Affermative action: yes or no?

[Virge]

The bottom line is that you cannot end something by doing it another way and calling it something else.

Discrimination is wrong regardless if it's with the government's stamp of approval or not.

And it is a debate area until someone throws a beer bottle

[Evan]

Err, okay but I thought this was a debate area?

It is! I'm just giving my opinion, and obviously everyone is free to respond to it, but honestly I just realized I don't have the energy right now to debate about it myself. I've had a really busy day. Plus, I feel so strongly about this I try not to get into too many debates about it because I just end up getting annoyed or even pissed off. (Which is my fault, I know!).

[Buzzer]

It is! I'm just giving my opinion, and obviously everyone is free to respond to it, but honestly I just realized I don't have the energy right now to debate about it myself. I've had a really busy day. Plus, I feel so strongly about this I try not to get into too many debates about it because I just end up getting annoyed or even pissed off. (Which is my fault, I know!).

Oh okay, no worries, I understand. I just am new here so I wasn't sure if I was just totally on drugs and trying to start a debate in a non-debate area or something, lol.

[Buzzer]

The bottom line is that you cannot end something by doing it another way and calling it something else.

Discrimination is wrong regardless if it's with the government's stamp of approval or not.

And it is a debate area until someone throws a beer bottle

My response to this would be that you cannot end largely closeted, quietly held prejudices which people will enact without voicing them in overt or obvious ways (such as declining to hire qualified black men or qualified lesbians in a 'conservative' job field like a fancy accounting firm or business office) by ending all regulation against doing so and hoping the issue just goes away on its own.

There is a thick history of evidence in the U.S. that discrimination will happen even in cases of clear and demonstrable qualification, so simply getting rid of the educational gap, by itself, doesn't directly solve the problem-- it only undermines the rationale of "well we don't hire many black people because there aren't many who are qualified to do the job who apply", but it doesn't directly combat the prejudice which may go into declining to hire even qualified black applicants.

Or, long story short, laissez-faire isn't going to work in a country with a still unresolved racist and sexist (even homophobic) legacy which has not gone away and which still acts as an influence on decisions quietly made in workplaces all across America.

[Borg69]

Anyone concerned about the newer discrimination practices of businesses where in the name of health, they don't hire overweight or tobacco users? How soon before they start checking your DNA to see if you're going to raise their insurance?

[dynamodean]

While affirmative action may be discriminatory in nature, it is useful to help even the playing field and give chances to those that have historically been the underdogs. How else can minorities get white collar jobs in the land of the white man?

[Buzzer]

Anyone concerned about the newer discrimination practices of businesses where in the name of health, they don't hire overweight or tobacco users? How soon before they start checking your DNA to see if you're going to raise their insurance?

I think the early whisperings of some of those kinds of practices are disturbing, for sure. And I can tell you flat out what I think is behind the tobacco one--- all workers in the U.S. are entitled to at least some level of breaks, depending on shift length. But employers hate when employees actually TAKE those breaking rights, and smokers do. It has been my experience even with my relatively short time in the workforce that there's been an increasing, unspoken pressure, even expectation, from many employers that employees not take what they are actually entitled to in terms of lunch times or breaks, but the absolute minimum they can. I've actually been asked by employers when I've taken my full lunch break out of the office if I could eat at my desk instead, and I'm not really sure where that falls legally speaking, but it's certainly a gray area of feeling like I'm being softly asked to work more (even when I'm not being paid to do so) with an unspoken but possibly hanging implication of it being held against me if I won't.

[Uneunsae]

Rule #1 of power and privilege: Those who have it are completely blind to it.

[50Plus]

Rule #1 of power and privilege: Those who have it are completely blind to it.

First rule tho is the golden rule: Thems that got the gold make the rules.

The conspiracy theory side of me questions whether policies related to AA and the like were carefully crafted by the ruling class to preserve their superiority, yet appear to be doing something nice for the lower classes. In essence, they would look at it merely as 'throwing a bone at the savages' and then wishing to be rewarded for actually feeding the downtrodden.

No proof, but it would not surprise me. I am white, I am male and in some ways I do have privelege. Yet I also do not, for I am still on the outside of the ruling classes and have no idea how to break in to their club (if I actually wanted to be part of their club).

Until we have elections for Leader of the UNFREE World, I will confine myself to cozy cabins in the mountains or seaside.

[Pix]

Rule #1 of power and privilege: Those who have it are completely blind to it.

I also like the saying, "The rich man in his fur coat can't understand why the poor man without one is shivering."