California Prop 16 (reinstating affirmative action) fails

Prop 16? Pretty sure it was mostly woke white folks.

Or are you talking about who was behind prop 209 25 years ago? Because that is irrelevant.

Right, history is irrelevant for some…

I was wondering what it is that you’re arguing for since your working definition of “affirmative action” in the other thread is so expansive as to be interchangeable with “any policy that I support.” So let’s look at the editorial you linked to in support of your position and see what they’re arguing for:

For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991).

So, this article believes that when layoffs have to happen, they should be orchestrated on a racial basis against white people (and, it goes without saying, against “white-adjacent” people such as Asians and super-white white people such as Jews). That’s our first taste of what “affirmative action” that you are supporting means. Openly choosing whom to fire based on their race - we’re in a pretty intense racial thunderdome on the very first point! Let’s see what else the article supports.

According to the Commerce Department, there are fewer than 2 million unemployed Black civilians and more than 100 million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker were to displace a White worker, less than 2 percent of Whites would be affected.

A double whammy here - affirmative action means basing epochal social changes on cherry-picked data that is 26 years out of date, and the goal is to give a job to “every unemployed black worker” by, explicitly and without any attempt at sugar-coating it, “displacing a white worker.” No punches are being pulled here!

Jews and Asians, on the other hand, have immigrated to North America—often as doctors, lawyers, professors, entrepreneurs, and so forth. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority.

Jews are more likely than blacks to be victims of hate crimes in the U.S. but I guess that’s just their white privilege. You can’t have a good black-white race war without an irrelevant digression into anti-Semitism so I would expect nothing less from this kind of editorial.

Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired (Bureau of National Affairs, 1979).

And now we get into gobledygook land - how are we going to give EVERY black person a job by displacing a white person, maintain that black people have been choked off from educational opportunities, yet make sure no exchange based on affirmative action ever results in a drop in qualifications? There’s no logic there - it’s just a naked exercise of power. “We’re gonna do this, we’re gonna assert that up is down, racism is anti-racism, the thing we said we want in point 1 is never going to happen in point 10, and I dare you to do anything about it.” Unfortunately, the days when the people behind this kind of ideology had that kind of power in society at large are long gone. Prop 209 and Prop 16 were the response to “we’re going to fuck you with this and I dare you to stop us.”

We stopped you.

Piffle, like if the CAA and other organizations are not there. Speaking of logic, the article said that “Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment” then you ranted about how you fall for that mistake, that was not logical.

The other possibility besides everyone else in the world not understanding that sometimes 2+2=5 is that the article’s contradictions of itself in multiple places mean that its authors are lacking in intelligence, good faith, or some combination of the two.

Wrong too, as the statement you made there can be made only by ignoring how many minorities were affected by 20 years of prop 209.

What is the “number” that resolves the contradiction in the article which states that they plan to give EVERY unemployed black person a job by firing a white person, but that NO person will be given a job over a more qualified person? Do they believe that every single unemployed black person is as qualified for every potential job as its current occupant? If so, how can they also believe that blacks have been denied educational opportunities? Do they believe that every black person is born prepared to, e.g., practice medicine, with no need for any training or education, and would be better at it than any arbitrarily chosen white doctor who has gone to medical school? Are you really prepared to defend this notion?

What is the “number of minorities affected” that resolves this fundamental contradiction? 3? 500? A billion? I’m not even asking you for the actual number, just for any hypothetical number that could make your response relevant to the problem of the article contradicting itself.

It’s irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the last election. California had a chance to reject what happened back in 1996 and it didn’t. This rejection was not the result of anything that happened back then. All the money and power were in support of prop 16 and they lost to 1/10th the money, no celebrities, no prominent politicians. This is the second time that california refused to reject prop 209.

They were there the last two times they failed to repeal prop 209 too.

You keep talking about CAA like you know who they are and like they are an authority of some sort. They do not represent the asian community.
They are a joke.
They are the asian face of the woke left.
They actively defend discrimination against asians.

It affected many minorities, mostly to their benefit.

Under racially discriminatory affirmative action:

Asians went to less selective schools than they could have gone to and this may have bred some resentment while the asians that did go to good schools quickly learned that the weakest students in the class were disproportionately going to be black or hispanic.

Blacks and hispanics went to schools where they were overwhelmingly in the bottom quintile of the class, dropped out at higher rates, took longer to graduate and was surrounded in an environment where the weakest students were disproportionately going to be black or hispanic.

With the elimination of racially discriminatory affirmative action:

Asians got into the schools they deserved to get into and they thrived in school and afterwards.
Blacks and hispanics got into the schools they deserved to get into and they thrived there and after graduation.

The number of minorities accepted to college didn’t change by much but which college they went to changed so some of the urm kids that would have gotten into berkeley under AA went to ucla and some of the urm kids that would have gotten into ucla went to ucsd etc.

As the cited I made early showed, that is wrong.

As it is the underwhelming effort to just dismiss the CAA with just an opinion from you.

They do not represent asians or asian opinions. They might serve some useful purpose in some other capacity but on this issue, they are tools of the woke left. They provide the people who want to discriminate against asians the cover to do so.

My opinions seem more substantiated and valid than yours.

Sorry, using “woke” as an insult calls to attention what side you are listening to.

Incidentally, the Asian parents you are talking about came back to get a change:

In 1999, both parties agreed to a settlement which modified the 1983 Consent Decree to create a new “diversity index” system which substituted race as a factor for admissions with a variety of factors such as socioeconomic background, mother’s educational level, academic achievement, language spoken at home, and English Learner Status.

Thing is that one should not forget that the original change came to be thanks to a lawsuit from the NAACP, as usual what you forget is that even more Black and Hispanic families did not like what was there before, the CAA just realized that denying justice to those groups was not really helpful to Asians in the long run, and the index those parents (that even if they were a majority they were wrong) got a compromise that was shown later to be a joke.

Expiration of the Consent Decree

Critics of the diversity index created by Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District point out that many schools, including Lowell, have become even less racially diverse since it was enacted.

On November 15, 2005, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a request to extend the Consent Decree, which was set to expire on December 31, 2005 after it had been extended once before to December 31, 2002. The ruling claimed “since the settlement of the Ho litigation [resulting in the institution of the “diversity index”], the consent decree has proven to be ineffective, if not counterproductive, in achieving diversity in San Francisco public schools” by making schools more racially segregated.[6]

As the court said, “The public response to the proposed extension of the consent decree was overwhelmingly negative.”

So yeah, your opinion was based on incomplete information.

The fact that other people agree with you, or your perception of their opinions agrees with whatever opinion you believe you are expressing, does not constitute:

*Evidence or facts in support of your position
*Whatever you believe “history” to be
*“Ignorance” on the part of those who do not agree with you

It seems that a very large number of your arguments are based on not understanding this and posting lots and lots of links to other people who share your opinions without actually bringing any new arguments or evidence to bear, then accusing everyone else of being “ignorant” and not acknowledging “history” when they continue not to agree with your still-unsupported contentions.

I’m not listening to anybody the way you seem to be implying. I’m not the one that can’t present their own arguments and has to resort to serially linking the opinions of others.

Lots of folks think woke left are idiots and detrimental to a liberal society.

If you can get out of the woke left echo chamber,

WTF are you talking about? You don’t seem to know what you are talking about. You can’t just click on a few wikipedia links and think you understand things if you aren’t reading for comprehension.

Your position was (i think) that the CAA represents asians in some way. I show you a link saying that the CAA actually supports discrimination against asians and you go off on a very difficult to follow tangent… again. This was a very simple exercise in showing you that the CAA doesn’t represent asians. I’m not sure why you took off on this tangent that only proves my point further.
It is clear you are ignorant of what the consent decree is when you act like the rejection of the consent decree somehow proves any point you have to make.

You seem ignorant of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the consent decree.
You seem ignorant of the purpose of the consent decree.
You seem ignorant of why the consent decree was modified.
You seem ignorant of why the consent decree was not extended.
You seem ignorant of what it means that the public was opposed to extending the consent decree.

You are getting hoisted by your own petard.

Following links on wikipedia is not really enough if you don’t read for comprehension. Do you know why there was a consent decree? Because your post indicates that you think that asians wanted the consent decree and the “public” rejected it…

The CAA is the only group of asians in this scenario that was fighting for the consent decree.

Well if that is so, I was wrong about when the support by the CAA came, however it shows that they were against quotas as pointed before, still the end result was that schools became more desegregated, hence the judges decision that the consent decree of 1999 was not a good one.

On the whole it turned out that you missed the follow up. It strains logic that most Asian parents did not oppose the changes brought by the NAACP lawsuit. The end result was that most parents did not agree with the settlement of the 90s. Are you here then in favor of the original consent decree from 1983? The same one that Judges in 2005 when ending the consent decree from 1999 did agree that the decree from 1983 was successful on increasing diversity in schools?

Modnote: This is for both GIGObuster & damuriajashi and anyone else.
You’re both making this personal and pushing the border of attacking the poster. No warnings as you’re both addressing the posts as your doing this and the insults are mostly passive and more general but inclusive of each other. But enough.

So to all, no more carefully worded swipes at other posts please. Remember Attack the Post and not the Poster.

Please read the links more carefully.

I think you are wrong about more than what you think you are wrong about.
I think you are still misunderstanding the chain of events and the facts.

Please read my post more carefully.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

The reason I linked the wiki article about the CAA is because you seemed to think that the CAA what some some sort of authority or represented asians. You kind of kept throwing them in my face. The link was to demonstrate that at least on this issue they do not represent asians and their support for anti-asian discrimination puts them at odds with most asians. They are mostly useful tools as the asian face of the woke racism against asians.

Do you STILL think the CAA represents asians and our opinions on things?