Whites OBJECTIVELY Have Less Rights than Minorities

Again, you just haven't understood the economics. Look up the theory of the second best for some background. Either way, you either sit on your hands and accept higher discrimination or...

 

In general I agree with your statement. But one thing you have to remember, Reiver is EU, not US. His concept of discrimination in economics is unduly influenced by a socialistic basis in the EU economy and policies anyway. There are reasons why policies in the EU do not work in the US.

 

Well hell why don’t we just ban white people from being CEO’s or having managerial jobs at all. Wouldn’t that go much further in addressing discrimination against blacks?

Let’s ban white people from holding positions where they make decisions on loans or grants. Wouldn’t that do much more to affect the change you’re looking for?

 

This is a red herring. Racial invariance holds. I'm also not interested in any argument based on the premise of some sort of black inferiority. It isn't credible. If you can't respond to my arguments then amend your behaviour accordingly...

 

You’re suggesting white inferiority and racism. That whites are only where they are because they discriminate against others. And as such that means they should be discriminated against to even the score and level the playing field.

 

This also is drivel. I'm referring to the evidence. Discrimination exists. You even managed to show that with your poorly chosen source. Reacting to that discrimination is therefore rational.

 

False. I'm already acquainted with the terminology, and I understand the economic influence you are attempting to portray. You are trying to justify the subjugation of an individual strictly based on the pigmentation of their skin, which is the very issue you are trying to eliminate. Instead of swaying the economics based on ability, which knows no skin pigmentation, Basing ANY activity on pigmentation is continuation of the primary issue in the first place.

 

BS just because some discrimination has occurred doesn’t mean that every white person engaged in it or benefited from it to get where they were. It sure as hell doesn’t mean some poor white bumpkin from Appalachia deserves to be discriminated against when he’s trying to get funds to keep his farm running.

 

I see no evidence of you understanding the concept. If you do understand it then your premise is essentially 'let's sit on our hands and accept discriminatory outcomes'. In contrast, I have referred to a purely evidence based approach.

 

I’m curious to any liberal out there:

Is discrimination based upon race constitutional or not?

 

Certainly Marxist discrimination theory accepts that both whites and blacks lose from discrimination. Through divide and conquer, it's just blacks lose out more. Perhaps you're a Marxist?

 

You should be appreciative this site has rules so I didn’t offer what I was going to

 

No I come from a long and prolific lineage of warriors, tacticians, innovators, generals, scientists and emperors, as does every other caucasoid.

And if what you want is equality of opportunity, I will stand with you and fight beside you. However, if what you want is equality of outcome with your boot on the neck of every white person paying for the actions of other white people while you actively protect every other race against any semblance of discrimination... we are going to have a problem.

 

Weird comment. Positive discrimination is all about shifting towards equality of opportunity. Now if you think blacks are somehow inferior then just say so. If, however, you agree with me that they aren't then you haven't really got a valid argument.

 

I fully understand it. Your premise is highly flawed.

Your assumption of 'sit on your hands' has no historical background, especially with me. The hiring process from advertising through actual employment in many instances, especially within this company IS DONE SIGHT UNSEEN. No visual, mostly no phone. It removes and weighted statistics and removes any discrimination either way. We have employees of every skin pigmentation, nationality, gender, sexual orientation. There is nothing restraining anybody from applying at any time. This is done intentionally.

On order to maintain the highly flawed 'positive discrimination' (a misnomer of astounding proportions) one would have to actively discriminate. It does not level the playing field. Besides insulting the parties you are claiming to help, and that is something the liberals in the US do also.

 

A lot more words which again just suggest that you don't understand. It's easy to dismiss positive discrimination. You have to show the first best is achievable. Good luck!

 

Different does not mean inferior. It does however guarantee that there can never be an equality of outcome

And you’re not advocating for equality of opportunity you’re advocating for equality of outcome. Because the only way for your conditions to be fulfilled are if the results are equal

 

I've already referred to the need for isolation of race effects through controlling for a multitude of variables. It is focused on equality of opportunity, by definition.

Wrong again. There isn't, for example, any support for equality in wage outcome. There is, however, support for the elimination of differentials reflecting discrimination.

 

Of course there is. You expect that given equal opportunity access to education and job markets, that blacks will perform on par with whites and Asians and everyone else. But that’s simply not an accurate reflection of human biology.

 

So you've been dancing around it, but you are arguing that they are inferior in terms of achieving labour market outcome. Sorry, but I'm not interested in such ridiculous comment. Try Stormfront. Goodbye.

 

That’s not what I said. I said we are biologically different. That’s science. I don’t really care if you like it or not. We have different skull and brain sizes. We have different musculoskeletal structure.

For instance. FAR more white kids have access to equipment and even better according to you folks that black people have and yet blacks are disproportionately represented in all of the major sports in this country.

Why is that?

 

only in that most white racists are on the right and most black racists are on the left - they are still a small percent of the left or right

 

I disagree. Most white racists are racist against their own people. As demonstrated in this thread.

 

Here, let me use google to get you a verbatim definition, because you apparently have no clue what it really is.

In an extended definition, it is discriminatory assistance provided to a member of a protected group to not only apply for, but assist in obtaining an employment position that a minority does not normally apply for nor obtain. So they may not be the best qualified, but for 'positive discrimination' to work, that can't matter. On a quick look, it's apparently not even legal in the UK.

So back to the discussion at hand. Remove the 'positive' from the statement. It's discrimination.

 

More words saying nothing. I didn't just refer to positive discrimination. I gave the economic context and how it therefore improves outcomes.

Also I didn't just criticise your opinion. I gave you the means to play 'sit on your hands'. It is noticable that you couldn't support the premise that the first best is achievable.

Also "may not be the best qualified" is a red herring. We know that blacks are not inferior. Thus, whilst in any specific case you could be correct, overall ability improves. It must do as discrimination, by definition, is inefficient.