Affirmative Action -- Fighting Racism with Racism

Affirmative action is a racist program, a pacifier for the masses, a feel-good that doesn’t appear to do much except further blur the lines of stratification in the job market. At least, so it appears to me. It’s an affront to all intelligent and hard-working folks, as the barriers it removes are not those of race; rather, they are those of ability.

In the case of an institution for higher education, the barriers of raw intellect are broken down in order to give those who are not quite as gifted a chance to theoretically compete with their intellectual betters. This too I find wrong. Rewarding the less competent and shoving aside the more able seems pretty silly to me.

Do you have a point you wish to debate, or is this merely a self-gratifying wankfest? Because your OP contain several strawmen and assumptions that come out of a conservative’s political masturbatory fantasy.

Besides, what do you suggest as an alternative? That the poor and disadvantaged simply wait for the benevolence of the rich and powerful to give them a few breaks if and when they feel sympathetic enough?

Yeeesh. One more broad rant thrown into Great Debates with no context and no thought.

On those occasions when Affirmative Action is reduced to simple quotas (and on any occasion when the standards of acceptance are lowered to let less-than-qualified applicants into a job purely on the basis of race), then the garbled mess that is the OP stands a chance of having some validity.

On those occasions when the standards of admission are not lowered and the only Affirmative Action is an effort to seek out qualified applicants of any under-represented minority group (that is not limited to race) who would not normally have the opportunity to be aware of the position (or location if the subject is housing), then the OP is just so much mindless hatred.

At least you put “racism” in the title. However, a more descriptive title would be “a racist rant against affirmative action.”

“theoretically compete”? “with their intellectual betters”!? “more able”!!?? JEESH!

I think the OP is talking about affirmative action for certain races, not affirmative action for the “poor and disadvantaged.”

Your idea of targetting it at the poor and disadvantaged, however, is much better than the reality.

I’ve simply posted my thoughts on affirmative action.

If one disagrees with those thoughts, we have a debate.

This is simple.

No. You posted your feelings on AA, unsupported by facts.

(You may be able to eventually provide actual facts in regards to college admissions, but your rant is still unsubstantiated at this point and is too broad to be taken seriously regarding jobs and housing.)

The idea that “affirmative action” is not a debate is laughable.

Come on people.

Put down the books, and think for yourself.

I started this thread with my thoughts on the subject.

Surely I don’t need to pre-empt them with an explaination of how this is a debate… do I?

Is this new to you?

So you disagree with my postion?

Why?

Facts start there - when they are needed.

No. It has been done to death in this Forum and in the BBQ Pit–and by people who actually took the time to put together coherent arguments.

You have provided no facts in yourt rant. Provide actual facts and they can be debated. Otherwise, ask that this be moved to the Pit.

Was I incoherent?

Do you not understand my position?

Side note:

Is this forum for great debates, or for one up-ing each other on how well you know the way you are supposted to do it?

I’m not here to debate.

I have stated my position.

I do not need to state why I hold such a position until it is specifically asked via a differing conclusion - offered by another person.

This is easy, people…

Please don’t ask me to walk you through it any further.

I would be very concerned if the topic “Affirmative Action” gets moved out of Straight Dope’s “Great Debates”.

I stated my position.

Debate happens when there is a disagreement with my position based on a different conclusion.

We can work from there, no?

Don’t worry. Since you only came to rant, bringing no actual facts to the discussion, and have no coherent position, I won’t trouble you further.

Not a fan of logic, eh?

Ya know?

I state my conclusion, you state yours - we then focus on what the disagreement is - thus facts are introduced.

If you do not disagree with my conclusion, then there is no need to debate.

Is this the kind of crap they teach you at state schools or something?

It’s hillarious.

Seriously - you should have spent the money on alcohol.

If we could get back to the topic now?..

Actually, you have already stated that

so it is evident that you are only here to rant. You have also characterized all AA under a single description that is factually in error for several forms of AA. Therefore, since you are not here to debate (according to you) it would be a waste of time to bother continuing this. Logic? You are lacking a premise.

Excuse me, “not” was a misplaced term.

Care to respond to anything substantive, though?

Ironic you picked an obvious typo than rather anything relating to the topic.

Actually, that appeared to be quite in keeping with your lack of substance on the whole issue. I am not even sure, now, that it was actually a typo.

No opinions of affirmative action?

I would be happy to debate if our conclusions conflict.