to get at chance of success, but you feign outrage for the fact that they get to buy cookies at the lowest price. This in turn leaves more money in their pockets thus ‘equalizing’ the effects of ‘racism.’”

    Oh please. As if this stunt was intended for “blacks to get at [sic] chance of success.”

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nquest

    Thor ain't gonna response because he has not response.

    He just twist arguments and makes a mess.

    It's so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Big man,

    I'm still waiting for you to tell me that Barack Obama really can be a Christian abortion advocate.

    Nquest,

    I'll ask you the same thing I asked Big Man because I never received an answer.

    What was the original premise for AA?

    And if you take this premise and you add to that the idea that we live in "white supremacist" nation, as a majority of blacks believe, what are the consequences?

    I say the consequence is a lot of angry, bitter, resentful and even violent blacks who feel justified in their perceptions of life.

    BUT...

    As we saw in the video, EVEN in highly fictionalized cases of overt and explicit "racism", the black woman LOST NOTHING and certainly not her freedom!

    And one last thing... I'm glad you've conceded that you're really not a minority in the global sense, but you like to play one on the Internet.

    Todd,

    Why don't you give it a shot and tell us the original premise for AA?

    Then tell us what "freedoms" the black lady lost in the video?

    And then tell us the difference between "dominant groups" (whites) and the "historical majority" (whites) and why you have adopted the thinking of others who have a hidden distaste for your kind?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thordaddy, you bore me.

    "The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship . . . setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause."

    That's a clause from Executive Order #11246 issued in 1965 by LBJ.

    It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

    (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or


    That's language from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    We can go all the way back to June 25, 1941 and look ate Executive Order 8802 and there will always be something other than what you want to imply as the "premise."

    OBJECTIVE TRUTH says AA has benefited all kinds of Americans even those who weren't born or have little family heritage in America (see "national origin"). As for "religion" or "creed" (terms present in civil rights acts and executive orders), Jews participated in the Civil Rights Movement for that expressed purpose.

    So the "premise" of AA is non-discrimination in all those categories. PERIOD!

    Now break out those REAL WEALTH figures. You know, BECAUSE I STILL HAVEN'T RECEIVED AN ANSWER FROM YOU regarding the "REAL WEALTH figures that (1) show the amount of "real wealth" AA has expropriated from white people and given to black people AND (2) the REAL WEALTH that was expropriated from Black people or REAL WEALTH that was otherwise denied Black people via the "past injustices" (your words)."

    ReplyDelete
  24. >”And then tell us the difference between "dominant groups" (whites) and the "historical majority" (whites) and why you have adopted the thinking of others who have a hidden distaste for your kind?”

    Let me make one thing absolutely clear. You are not "my kind," even if we share the same skin color.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nquest,

    I always enjoy when one offers their unsolicited opinion and then acts as though I had an obligation to entertain them with my thoughts.

    As you wavered, you merely gave snippets of some final bill put forth by some politicians and not the original premise for AA. Your continued insistence that AA and blacks are not seemlessly intertwined is quite boring.

    AA is discrimination. And no matter how many groups you attempt to include in those helped by AA, the only lesson you've taught us is that less and less blacks should actually be clinging to it.

    If AA helps every group then what is the point? Of course, there is one group left out in this otherwise all inclusive endeavor and such a state of affairs give credence to the discriminatory nature of AA. Unless AA is universal and all-inclusive then it is discriminatory. And if it is all-inclusive and universal then it is pointless to cling to it. You can't get around simple logic.

    Why do you not have the guts to call something as it is? AA is discrimination PERIOD. Any bill that says you HAVE TO DO THIS and you CAN'T DO THAT is a discriminatory bill and has none of the characteristics of freedom or real liberalism. So the more you obfuscate, the more suspicious you become. Now, getting to read your style over at Nquest, it is clear that such a suspicion on my part will no doubt conjure up perceptions of "racism" in your head, but such delusions are a self-inflicted impediment to your freedom.

    If I pay $12.00 for a dozen cookies and you pay $3.00 for the very same cookies then what exactly are you crying about?

    Haven't I merely subsidized your purchase and put real wealth in your pocket? That's why it is funny to call these cookie salesmen "conservative" as they have only accomplished either a transfer of wealth or a furthering of a belief in absolute liberal equality.

    Todd,

    Oh boy, maybe you're too far gone?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Of course, there is one group left out in this otherwise all inclusive endeavor and such a state of affairs give credence to the discriminatory nature of AA.

    And that "one group" is which group?

    Note: Repeating previously debunked BULLSH*T only serves as comic relief.

    ROFLMAO!!

    This is VICTIMHOOD on a stick:

    AA may have helped a lot of white women (can you say liberal feminism), but its premise was and will always be about expropriating real wealth from white people to black people for past injustices.

    And yours is a slap-stick routine...

    Of course it's a JOKE because you simply cannot...

    present REAL WEALTH figures that (1) show the amount of "real wealth" AA has expropriated from white people and given to black people AND (2) the REAL WEALTH that was expropriated from Black people or REAL WEALTH that was otherwise denied Black people via the "past injustices" (your words)

    ... and maintain your position.

    You (Thordaddy) are afraid of the OBJECTIVE TRUTH (and my "black supremacy"). LOL!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nquest,

    I always enjoy when one offers their unsolicited opinion...


    What are you talking about? You asked me "the same thing [you] asked Big Man" and I CALLED YOUR BLUFF!!

    And I'll do it again:

    YOU SAID:
    You imply that these bake sales are "race-baiting," but they are merely the reaction to liberal racial discrimination.

    AND I CALLED YOUR BLUFF:
    What racial discrimination? Racial discrimination against what "race"?

    What's the problem, Thordaddy? You keep making all this non-committal, non-supported claims:

    * AA is "racial discrimination"
    * there is "one group" left out
    * AA is about the expropriating real wealth from white people to black people...

    Don't make my "black supremacy" so easy. Don't prove it with every duck, dodge and not-so-clever AVOIDANCE you try to make to DIRECT questions/calls for you to substantiate your lame, weak and, obviously, bs claims that YOU KNOW are pure bs.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nquest,

    Why do you value AA if it helps everyone...? Because it is all-inclusive and universal?

    If someone sold cookies at a bake sale at 25 cents for a white person and $1.00 for a black person that would be de facto racial discrimination under our liberal order. It stands to reason that the reversal represents the same exact thing.

    Can you aknowledge this?

    But you still haven't told us why selling you cookies at a 75% discount relative to your white counterparts upsets you so?

    Are you angry because you aren't treated equally, but actually better?

    If you desired to be treated like an individual then would you cry "racism" if you were charged $2.00 for the same cookie?

    Nquest, just quit frontin' and let me know whether you want to be treated "equally" or like an individual?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why do you value AA if it helps everyone...?

    Let's see, nowhere has Nquest presented a value statement or otherwise stated how he regards AA but this skill-less wonder is asking me a question based on some bs. And it's obvious Thordaddy (the skill-less wonder) is doing this to AVOID answering the direct questions I (Nquest) asked him in an effort to get him to do one of the most basic thing and that's substantiate/support the claims he made.

    So, with that being the case, your idiotic framing, Thordaddy, is not accepted. Either you can support your claims that:

    1. AA is about "expropriating real wealth from white people to black people..."

    2. AA is "liberal racial discrimination."

    3. That the "one group" you're too afraid to IDENTIFY (at least every time you invoke them, whoever they are) is "left out" of AA

    ... OR you can continue to amuse me with your lack of skills and the tremendous amount of fear you seem to have when it comes to standing-by and backing up your position. Note: Trying to pigeonhole me into a position you can attack or, in this case, trying to attack me because of the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing because I insist that you do more than just spout off your ill-formed ideas but substantiate/support your indoctrinated article-of-faith beliefs (i.e. beliefs held with no regard for facts).

    No wonder why you asked me that odd question asking "would [I] say" this or that about a person's belief in God. You don't want me questioning your religious like fanatical belief in WHITE VICTIMHOOD.

    You claimed AA was and will always be "about expropriating real wealth from white people to black people" because you have this psychological need to view WHITES AS VICTIMS even when YOU KNOW you have no evidence to support your article-of-faith belief. That's why you've intentionally left my questions, my WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH questions about the "REAL WEALTH FIGURES" unanswered.

    It's not like I asked you reconcile your claim with data that shows a widening Black-White WEALTH GAP that betrays this idea that AA or anything is "expropriating real wealth from white people to black people."

    Of course, we know the FACTS regarding Whites benefiting from AA also complicates your bogus claim.

    Of Washington state workers who have benefited directly from affirmative action, 60 percent are white women, while only 21 percent of beneficiaries are people of color. Since the disabled, Vietnam veterans and disabled veterans also are protected groups under affirmative action, 19 percent of workers who directly benefit from affirmative action are white men.

    DEAL WITH THOSE FACTS then get back to me. And don't ask me questions based on some bs assumptions you have.

    Ex: "Why do you value AA if it helps everyone...?"

    First, you assume that I value AA apparently because of this STEREOTYPE you have regarding the "absolute embracing of AA among a majority of blacks." Second, you assume that AA "helping everyone" would present some problem for me, again, because of some kind of STEREOTYPE or, perhaps, your own rigid racial dichotomy.

    The history anti-black racism/discrimination in the US does more than enough to explain why "a majority" of African Americans have/do embrace government non-discrimination policies. It's clear what the country was like before those policies were put into place. It's also clear how those policies, particularly the Civil Rights legislation in the 60's, never would have been put into place if women were not included.

    This is basic history, Thordaddy. And it's funny how you have that same "kill bill" mentality projecting your apparent zero sum racial attitude where "black gains come at the expense of whites."

    ReplyDelete
  30. Nquest,

    Do you want to be treated like an individual or do you want to be treated "equally?"

    We can't move forward until you answer.

    And one more thing, are highly fictionalized instances of concocted racism real?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Do you want to be treated like an individual or do you want to be treated "equally?"

    FALSE DICHOTOMY squared.

    But you still haven't told us why selling you cookies at a 75% discount relative to your white counterparts upsets you so?

    Hmmm... That's funny. Somehow you figured I was "upset" about something I've haven't commented on (i.e. the bake sale). Poor little straw man blowing in the wind...

    Oh, well. It's back to the drawing board for you. lol


    We can't move forward until you answer.

    "WE" haven't been moving anywhere because you can't back up you claim that "AA [is] about expropriating real wealth from white people to black people..."

    That was a claimed you made in your first post on this thread and you still haven't supported it. So you've been holding us back, stopping us from moving forward from the beginning.

    C'mon, driftwood... Let's see if you can answer DIRECT QUESTIONS to the things you've said. Again, note the difference. I've said nothing about the bake sale and I haven't "whined" about not being treated as an individual or not being treated equally but you come up with questions begging me to help you out.

    I mean, I know you're skill-less but even you can't be that pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Nquest,

    Are you expecting some academic paper, some legislative bill or some court ruling that states verbatim the original premise of Affirmative Action?

    When one talks of AA it is best to think clearly what it means. Affirmative Actions are acts of affirmation.

    What do these acts of affirmation tell us? They tell us there are those that act to affirm and those that are affirmed. Seen in this light, modern liberalism and black radicalism form a nexus.

    Key to understanding this nexus is recognizing that both the liberal autonomist and the radical black will vehemently deny any collusion.

    And so what you have is a three-card monte where the mark is getting played by the affirmers and the affirmed. The mark is badgered to become an affirmer by those that claim belief in liberty while simultaneously he is demonized by those that demand his affirmation in the name of securing their freedom.

    So now that we've taken it back to where an original premise might reside, will you continue to pretend that AA is really about helping white men and women? Will you continue to pretend that AA doesn't have a wealth redistribution scheme at its core? Will you continue to suggest that AA isn't intimately intertwined with blacks and the past injustices they endured at the hands of white people?

    P.S. If asking you to choose how you would like me to treat you, either as an individual or "equally," is presenting a false dichotomy then please do offer the other options?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Are you expecting some academic paper, some legislative bill or some court ruling that states verbatim the original premise of Affirmative Action?

    You really need to get that sh*t fixed. You were the one puffing your chest out thinking you had a winning argument that put other people on their heels when YOU said/asked:

    Nquest, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Big Man because I never received an answer.

    What was the original premise for AA?


    I can't help it if my "black supremacy" shows itself again and now you're the one in retreat, on your heels stammering about, wandering AIMLESSLY.

    If anybody had an "expectation" regarding the original premise of AA it was you. So your question to me gets stashed in the ever increasing file of weird and ABSURD nonsense you've said.


    Affirmative Actions are acts of affirmation.

    I bet your English teach was bedazzled by your ability to bs and the expanse of your vocabulary evidence by your uncanny ability to define words using a derivation of the word. AMAZING!!!


    So now that we've taken it back to where an original premise might reside

    Ha!Ha!Ha!! You couldn't even convince yourself with you own bs. "where AN original MIGHT reside"

    Thordaddy, just AFFIRM my "black supremacy" and be done with it. LOL There is no reason for you to totally, completely and utterly embarrass yourself just because you don't have a pre-fab script that gives you an intelligent, direct answer to:

    present REAL WEALTH figures that (1) show the amount of "real wealth" AA has expropriated from white people and given to black people AND (2) the REAL WEALTH that was expropriated from Black people or REAL WEALTH that was otherwise denied Black people via the "past injustices" (your words)

    Since you want to claim that AA has a "wealth redistribution scheme at its core" and one where "real wealth" was/is "expropriated" from white people to black people then it's incumbent on you to show how it is so. Do that or STFU!

    I have no interest in carrying on this exchange with you when you can't contribute with some reciprocity. You asked me "What was the original premise for AA?" and I gave you an answer yet you still have answered the first question I asked you regarding claims you made in your first post.

    So, in this thread, I want you to consider yourself my equal and show how you are equally capable of answering questions. I know it's hard for you see yourself as good enough to be in my league but go ahead and consider yourself equal. Go ahead and consider yourself as equally capable of answering questions. Otherwise, your repeated attempts to DUCK, DODGE and run away from answering my long standing questions *might* be seen as an AFFIRMATION of my "black supremacy."


    P.S. If asking you to choose how you would like me to treat you, either as an individual or "equally," is presenting a false dichotomy then please do offer the other options?

    No. Please make you questions RELEVANT -- i.e. make sure the questions you ask me are related to things I've actually said or please STFU.

    Also, the two aren't mutually exclusive. No other options needed. But, then again, you have yet to quote where I have:

    1. whined about not being treated as an individual
    2. whined about not being treated equal

    I will NOT accommodate your woeful lack of skills...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Conservative/Republican beliefs about black people and White Nationalist/Neo-Nazi views about black people are almost identical.

    ReplyDelete
  35. About the only difference between Conservatives and White nationalists is the White nationalists pathological hatred of Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Nquest,

    Would you please stop just killing Thordaddy. The sad part is I do not believe he knowns that he is an idiot. By the way he will never answer your question.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yeah, he's killing me... Killing me with his Kanye West routine. Has there ever been a better example of the spiritually deadening effect of liberalism? I'm really not sure whether the poor sap questions his "blackness" or questions his supremacy. But clearly, he thoroughly rejects the notion that he is a supreme black. That's why he thinks he's beaten me without ever throwing a single punch???

    I mean, what exactly did you say to win this thing?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Kanye West routine??

    ROFLMAO!!!!



    PS:

    I don't have to say anything to win when you keep LOSING with statements like that and those well noted unsupported/abandoned unfounded/fraudulent claims I questioned/challenged/debunked.

    So, I'd offer this is *WIN* Example #1:

    present REAL WEALTH figures that (1) show the amount of "real wealth" AA has expropriated from white people and given to black people AND (2) the REAL WEALTH that was expropriated from Black people or REAL WEALTH that was otherwise denied Black people via the "past injustices" (your words)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Nquest,

    Damn it!! I told you to stop. he responds to what i said but still crickets for the questions you posed to him.

    ReplyDelete
  40. What question was that...?

    How much money was redistributed to blacks from whites?

    One would imply from that "tough" question that no wealth was actually transferred. In reality, the redistribution was back payment for services rendered.

    Obviously, this doesn't include Nquest as it is virtually guaranteed that he never worked a free day in his life unless it was purely voluntary.

    So the question of how much money has been transferred to persons such as Nquest, his parents and perhaps his grandparents from people like thordaddy, his parents and perhaps grandparents is a subjective one.

    Can we first agree that there was an aggregate redistribution of wealth from blacks to whites over the last 50+ years?

    And here is sciencegirl on SWB...

    But the fact that they show such blatant, in-your-face examples of racism bothers me. It's not entirely reflective of our society right now.

    moviegirl said,

    I think a more subtle demonstration would have been more relevant, like you said.

    Roxie said she's been followed since she was 8 years old and I don't doubt it. But, she certainly didn't claim to have been a victim of the highly fictionalized instance of "entertainment racism."

    And what is his premise for AA? A 1965 Executive Order that uses the phrase "affirmative action." So "affirmative action" is the premise for Affirmative Action. Wow, that is profound!

    And then this clueless fool can't answer whether he wants to be treated like an individual or does he want to be treated "equally." He calls it a "false dichotomy" thus leaving me the only other option... To treat him like "nothing!" Gosh, what liberalism asks one to do is incredible.

    ReplyDelete
  41. In other words Thordaddy can't back up his claim LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  42. So the question of how much money has been transferred to [Blacks from Whites] is a subjective one.

    NO it is not. Either you have proof or you don't. I don't agree with your premise that the redistribution of wealth from Whites to Blacks EVER occurred. That's why I asked you: WHAT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?

    I went on to ask you for PROOF via "real wealth" numbers just to see if you had any evidence at all. Also, I clearly stated:

    Simply put, "real wealth" can't be expropriated from White people via AA in the way you suggest when White women (and White men in certain categories) are and always have been major beneficiaries. That would be reappropriation if anything, Thordaddy (and that would also be why your claims of RACIAL discrimination ring hollow and utterly untruthful).

    Emphasis on "real wealth can't be expropriated from White people... [when White people themselves are beneficiaries]."

    As for your question in the other thread:

    So, what is your arguably premise for Affirmative Action? You know, the one that was taking shape over 50 years ago?

    ENGLISH!!!

    Please speak English. You already asked me "what was the original premise of AA?" and I already answered you.

    Again, I will not accommodate your woeful lack of skills.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I applaud these young kids using their intellect and common sense to see beyond the veil of politically correct social norms. They obviously have had the advantages of a good education that provided them with the toolkit to decipher the truth. Now, its time to attend the school of real life where the first lesson is "Life is not fair".

    ReplyDelete
  44. "A sad irony is that in the process, they often overlooked how gender-based preference clearly did account for Sarah Palin's presence at the side of John McCain."

    The sexism in this post troubles me. Absolutely, white women are the primary beneficiaries of AA, a fact conveniently obscured by whites. But this is completely linked to white privilege, not to their status as women. The sentence about Sarah Palin incorrectly links AA to this perceived 'gender bias.' It seems to imply that women should 'be happy' for what we have been 'given,' even though we still make significantly less than men and our reproductive freedoms are continually undermined. And it ignores the fact that white women (to some extent) and women of color (almost entirely) are excluded from positions of power. Saying that any woman politician has been given her position because of gender bias completely obscures sexism that only allows women to succeed if they aid the agendas of white men. If anything, Sarah Palin is a helpful tool in the maintenance of WHITE supremacy, helping white men like John McCain retain their power.

    ReplyDelete

Please see the "commenting guidelines" before submitting a comment.

hit counter code