Show of Hands

"Ugh, the right, choosing merit and character over skin color. How racist and bigoted. MLK would be ashamed."

This is an example of the right wing selectively ignoring the majority of MLK's belief system and choosing tidbits that reinforce their beliefs, in order to pass themselves off as anti-racists and defenders of civil rights. Meanwhile they defend cops murdering black people in the streets.

We don’t defend cops murdering black people. What we say is that it doesn’t happen disproportionately to black people. It’s a problem for everyone, but the left spins that somehow black people are exclusively targeted.

DoctorWasdarb, would you mind telling me which values MLK held that are not upheld by the statement in question?

The man was assassinated at a strike for African sanitation workers. He was deeply involved in the labor movement. The right today would correctly denounce him as a communist sympathizer.

I never said anything about him being a communist or not. I don't believe he was. I'm referring to the statement made in the poll. What is inherently wrong with valuing merit and character over skin color?

Theoretically, nothing, except when white conservatives take the idea and accuse black people of not supporting this idea. It's ridiculous, and racist.

MLK refused to condemn riots, he callsd them "the language of the unheard". And theres plenty of political cartoons of the era saying his nonviolent protests still were too much. And given how much people like glux flip out over some players kneeling, you're absolutely right.

Why are you two so afraid to tag me in your circle jerk of false accusations? Here's a tip: grow some balls. ; )

This user is currently being ignored

Ahh, how adorable. Schoolyard insults are still your only argument. 😂

Notice he doesn't deny the accusations that he'd be opposed to MLK if he were alive in the 50s.

That's so true, the way they view BLM and criticize it so much is a pretty good indication that is how they would MLK as well if they were in those times.

"MLK and those thugs are rabblerousers who deserve to be in jail"
- glux, probably

If so, that sets you apart from most of today's political left, the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, academia, BLM, corporate America, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the D.C. establishment, SJWs, etc.

That's a compliment by the way.

Thanks, I guess. 😅

You're welcome, sir. 😉😆

Lol you called corporations leftist 😂

Exactly.

I wish that was true, but it isn't. You yourself often seem to be guilty of this.

What world do you live in?

Nope.

MachoMatt, I live on earth.

Raging, you spelled "yes" wrong.

Glux, good job "trying" to lump everyone on the left into your sick world. Statements and beliefs like yours is what keeps this country divided. Like Michael Jackson said "start with the man in the mirror" if you want change...

Glux, no company on earth is hiring high school dropouts over college grads or other highly qualified candidates because of race.

My comment was meant for RagingMystic

But they might higher a college graduate with far less qualifications because of their ethnicity. That's the problem.

I’ve personally seen this happen several times when my BIL was passed over for promotion even though he scored higher on the test. His boss apologized to him and said he had to hire the token black man due to the law. I know that Cosby is persona non grata now, but he often railed against this mentality, saying that in the long run it demeaned the black person who is promoted not based on his qualifications, but the color of his skin. In essence, it says, “Black people are too stupid to earn their promotions, so we’ll give them their promotions because they’re black and it’s the law.”

Don’t get me wrong—I’M not saying that black people are stupid. I’m saying that many black people feel these laws make them feel that way!

....

^^^ Exactly this.

Nobody is hiring someone with far less qualifications because of race. Period.

That is simply demonstrably false.

If they are, it's against the law. Just like hiring a white person over another race simply because of race.

Raging, can you not read? I just told you that my BIL was passed over TWICE for promotions because of this! His boss showed him their test scorers and apologized.

Do you think they’re just breaking affirmative action laws and hiring the white dude instead of the black one? It’s NOT gonna happen, because then the ACLU sues their pants off!

....

DJ, it’s against affirmative action laws to hire a white person if they don’t have enough percentage of black people on staff, no matter how much better qualified the white person is.

The same goes for men, if they need to meet a quota of women. The white man is the MOST disadvantaged in today’s workforce, while the black woman has the most advantages due to being both a woman and black.

.....

Anecdotal evidence at best, 4jc

No, it's also against the law to hire a black person over a white person simply because of race...

Quotas have been ruled illigal...

I’m beginning to wonder, though, since y’all are so adamant that this isn’t happening—is this just one more thing where people in the south have to live by laws that those in other states don’t have? Are there not affirmative action laws in northern and western states?

For example, I just recently found out that there are schools in the north that are not integrated, but are segregated, which is NOT allowed in the south. Our school zones are CONSTANTLY being changed to make sure there isn’t a higher percentage of whites in one school than another school within the same school system. I was shocked to learn that there are all white schools in the north. That would NEVER be allowed here!

...

www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/in-southern-towns-segregation-academies-are-still-going-strong/266207/

I never said it isn't happening. I'm saying it's against the law.

Raging, I wasn’t talking about private schools. I was talking about public schools and apparently it’s fine and dandy for public school systems in the north to have all white schools, whereas we in AL have to be constantly rezoning. I know about this because I’ve been a school bus driver in several school systems in AL and have had my students rezoned to other schools, constantly shifting them around, to the students’ detriment, just so they can keep the student ratios even. It’s kind of ridiculous.

...

Law regarding quotas and affirmative action varies widely from nation to nation. Caste-based quotas are used in India for reservation. However, they are illegal in the United States, where no employer, university, or other entity may create a set number required for each race.

I just found this, DJ:

As of March 2015, 109 out of 577 public four-year universities across the country reported that they considered race in admissions. This practice has been banned in eight states. Meanwhile, 28 states require affirmative action plans in either public employment or apprenticeships.


.....

In the north and south in a lot of areas there arent enough minority students to warrant worrying about it.

Yes, considered, but not as the only reason. And not based on quotas. And that isn't about "hiring" someone as a "token" black employee.....

Federal law absolutely dictates that minorities be hired based on nothing other than minority status. Look up the “80% rule”. Fall below an 80% ratio, for virtually any reason, and you’re done. They don’t even have to prove that you discriminated on purpose.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

Raging, it looks to me if they’re in a smaller number, they should be considered even more!

In AL, we have an average of over 30% black students in all our schools, and some schools are as high as 65-70% black.

My kids were in a school system in Baton Rouge where they were the only white people in their classes.

I don’t know what you mean, DJ. If affirmative action is required in public employment, that’s exactly what it means—that they have qutoas they have to go by in hiring.

...

Sorry about the typo on quotas. Typing too fast! Lol

lfb, nothing in that post states that it is a federal law that companies "must" hire a certain number of minorities simply to make quota. I already posted the info based on affirmative action that specifically says quotas are ILLIGAL.....

Actually, it does say that. It even provides the mathematical formula to prove that you have enough (the 80% rule). It’s not a quota (I️ suppose) because it’s a formula with movable numbers. But it’s a quota in everything but name.

Sorry, again, show me were it says companies "must" hire based on a quota or a percentage. It says a company must prove why they hired a large number of one race or group over another. Nowhere does it say companies "must" hire a certain percenrage. Tell, me what is your argument against my posting that quotas are ILLIGAL? No misunderstanding in that statement...

Here, let’s do a word problem. 1000 people apply for a job. 600 are white, 500 are hired. 400 are minority. How many minorities must be hired to avoid violating Federal law?

Again, there is an answer to this (the formula is in the post). It’s not opinion, the courts actually provided a formula.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Is this it? Im confused?

I️ posted the link on disparate impact. Click on it, then scroll down to the 80% section.

Nevermind, hard headedness can't be cured I guess. But, i still don't know why you would rely on something so ambiguous, while there is something so plain as "quotas are illigal" right in front of them.....have a good evening.

Oh, I did check it out. Try looking up affirmative action and you will find my clearer rule on quotas....

Since math is fun, here’s the answer:
The company hired 500/600 white applicants. That’s 83.3%. They must hire 67% (rounded up) of the 400 minority applicants (80% of the ratio used to hired white applicants). That’s 268 that MUST be hired from the minority pool to avoid breaking Federal law.

You are correct that the Feds don’t consider this formula to be a quota. Who cares? It does show that the Feds mandate hiring based on race alone from a given pool of applicants. Don’t let me catch you spouting the nonsense that the Feds don’t mandate hiring based on race, because they do, and I’ll call you out every single time.

If you read it, you'll see it is part of a consideration on a potential violation, not in of itself.

According to Business and Legal Resources, 28 states have passed their own laws requiring the development of affirmative action plans by state employers or apprenticeship programs.

Affirmative action plans are management tools that outline efforts made to increase the proportions of minorities at a company or institution. Such plans typically contain the following:

* numerical analysis of the percentage of minorities employed versus the percentage in the labor pool,
* identification of areas where there is "underutilization" of minorities, or a discrepancy between the above percentages, and
* "specific practical steps" the employer will take to correct this discrepancy.

MORE

....

2) Federal contractors & agencies in AL that receive funding from the US govt are subject to federal law that requires them to adopt affirmative action plans.

Additionally, the following federal laws may apply to any company that meets certain conditions:

* Employers with at least 4 employees must adhere to the Immigration Reform & Control Act.

* Employers with at least 15 employees must adhere to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

* Employers with at least 20 employees must adhere to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

* Employers with any number of employees must adhere to the Equal Pay Act.

MORE

...

3) All nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws in Alabama, including the state law, are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. There is no state agency dedicated to enforcing the state nondiscrimination law.

ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action_in_Alabama


—-

Raging: Technically you are correct, however, in practice it’s virtually impossible to win the case if you’ve been shown to be in violation of the 80% disparate impact rule.

Not true. The demographics of the applicants and population matter.

And 4JC, fundamentally it ends up in the courts.

Demographics of the applicants matter, which is why I️ included it in my word problem.

Sure, it ends up in the courts if it’s a black person being discriminated against, or even if they’re not hired, even though the white man has more experience or higher qualifications, because he has the ACLU behind him. But the white man that is passed over has no recourse. He just has to deal with his fate, and try to fight the prejudice that these kinds of laws cause to well up in him.


.....

4jc, absolutely not true. Your BIL (which I'm assuming stands for brother in law) should have sued. Especially if his employer specifically stated it was because of race.

work.chron.com/promotion-discrimination-workplace-7412.html

I don’t think it would have worked back then, DJ. This was back in the early 80’s, in a majority black town outside B’ham, AL.

And people that don’t have a lot of money generally can’t sue others either, especially if you’re going up against the ACLU, who has millions of dollars and plenty of donors waiting in the wings to make sure they win all cases. He was a firefighter, so didn’t make much money and couldn’t even have afforded an attorney.

....

Plus, if he had sued, I’m sure they would’ve fired him. It’s called being between a rock and a hard place, with no recourse.

Maybe, maybe not, but that is sort of why women didn't/don't come forward after being harassed or assaulted. People need to speak up whenever possible to bring light on an injustice. That was after the civil rights act which gives EVERYONE equality on the job....

@DJ
1. I'm well aware of who I am and I have no desire to change.
2. I don't live in a sick world. Only the real world.
3. Your odd and random insertion of a Michael Jackson song into the conversation does nothing to back up your argument.
4. Your defensiveness and avoidance of the question speaks volumes.

@RagingMystic
Virtually everything you have said in this thread is not grounded in reality. Get your facts straight and then get back to us.

"not based in fact"? please point me to a single court case where the only response was "well you didn't hire 20% minorities and nothing else, so I guess discrimination"

That's not what we're discussing here.

Why do you think that job applicants or school applicants should be evaluated based on skin color instead of on merit?

I never said that. Nobody has ever said that. You keep using that Straw man every. Single. Time. And I'm getting kinda tired of it.

Do you or do you not support affirmative action?

And there's no straw men here. Just facts. Nice dodge attempt though. Answer the question (hint: they're both the same question).

Sort of. Its complicated, which you seem to either honestly not notice or are intentionally ignoring.

Yes or no? This should be easy.

No glux, there isnt a black and white answer. By your logic, why do you support killing all minorities?

You say immigrants are invaders, so obviously you want to kill them all right?

I don't support killing minorities. Now, let's try answering this simple question again. Do you support affirmative action, which in practice, evaluates applicants based on their race rather than on merit alone? Yes or no? It's really that simple.

you said they are invaders, and invaders get killed. So you support killing minorities.
No Straw men here, just facts!

I didn't say immigrants are invaders. I said immigrants who don't assimilate are invaders. I don't want them dead. I just want them deported, or better yet, not to come here at all. Now, stop dodging and answer the question. Why is staying on topic so difficult for you? Did you catch a glimpse of a passing butterfly and lose track of what was asked or something?

It doesn't evaluate on race alone. If 2 applicants are equal on merit, then it can be a factor. Just like accepting or hiring a white person over a black with even merits...

Raging, I know this is very difficult for you to do while you're throwing one of your infamous tantrums, but I need you to try your best to focus here. Do you support affirmative action? Yes or no? Answer the simple question.

DJ, race should not be a factor AT ALL. That's the point.

Ok glux if 2 applicants are identical in merit, one white and one black, who do you choose and why.

Also DJ, although we disagree, I would like to thank you for making a coherent and logical argument. I appreciate your sincerity and even-headedness.

you said immigrants who dont assimilate, and then you said all modern immigrants dont assimilate. Doesnt it suck when someone uses your own broken logic on you?

Thanks, glux, now your answer?

Have fun DJ, before long you'll learn that something as complex as "sometimes people consider multiple things" is too big for glux here to understand

That depends, DJ. How did they dress for the interview and how did they conduct themselves during it? How flexible is each one when it comes to the work schedule? What is their educational background? What is their work history? Who has more experience in the field? Do they work well with others? No two interviewees in the real world have the same merits.

It took me two days and change to get glux to understand how to calculate a percent of a percent. I had to draw him several charts in text.

Yes, they are identical. Now your answer?

Raging, I never said that ALL modern immigrants don't assimilate. Stop being dishonest and answer the question that I posed to you earlier. Follow DJ's example and actually contribute to the conversation.

Why dont you answer his question

DJ, again, no two interviewees are alike. But in the event that your unlikely scenario occurred, I would keep looking for other job applicants with even more merit. I will always refuse to make a decision based solely off of race. It should never come down to that. My answer is that I would hire neither of them because boiling a decision on hiring someone solely down to their skin color is both immoral and unethical.

Raging, answer the question I asked you earlier or just leave the thread. Stop embarrassing yourself with your childlike dodges. The adults are talking.

Wow, so you risk hiring someone with less merit. Doesn't that go totally against your argument? Maybe now you realize everything isn't always black and white. Good night....

No, I said I would keep looking for someone with more merit. There are more than just two applicants out there. Have a nice evening.

DJ, Glux said he would look for someone with MORE merit, not less!

Exactly, 4JC!

But if he don't find someone with more merit, then he has passed over 2 people with the most merit simply because of race. Don't tell me you don't see the irony in that.....

I don't give up as easily as you do. There is always someone with more merit out there.

DJ, to say that affirmative action only comes into play when applicants are equal is ridiculously naive. Affirmative action results, in practice, with people being chosen despite wide measurable differences in merit.

Nice avoidance. Hope your company doesn't fold simply because you refused to hire someone with merit due to race.... again good night...

It's not avoidance. It's my honest answer. As I said before, I find hiring someone on the basis of their race to be immoral and unethical. Explain why you think otherwise.

Again, I agree with lfb. Affirmative action results in hiring someone that is black or some other minority JUST because they are a minority, which is as Glux says, immoral.

Let me ask you this, DJ. How would you like it if we said that there was a law that says that a WHITE person has to be hired first and that there is a legal/activist group with MILLIONS of dollars that will defend that white person if they are NOT hired over the black or Latino person, even if the black or Latino person is better qualified? Would you be ok with that scenario?


.....

Lfb and 4jc, I never said that companies don't hire based on race alone or that it would be ok for there be a law that says that a white person should be hired over a black person simply due to race. I am only saying that to do so, especially for quotas, is illigal. Like I told you 4jc, your brother in law should have sued.

Glux, your answer was an avoidance and hypicritical based on how you was demanding that mystic answer your question in a simple yes or no way even though he said it's not that simple, but when I asked you for a simple this or that answer, you realized that the answer wasn't that simple and refused to answer it. Also, is it more immoral to hire someone because of race than to "not" hire qualified people because of race. That is what your answer does. You basically refused to hire someone because of race. As a business owner you always have to make tough decisions. Doesn't matter which one you hire, the other one will claim that they didn't get the job because of race, so you might as well make a decision...good day....

My answer was not avoidance. My answer was no, I would not hire either of them because I don't believe in judging job applicants on the basis of their skin color. The fact that you are willing to hire someone using race as a merit proves that you yourself are a racist. You will need to own that instead of trying to project it onto others. Good day.

Look I don't expect you to agree with me. We always see things only from our point of view. If we could see things from someone else's perspective this country would be a lot better off. I understand that your decision on such a tough subject isn't as simple as "black or white". I just wish you could also understand that others like mystic also don't see this issue as a "yes or no" situation. Try to see things from another angle than your own. But, you say you would not base your hiring on race. I am just pointing out that your answer of not hiring either qualified candidate was based on race.....with this statement I am through with this discussion.....again have a good day....

My answer was that I refuse to hire either candidate because I refuse to make a decision about an applicant's worth based on their race. I don't take skin color into account when valuing merit. Don't twist my stance to justify your racist viewpoint of supporting race-based hiring.

Have a lovely day.

DJ, you keep missing the links I’ve posted that say that it is NOT against the law in at least 28 states, and that 28 states have affirmative action laws on the books that you CANNOT fight, even if you did have millions of dollars like the ACLU has! You will NEVER win against them!

That’s why they also pick and choose small towns to go after about religious liberty—because they know those small towns won’t stand a chance against them! The ACLU is a group of BULLIES!

...

No, 4jc, you keep missing were I posted that quotas in the United States is illigal. Even in one of the links you posted, it clearly states that quotas have been banned in the United States. Again if states or companies are hiring unqualified applicants based on racial quotas they are breaking the law. Instead of arguing that point with me why don't you help expose those companies for breaking the law...

It said quotas are illegal for BUSINESSES, but not public service workers, if I remember correctly. That would include the firefighters like my BIL.

And it said that 28 states have passed Affirmative Action laws. I don’t think they could pass illegal laws!

...

I agree. It's rather disturbing how fast the concept of "diversity" became a cult.

Another LeftLib Oxymoron, with special emphasis on the “moron” part🤣