View Full Version : More Faux News Ignorance
FadedFocus
06/30/08, 08:30 AM
I caught the tail end of a bunch of their talking heads debating whether or not Obama's success puts an end to Affirmative Action? Just seeing that at the bottom of the screen alone made me angry enough to change the channel and not even attempt to listen to the potential garbage. Trying to say that because a black man is this close to being President means that we should do away with all of that is just completely and utterly ignorant for anyone to suggest. I'd like to think nothing shocks me anymore, but I'm at least somewhat unnerved at times by things like this.
Machu505
06/30/08, 09:08 AM
Ugh.
Burning Star IV
06/30/08, 09:15 AM
Why so serious?
CNN actually wondered this as well.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/28/affirmative-action-hurt-by-obamas-success/
thespearkid
06/30/08, 10:53 AM
Proving that ALL mainstream media is composed of jackasses.
Affirmative Action is stupid to begin with in my opinion.
saysmydoctor
06/30/08, 11:17 AM
Faux News < Fox Noise
x togepi x
06/30/08, 11:17 AM
they have a point (though it's idiotic to assume that because one black person can succeed that racism is dead), AA should be focused more on class than race nowadays. mainly because it would be more effective. we definitely shouldn't get rid of it because there's still a lot of barriers young minorities from the ghetto face, but i think we ought to open that up to white kids from the ghetto too.
and i swear to god, if i read the phrase "reverse-racism" in this thread i will kill somebody.
they have a point (though it's idiotic to assume that because one black person can succeed that racism is dead), AA should be focused more on class than race nowadays. mainly because it would be more effective. we definitely shouldn't get rid of it because there's still a lot of barriers young minorities from the ghetto face, but i think we ought to open that up to white kids from the ghetto too.
and i swear to god, if i read the phrase "reverse-racism" in this thread i will kill somebody.
reverse racism.
x togepi x
06/30/08, 11:23 AM
reverse racism.
this poster hates minorities and is pro-slavery
this poster hates minorities and is pro-slavery
No, I hate everyone.
And as for the slavery thing, I believe everyone deserves to be a slave if they want to and making slavery illegal hinders our American rights.
Burning Star IV
06/30/08, 11:29 AM
You would say that.
saysmydoctor
06/30/08, 11:46 AM
No, I hate everyone.
And as for the slavery thing, I believe everyone deserves to be a slave if they want to and making slavery illegal hinders our American rights.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/kayaus/PicardWtf.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/kayaus/PicardWtf.jpg
http://www.gloomies.com/sarcasm.jpg
Ambulance X
07/01/08, 06:44 PM
affirimative action SHOULD be banned
saysmydoctor
07/01/08, 07:05 PM
affirimative action SHOULD be banned
You are right, there are too little overprivileged, wealthy, white kids in the education system and this buffer for the left fortunate is fucking them over.
they have a point (though it's idiotic to assume that because one black person can succeed that racism is dead), AA should be focused more on class than race nowadays. mainly because it would be more effective. we definitely shouldn't get rid of it because there's still a lot of barriers young minorities from the ghetto face, but i think we ought to open that up to white kids from the ghetto too.
and i swear to god, if i read the phrase "reverse-racism" in this thread i will kill somebody.
I completely agree. Go by socio-economic guidelines over race. Case in point: Rich black kid from my school gets full ride to near-ivy league college because of skin color. Middle-class white kid gets no aid (other than merit-based) whatsoever. I even scored a point higher on the ACT and our grades were comparable.
EDIT: I'm certainly not saying I should get aid instead. Perhaps neither of us should get aid, and an inner-city or lower class kid should get the aid. Statistically, it might be likely that he is a minority student, but let socio-economic class decide.
ghostyouare
07/03/08, 10:27 PM
You are right, there are too little overprivileged, wealthy, white kids in the education system and this buffer for the left fortunate is fucking them over.
You make affirmative action sound like a gift of benevolence from white people... `we already have too many white people in colleges and jobs, we need to be fair and give jobs to those blacks.`
Affirmative action (based on race) is probably still needed in some states.
ghostyouare
07/03/08, 10:28 PM
I completely agree. Go by socio-economic guidelines over race. Case in point: Rich black kid from my school gets full ride to near-ivy league college because of skin color. Middle-class white kid gets no aid (other than merit-based) whatsoever. I even scored a point higher on the ACT and our grades were comparable.
EDIT: I'm certainly not saying I should get aid instead. Perhaps neither of us should get aid, and an inner-city or lower class kid should get the aid. Statistically, it might be likely that he is a minority student, but let socio-economic class decide.
Middle class whitey should have no quarrels if he is receiving Merit-based aid, he should be able to get into a good school. Im sure youd agree that ivy-league schools arent a right, they are a priviledge.
Middle class whitey should have no quarrels if he is receiving Merit-based aid, he should be able to get into a good school. Im sure youd agree that ivy-league schools arent a right, they are a priviledge.
I have a quarrel that we had comparable grades and test scores, yet I got about a 25% scholarship to an ok school and he got a FULL (affirmative action) scholarship to a great school.
EDIT: and my meager scholarship was based on merit, not skin color.
saysmydoctor
07/03/08, 10:54 PM
You make affirmative action sound like a gift of benevolence from white people... `we already have too many white people in colleges and jobs, we need to be fair and give jobs to those blacks.`
Affirmative action (based on race) is probably still needed in some states.
It totally is. It's an arrogant, racially based gift.
If it were class based instead, the concept of Ivy-League colleges would become kind of fucked. It kind of deserves it though.
You are right, there are too little overprivileged, wealthy, white kids in the education system and this buffer for the left fortunate is fucking them over.
It totally is. It's an arrogant, racially based gift.
by definition, it is a racist system. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. It needs to be based on socio-economics. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. If you are awarding privileged, upper-class african americans with scholarships just because they are black, it is almost patronizing.
ghostyouare
07/03/08, 11:01 PM
by definition, it is a racist system. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. It needs to be based on socio-economics. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. If you are awarding privileged, upper-class african americans with scholarships just because they are black, it is almost patronizing.
The problem is that might be acceptable now but even as short as 10 years ago we needed this system. AA is in place to counter act racial prejuidice and many people seem to have forgotten that.
If it were class based instead, the concept of Ivy-League colleges would become kind of fucked. It kind of deserves it though.
I think affirmative action is only required of schools that are funded federally in some way. thus, a lot of ivy leagues wouldn't fall into this category. I may be wrong on that though.
ghostyouare
07/03/08, 11:03 PM
by definition, it is a racist system. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. It needs to be based on socio-economics. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. If you are awarding privileged, upper-class african americans with scholarships just because they are black, it is almost patronizing.
I understand but ti sounds like youd be content with him going to a state unless you both got lucky and accepted and full rides to an ivy.
The problem is that might be acceptable now but even as short as 10 years ago we needed this system. AA is in place to counter act racial prejuidice and many people seem to have forgotten that.
but the problem is this: when is the playing field level? it's so subjective. Who decides when there is no more prejudice? affirmative action was meant to be a temporary fix in hopes that the problem would subside. however, who is going to decide when that point comes?
and why would that not have been acceptable 10 years ago? poor, underprivileged minorities still get scholarships, as do poor, underprivileged white kids. it's win/win.
ghostyouare
07/03/08, 11:05 PM
I think affirmative action is only required of schools that are funded federally in some way. thus, a lot of ivy leagues wouldn't fall into this category. I may be wrong on that though.
Not really, Ivy-league schools pull in the most federal funding.
I understand but ti sounds like youd be content with him going to a state unless you both got lucky and accepted and full rides to an ivy.
i'm not sure i understand what you're saying. please explain. are you saying that i would be content with him going to a state school? If I went to the same state school that he got an affirmative action scholarship to, yet I only received merit-based aid, I would still have a problem with it. I think I've misunderstood though. Explain.
ghostyouare
07/03/08, 11:07 PM
but the problem is this: when is the playing field level? it's so subjective. Who decides when there is no more prejudice? affirmative action was meant to be a temporary fix in hopes that the problem would subside. however, who is going to decide when that point comes?
and why would that not have been acceptable 10 years ago? poor, underprivileged minorities still get scholarships, as do poor, underprivileged white kids. it's win/win.
I dont know when we will get to the point when its time for AA to dissipate but regardless of socio-economic situation skin color will most likely always transcend money.
Not really, Ivy-league schools pull in the most federal funding.
ok. I wasn't sure. So it applies to them too.
I dont know when we will get to the point when its time for AA to dissipate but regardless of socio-economic situation skin color will most likely always transcend money.
but, in my opinion, that is not right. however, you already know this.
ghostyouare
07/03/08, 11:11 PM
but, in my opinion, that is not right. however, you already know this.
I mean for the most part, I think you are rght but im not positive and i dont really trust companys to regulate themselves.
ok think about this. Barack Obama becomes president. He serves two terms and is quite successful. His kids graduate high school, and are eligible for an affirmative action scholarship. Their dad was the president of the united states, they have more money than god, yet they get a scholarship. at the same time, little estus, who is white, is born to a dirt poor family. he graduates from an inner city, poorly-funded high school and receives nothing. this just doesn't seem right to me.
I mean for the most part, I think you are rght but im not positive and i dont really trust companys to regulate themselves.
I think the government could implement something similar to affirmative action...but based on socio-economic class.
I think the government could implement something similar to affirmative action...but based on socio-economic class.
Maybe for one generation. Look at what happened with minimum wage ... constantly goes up into the 90s ... then it just stops.
I am not educated on the matter, but I do not see how basing AA on socio-economics hurts anyone.
Maybe for one generation. Look at what happened with minimum wage ... constantly goes up into the 90s ... then it just stops.
what do you mean? are you suggesting they would keep moving the requirements up...or down? i'm not sure i see the analogy.
what do you mean? are you suggesting they would keep moving the requirements up...or down? i'm not sure i see the analogy.
Socio-Economics numbers are going to move every probably 10-15 years due to inflation, and the government will likely not account for this change due to the wrong party in office (I have no idea who that would even benefit not to do) or change it for the worse. The government would just be bad at it, as it is something that requires constant adjustment. (I'm no economist, those years are random)
Socio-Economics numbers are going to move every probably 10-15 years due to inflation, and the government will likely not account for this change due to the wrong party in office (I have no idea who that would even benefit not to do) or change it for the worse. The government would just be bad at it, as it is something that requires constant adjustment. (I'm no economist, those years are random)
Ok, I understand. But there is always a "poverty line." I'm not sure what it is, but it can't be static. Couldn't it be relative to that figure?
Ok, I understand. But there is always a "poverty line." I'm not sure what it is, but it can't be static. Couldn't it be relative to that figure?
Sure, but the poverty line last I checked was less than it was actually possible to live independently on. I think it is around 10,000/year. Maybe less.
Here is the table :
Persons in Family Unit 48 Contiguous States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii 1 $10,400
Edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States (Table sucked)
10,400 is the amount the federal government believes you need to live on for an entire year, in 2006. It would be *extremely* difficult to live on this.
alchemistandi
07/03/08, 11:28 PM
before we move affirmative action to a class-based system, lets um...do our best at fixing up the education system first. you know, centralize it...like most industrialized countries.
By comparison, working at a Burger King I currently would make 13,920 a year if I worked all year full time. (I don't even work fulltime).
Sure, but the poverty line last I checked was less than it was actually possible to live independently on. I think it is around 10,000/year. Maybe less.
Here is the table :
Persons in Family Unit 48 Contiguous States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii 1 $10,400
Edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States (Table sucked)
10,400 is the amount the federal government believes you need to live on for an entire year, in 2006. It would be *extremely* difficult to live on this.
Oh, I'm not saying that the poverty line be the limit, just a reference point. that is, everyone below the poverty line, and the next 30% of families or something like that. of course, those are just arbitrary figures.
before we move affirmative action to a class-based system, lets um...do our best at fixing up the education system first. you know, centralize it...like most industrialized countries.
well, i don't think that one necessarily has to come before the other, but both are certainly necessary. i don't see how a socio-economically based affirmative action system could interfere with improving schools.
saysmydoctor
07/03/08, 11:34 PM
before we move affirmative action to a class-based system, lets um...do our best at fixing up the education system first. you know, centralize it...like most industrialized countries.
:appl:
alchemistandi
07/03/08, 11:44 PM
well, i don't think that one necessarily has to come before the other, but both are certainly necessary. i don't see how a socio-economically based affirmative action system could interfere with improving schools.
it doesn't. and i agree, both are necessary. (not that i forsee either getting done in the near future, obviously and unfortunately...)
however, the bigger issue for me personally is having the playing field level for all children at the very START of their education.
time for bed. but we can all agree...education=good. ok bye.
alchemistandi
07/03/08, 11:48 PM
ditto on education being good. haha.
now if we could just get that whole (yes, and i will use the dreaded word) SOCIALIZED medicine thing rolling (at the very LEAST for children).
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.