Petition to Support Affirmative Action in Basketball

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is like that. They hire people in the union apprenticeships, fire depts, etc.. because of the skin color until they meet their quota. How could you comment on this subject and not know that?

It's all about quotas is it? I don't think that's true.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

You're assuming that affirmative action is exclusively about skin colour. You've only offered a single fictional example to support this. Simply put, it is not.

And you later claim to posting "reality". It's an odd claim.

Try reading the entire thread next time. Iv'e seen time after time where people of color and women have been accepted into skilled apprenticeships (electricians, pipe fitters, iron workers, etc...) all for the fact the union was out to make a quota. These people scored crappy on their test, they had little or zero experience yet they were accepted for the fact a quota was to be made. Every year varies on how many apprentices are accepted into the pipe fitters union...some years only 6, some a dozen or more...depends on work, retirement, etc.. There are hundreds of applicants for these apprentice positions every year, and every year some poor schmuck get's screwed over because of that quota. There's guys that have two years of college algebra, blue print reading, welding, years of on the job experience yet they are passed over because of that fked up racist AA bs.

Now it's obvious your not up to date on AA or you wouldn't have made that post. So learn about it first before you tackle it in a topic.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your unqualified anecdote simply does not prove that affirmative action is exclusively about meeting arbitrary racial quotas.

There may well be some affirmative action policies that do this (and for the record I do not support quotas) but your anecdote clearly relies on assumptions and knowledge that you do not have. You simply can't pass off unsubstantiated rumours about your workplace as fact.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Your unqualified anecdote simply does not prove that affirmative action is exclusively about meeting arbitrary racial quotas.

There may well be some affirmative action policies that do this (and for the record I do not support quotas) but your anecdote clearly relies on assumptions and knowledge that you do not have. You simply can't pass off unsubstantiated rumours about your workplace as fact.

It wasn't like my uncle was on the apprenticeship board for over two decades, or that me, my brother, and my cousins didn't go through the apprenticeship. It was all a dream, and hundreds of way more qualified applicants didn't get passed over by fast food workers who wouldn't know the end of a welding rod if it was jammed up their #######, yet they still got into the apprenticeship for the fact they were were a person of color and/or didn't have testicles.

This ####### happens all the time...unions, government jobs, etc... they get points just for being a minority. Google it because your about the only bloke who's not up to date on this.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Why_Me

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Still an unqualified story. What are you saying now - that your uncle unfairly discriminated against applicants?

Your story might be true, it might not - you do seem to have a habit of saying things as a way of attention seeking, so I do have to take it with a rather large pinch of salt.

Regardless it simply doesn't prove anything about affirmative action in general terms. Even if the one example you provided is as described. You simply haven't proved the claim you are trying to make.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Still an unqualified story. What are you saying now - that your uncle unfairly discriminated against applicants?

Your story might be true, it might not - you do seem to have a habit of saying things as a way of attention seeking, so I do have to take it with a rather large pinch of salt.

Regardless it simply doesn't prove anything about affirmative action in general terms. Even if the one example you provided is as described. You simply haven't proved the claim you are trying to make.

How can you have internet which means you have access to "Google Search" yet still make these arsenine post on here? Try using google, it's your friend.

As far as my uncle or anyone else on the board screwing anyone...the union gets fined if they don't make a certain quota. Fined by the Feds. How is it again that you can post on this topic yet not have a clue about it?

You make these post just to get a rise out of someone for the fact it's "your thing" when everyone on this board has access to google search...but you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You haven't proved anything about affirmative action. The example you provided, if true, would be an example of a bad affirmative action hiring policy. That's one thing. Proving that this example is representative of affirmative action policies in general is something different, something you have not done.

Edited July 13, 2011 by fishdude

[Fandango 1,440]

I find it funny how fishdude started posting here chastisting the topic as being old and tired and of poor quality, and then proceeded to contribute to the discussion with multiple posts on the actual topic at hand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's funny how you talk about people in the third person.

[slim 1,530]

A summary of how you support affirmative action-

the right to be able to access a livelihood (not be granted, but have access to- which is what AA actually does), from the access to join a college sports team. That's my grain of salt; and I am not really surprised some people would rush to blur the lines between these different examples in order to play reverse logic against something quite different from something optional.

Apparently, in your grain of salt, college is mandatory and college sports are optional. Only one of which should be afforded access by AA.

You've applied your opinion on AA in terms of what it should allow access to and what it should not. That clearly defines your opinion on the issue. You support AA when it affords access to a livelihood (and the education for that livelihood) but not something optional like a sports team.

in my opinion doesn't reflect the reality of the purpose of those programs to begin with. I do not accuse you of having a racist agenda (nor anyone else directly here) in opposition to these programs, but some people out there do have that agenda- and they show this agenda clearly with their vitriol as well as their consistent placement of rhetoric while ignoring historical fact.

You take into account historical fact as the purpose of implementing this program and acknowledge there are some who oppose it on non-racist grounds and others who oppose it on racist grounds.

Since you support it, you can't fall into either of those categories.

Yes, I see it. Whites keeping whites down historically. If you believe historically, that whites have had the same unfortunate circumstances, as say, blacks... then you definitely need to study some more.

More support for your policy of generalizing groups of people simply based on their skin color.

the economic impact that is affecting the black community on average magnitudes more than any other community in the country.

Grouping, yet again, an entire race of people into one "community" based on their skin color and supporting a program that affords them access to a livelihood based on their skin color alone.

I believe many blacks have tragically internalized the institutionalized racism and allowed it to fester into a self-defeating mechanism to perpetuate their own lack of success. Its sort of a subcultural barrier counter to their own advancement, one that has served the interests of racism in this country to this day.

Grouping people based on skin color.

The general group has a shared history, the white poor of this country, as I stated already- while tragic due to their own circumstance, do not share that history.

So you're separating two groups based on nothing other than skin color?

one particular racial and economic sore thumb sticks out

And again...

Or you could read what I've written here about AA.

You haven't actually written a lot about AA but you have clearly pointed out that you have no problem grouping people based on their skin color alone and that basis should afford them access to something "mandatory" for a livelihood and not something "optional" like sports - provided they are black.

You support affirmative action.

You support grouping people together based on their skin color alone. Please explain to me how grouping people together based on their skin color is not racist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Context warrior

[Fandango 1,440]

I think it's funny how you talk about people in the third person.

Wahhh you told me!

I actually wasn't addressing my comment to you in particular...just making a general statement. Hence, third person

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And a most "valuable contribution" your "general statement" was too.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

You haven't proved anything about affirmative action. The example you provided, if true, would be an example of a bad affirmative action hiring policy. That's one thing. Proving that this example is representative of affirmative action policies in general is something different, something you have not done.

Prove? It's what AA is FFS. A lot of the unions work is government buildings, military bases, etc... they have to have X amount of minority's on the job or they don't get the work and the get fined. Why are you arguing about it when you have fcking google and can easily look it up?

####### do you think AA is? duh.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

See previous post. Rinse repeat.