Jedi Council Forums - Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
Princess_Tina Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 4/17 9:00am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
	king_alvarez posted: Princess_Tina posted: How can you avoid looking at the way that race has defined very real boundaries during practically all of America's history? Yes, race is many times linked to very real boundaries, but is prejudice and discrimination always the real reason for that? For example, IIRC, Tiger Woods is the only black person currently on the PGA Tour. Is that because the PGA discriminates against black people, or because of other factors, such as less black people playing golf as children? A lot of times, unequal representation by minorities is less the result of discrimination as it is of circumstances and environments of familes and children. Why are you bringing "prejudice and discrimination" into this? I mean, if you're responding specifically to a post of mine, where I haven't even said anything about "prejudice and discrimination", then why would you assume that is what I am talking about?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
king_alvarez Registered: May '07	Date Posted: 4/17 9:11am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything. - Date Edited: 4/17 9:16am (2 edits total) Edited By: king_alvarez
	Princess_Tina posted: Why are you bringing "prejudice and discrimination" into this? I mean, if you're responding specifically to a post of mine, where I haven't even said anything about "prejudice and discrimination", then why would you assume that is what I am talking about? Then I incorrectly assumed that this was referring to prejudice and descrimination: Nonetheless, the fact remains that people in America have frequently been discriminated against at different points in history because of religion, race, or sexual orientation. I see no "whining"in simple recognizing this as a fact. And when you say, "I think it would be best to work towards equality across the board, not only when it comes to our presidents" is this equality that you seek something other than overcoming prejudicial boundaries? -----signature----- Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?" Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Princess_Tina Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 4/17 9:20am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
	king_alvarez, Your original response quoted a different part of what I had said - one that referred specifically to historical boundaries, regardless of any real or perceived prejudice and discrimination. Now you're quoting something else entirely. Please make up your mind. And equality can be interpreted in different ways, I suppose, but in that particular post of mine, I wasn't referring to prejudicial boundaries as much as just equal opportunities. Just because there is a lack of equal opportunity in a given scenario, it doesn't necessarily mean it is because of "prejudicial boundaries".
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
king_alvarez Registered: May '07	Date Posted: 4/17 9:28am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
	Princess_Tina posted: Your original response quoted a different part of what I had said....Now you're quoting something else entirely. Please make up your mind. I quoted those two lines to demonstrate why I was of the opinion that your overall concern was that of prejudice and discrimination. Now that you have clarified, I have edited my earlier post. Princess_Tina posted: And equality can be interpreted in different ways, I suppose, but in that particular post of mine, I wasn't referring to prejudicial boundaries as much as just equal opportunities. Just because there is a lack of equal opportunity in a given scenario, it doesn't necessarily mean it is because of "prejudicial boundaries". So how do you suggest we work towards equal opportunities for boundaries that are not imposed by prejudice? -----signature----- Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?" Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Princess_Tina Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 4/17 9:39am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything. - Date Edited: 4/17 9:39am (1 edits total) Edited By: Princess_Tina
	king_alvarez posted: Princess_Tina posted: Your original response quoted a different part of what I had said....Now you're quoting something else entirely. Please make up your mind. I quoted those two lines to demonstrate why I was of the opinion that your overall concern was that of prejudice and discrimination. Now that you have clarified, I have edited my earlier post. Well, it sounds to me like you're jumping to conclusions based on a very superficial reading of what I wrote. I think if the overall concern is equality, then you have to look at many factors. Might prejudice and discrimination be some of them? In some cases, yes. But so are ageism and sexism, in other cases. Bringing up Tiger Woods seems to me such an absurd example that it borders on trivializing important issues.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
king_alvarez Registered: May '07	Date Posted: 4/17 10:07am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything. - Date Edited: 4/17 10:22am (4 edits total) Edited By: king_alvarez
	Princess_Tina posted: Well, it sounds to me like you're jumping to conclusions based on a very superficial reading of what I wrote. I thought my response and edit was gracious. I hope you're not expecting more from me in that regard. With that said, I am not looking to argue about what you may or may not have meant to imply. Princess_Tina posted: I think if the overall concern is equality, then you have to look at many factors. Might prejudice and discrimination be some of them? In some cases, yes. But so are ageism and sexism, in other cases. Those are all examples of different types of prejudice and discrimination. Princess_Tina posted: Bringing up Tiger Woods seems to me such an absurd example that it borders on trivializing important issues. The TW point is that unequal representation isn't something that always needs to be "fixed." To a reasonable extent, I'm all for equal opportunities, but that does not always, and seldom does, equate to equal representation. And even then, equal opportunities isn't always a practical or desirable goal. edit spelling -----signature----- Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?" Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Princess_Tina Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 4/17 10:34am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
	king_alvarez posted: Princess_Tina posted: Well, it sounds to me like you're jumping to conclusions based on a very superficial reading of what I wrote. I thought my response and edit was gracious. I hope you're not expecting more from me in that regard. With that said, I am not looking to argue about what you may or may not have meant to imply. You took out the part where you quoted me yet your conclusion remained the same. And it seems to me to be a conclusion based on the most superficial reading of what I wrote. I don't know that I expect something from you, as much as simply felt it necessary to point it out. king_alvarez posted: Those are all examples of different types of prejudice and discrimination. You're still missing the point. Lack of equality does not always necessarily imply there is prejudice and discrimination actively going on. king_alvarez posted: The TW point is that unequal representation isn't something that always needs to be "fixed." To a reasonable extent, I'm all for equal opportunities, but that does not always, and seldom does, equate to equal representation. And even then, equal opportunities isn't always a practical or desirable goal. Geez. When have I ever said that we should strive for equal representation? Again, you appear to me to be reading something into what I wrote that simply wasn't there.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
king_alvarez Registered: May '07	Date Posted: 4/17 10:46am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything. - Date Edited: 4/17 11:01am (2 edits total) Edited By: king_alvarez
	Princess_Tina posted: You took out the part where you quoted me yet your conclusion remained the same. I took out the quote so that the rest of my post would merely be a general comment regarding -isms instead of being a response to something you specifically said. Princess_Tina posted: You're still missing the point. Lack of equality does not always necessarily imply there is prejudice and discrimination actively going on. No, I agree about that as my posts surely indicate. Incidentally, you have not mentioned one type of factor that is not some type of prejudice. Personally, though, I'm not nearly as concerned about inequality due to non-prejudicial factors. Princess_Tina posted: Geez. When have I ever said that we should strive for equal representation? Again, you appear to me to be reading something into what I wrote that simply wasn't there. You seemed to suggest several times that unequal representation is a result of unequal opportunities. If you do not feel that is the case, then here's your opportunity to clarify yourself, and I'll make sure to note your feelings on the matter. Edit: For example, your comments regarding the presidents seems to imply that your concern is more about equal representation than equal opportunity. Edit: Perhaps a better example to illustrate what I'm getting at is this quote: "OK, first of all, women still face a glass ceiling in a lot of fields. Please tell me how many American CEOs today are white men, and how many are women and/or minorities. " The amount of representation by minorities is not proof of unequal opportunities. In other words, even if opportunities become equal, there may still be many more CEOs that are white men than any other group. -----signature----- Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?" Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Souderwan Registered: Jun '05	Date Posted: 4/17 10:56am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
	I may regret getting into this, but I'll do it anyway. There's a difference between equality and equal opportunity. For the purpose of the rest of this post, I'll focus on the Black community, but the same principles apply to any other minority group to greater or lesser degrees. Blacks have historically not had equal opportunity in the US. For the majority of that period, that lack of equal opportunity was institutional and cultural. It was built into the very fabric of our society and reinforced by centuries of subjugation and oppression. Even after the end of slavery, the institutional subjugation of blacks did not begin to end until about 2 generations ago (assuming 25 yrs per generation). Over the last 50 yrs or so, almost all of those institutional structures designed to prevent equality of opportunity were broken down through the legal process, as they should be. That lack of equality of opportunity resulted in a disparity between blacks and whites in terms of average wealth, education, quality of life, etc. Blacks started out in the 1960's, on average, where white males started out when they first immigrated to the US from around the world. Had Blacks had historical equal opportunity, there is no reason to believe that they would not have comparable wealth, education, quality of life, etc to white males. So what to do? Blacks are not equal to whites in those measures, on average, in this country. We have equality of opportunity, but we're not equal. Is it the role of the government to fix that? That's the fundamental question for some people. If you think that it is the role of the government to fix that, then active programs such as Affirmative Action (which, as written, btw, is NOT a program requiring quotas or anything like them) would only be one step among many to correct the imbalance. If you don't agree that this is the role of the government, then you're likely to have faith that blacks will persevere in time and those gaps will close on their own. But we still have those cultural boundaries to equality of opportunity. Well-meaning Conservatives claim that the boundaries are meaningless--that Blacks should "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and stop whining about the injustices they are subjected to. They ignore evidence of racial profiling, for example, claiming that targeted police action is simply efficient and that good Black citizens have nothing to worry about (never mind the tortured, circular logic of saying that the majority of prisoners are black-->the majority of criminals must be black-->focus police efforts on Blacks-->you'll find more Blacks to arrest-->more prisoners are black). They ignore or brush under the rug any complaints Blacks bring up about racial insentivity, apparent targeting of blacks by some businesses for exploitation, etc, saying the factors are more socioeconomic than racial (never mind why there's a direct correlation between skin color and socioeconomic status, on average). Well-meaning Liberals who claim to care about Blacks advocate programs that create low-cost housing projects which are essentially prisons in which to corral Blacks. They condescend to Blacks about how disadvantaged they are and how they need the government to support them. Schools decay in these neighborhoods, supported by an establishment more focused on maintaining the status quo of more money into a bad system than actually trying to correct the problems. They scream out at the slightest hint of politcally-incorrect commentary, while ignoring deep and pervasive cultural and socioeconomic failures in the Black community, creating a din of racial sensitivity that does more to turn whites off than engage them intellectually. They avoid ever actually discussing real race issues. Instead, they look for more ways that the government can slap a bandaid on the problems they see--bandaids that usually make matters worse, rather than better and are often racially offensive in and of themselves to both Whites AND Blacks. Reverse-racism is a silly notion. This thread is evidence, imo, of a growing sentiment among White males who have spent the last 5 decades caught between the competiting Conservative and Liberal world-view of race relations, all while Blacks are being crushed beneath them. What's worse, the Black community is not holding itself accountable for addressing these issues. Instead of holding both Parties accountable for their skewed and unrealistic views, we gravitate towards the nicer-sounding, but no more practical Democratic Party, which only serves to convince them that their approach is a good one. We enable their racist behaviors and we tolerate their condescension. Then we bash on the other guys. In the end, we have black kids graduating a lower and lower rates in many communities; black men are 9 times more likely to end up in jail than a white man; despite all efforts to the contrary, black men are losing ground in college graduation rates; and so on. There is good news in that black-owed businesses are on the rise and the like, but as long as it's about Democrats and Republicans, race issues will never really be addressed properly in this country and we'll get more and more cries of "reverse racism" from more and more white men. -----signature----- "When we hurt each other we should write it down in the sand, so the winds of forgiveness can make it go away for good. When we help each other we should chisel it in stone, lest we never forget the love of a friend." ~Godefroy
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Princess_Tina Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 4/17 10:59am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything. - Date Edited: 4/17 11:22am (1 edits total) Edited By: Princess_Tina
	king_alvarez posted: You seemed to suggest several times that unequal representation is a result of unequal opportunities. If you do not feel that is the case, then here's your opportunity to clarify yourself, and I'll make sure to note your feelings on the matter. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that equal representation is or should be the desired goal for those who believe in equality. That seems to me simply the most absurd conclusion anyone could ever come to -- honestly, I can't even think of anyone (not referring to this thread, but in society at large) that argues for perfectly equal representation in all areas of life. It goes beyond absurd.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JMJacenSolo Registered: May '06	Date Posted: 4/17 11:24am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
	Thunderstruck posted: Can someone please explain this to me? Someone had the genius idea to reverse everything. Black people now have their own history month, women have more rights than ever and the same with any other issue. The thing i'm trying to figure out is who thinks this is fair in any way, shape or form? Sure, white people enslaved Black people, but White people (and all others) have suffered a great deal as well. Why should one particular race get their own month of recognition? There is a "white history month". It's called January. And February. And March and April, too, and so on. There is a White Entertainment Television network too. It's called ABC, CBS, NBC. You get the idea. Making anything is explicitly "white" is pretty much redundant. Things like BET aren't geared to African-Americans so much as a race as they are to African-Americans as a culture, catering to their unique interests, just like ESPN is geared towards the sports fan culture, and caters to them. -----signature----- Fire Andy Reid
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 4/17 11:26am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
	Princess_Tina posted: king_alvarez posted: You seemed to suggest several times that unequal representation is a result of unequal opportunities. If you do not feel that is the case, then here's your opportunity to clarify yourself, and I'll make sure to note your feelings on the matter. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that equal representation is or should be the desired goal for those who believe in equality. That seems to me simply the most absurd conclusion anyone could ever come to -- honestly, I can't even think of anyone (not referring to this thread, but in society at large) that argues for equal representation in all areas of life. It goes beyond absurd. Well, that's not what you imply when you post things like: Princess_Tina posted: OK, first of all, women still face a glass ceiling in a lot of fields. Please tell me how many American CEOs today are white men, and how many are women and/or minorities. Next, tell me how many presidents and vice-presidents of the United States have not been white men. And also, how many state governors are not white. or this: Princess_Tina posted: I asked how many presidents there have been. Not candidates for president. or this: Princess_Tina posted: The most recent information I could find is included in this NYT article. As of 2005, only 1.6% of of Fortune CEOs were women. If you look at all top corporate officers, the figure is still only 16%. or this: Princess_Tina posted: If this is so, that would make 1 vice-president to how many white presidents/vice-presidents? Each of those posts focuses on the outcome, not the process incolved in generating that outcome. The second quote especially reinforces that, because you are looking at how many women have been elected, as opposed to how many have had the opportunity. If you don't want to imply that you are in favor of equal representation, then don't focus on the outcomes so much. You can get an unbalanced outcome from a balanced process because you give it unbalanced inputs, or you can put balanced inputs into an unbalanced process and get the same unbalanced output. If you only focus on the output, you can't tell which of those it is (if not both). Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
king_alvarez Registered: May '07	Date Posted: 4/17 11:33am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
	Souderwan posted: I may regret getting into this, but I'll do it anyway. I hope you don't regret it. I hope to hear more of your thoughts on this matter. What I see is primarily a two-fold problem from reading your post, prejudicial and cultural factors. I think prejudicial factors are best combated through education, awareness, and constant and open discussion. I don't think the government should really interfere in this matter, except in cases of blatantly harmful discrimination, or to provide tools or opportunities that people can choose to take advantage of. The cultural factors are trickier. It seems to me that education is the biggest (or at least one of the biggest) obstacle to the success of minority groups. So how can education become more important to minorities? Or what is preventing them from attaining good education? I've read before that for many, the basic survival needs and immediate living conditions often times outweigh the more long-term benefits of education. If this is true, what can the government do to help change this that doesn't add to racial tensions already existing? -----signature----- Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?" Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Princess_Tina Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 4/17 11:33am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
	Kimball_Kinnison posted: Well, that's not what you imply when you post things like: Absolutely wrong. I did not imply any of those things that you suggest. You or others might have incorrectly inferred them. Kimball_Kinnison posted: If you don't want to imply that you are in favor of equal representation, then don't focus on the outcomes so much Not only have I never implied that, but I have just said very explicitly that I think it's patently absurd to expect perfectly equal representation in all areas of life.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Souderwan Registered: Jun '05	Date Posted: 4/17 11:43am Subject: RE: Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Sexism, Reverse-Anything.
	Is a failure in communication due to how it is received or how it is delievered? As a data point, I interpreted your posts in much the same way that the others did, Tina. -----signature----- "When we hurt each other we should write it down in the sand, so the winds of forgiveness can make it go away for good. When we help each other we should chisel it in stone, lest we never forget the love of a friend." ~Godefroy
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »