Affirmative Action Bake Sale

[Moxie]

Racism is the discrimination or prejudice of a person or group based on the racial group she or they belong to.

This is apparently from some article on wisegeek.com. Going by that definition, everyone is racist as everyone is at least a bit racially prejudice. Being more afraid of a tough looking group of blacks, than of a group of white computer nerds, would count as prejudice.

The main definition in most or all dictionaries has to do with people believing that race in itself is a major determiner of human behaviors and capacities.

These white males are not being discriminated against because they are male, but rather because they are white.

Uhh ok, so if they all got sex changes in high school, affirmative action would still discriminate against them?

Would you consider slavery to have not been a racist institution since it didn't affect all blacks?

Technically, slavery in itself is not racism. What was racist was the beliefs towards the race who were the slaves.

Either way, a policy that is discriminatory against white males will absolutely affect white females. These white males are their boyfriends, husbands, brothers, future sons, etc - discriminating against white males will therefore negatively affect them.

Then every group is affected, as white males date and marry males and females of other races.

You've insisted several times in this thread that you don't support AA, yet you've been doing semantical backflips trying to defend it.

Really? Go ahead and quote me one sentence where I'm doing that.

Before you do that, maybe you should read up on the psychological defense mechanism of splitting (perceiving reality in terms of extreme black or white).

Either you support discriminatory policies or you don't - which is it?

This would be your attempt at a false dilemma fallacy of distraction. If you call into a sports radio station and say that Derek Jeeter hit 80 home runs this year, the hosts are going to ask you if you are smoking crack, even if they are the biggest Yankee fans in the world. They would also if they were fans of some other team, but that is not really relevant to whether or not the claim about Derek Jeter is accurate.

 

[marketer77]

So prison population 70% black is a lie also, even though you are 15% of the population stats must seriously scull fuck you cant you cant figure out math dipshit

 

[marketer77]

You have not answered one link I posted what a shock

 

[marketer77]

And I challenged this prick on skype shocker he pussed out

 

[Moxie]

Sorry that wasn't me on skype, maybe it was Michael Jackson's ghost? I can't disagree with your posts because you are on an intergalactic genius wavelength that I can't comprehend.

 

[amateursurgeon]

Ok, the first three, it's a bit difficult to say where they stand - The Star is such a rag that the only times I've read it has been in Chinese takeaways, the Sun is basically tits, football, and pedohunting, and if the Daily Mail was a person, it'd look like this:

For the others:

Most left leaning is The Guardian (although it's not too heavily left), then the Independent's pretty neutral (hence their name and slogan) The Times is slightly right wing, The Telegraph's more right wing.

It's a bit more complicated than that. You need to look at who the owners are.


The Sun (tabloid) & Times (broadsheet) are owned by Rupert Murdoch. They have whatever stance Mr Murdoch deems to be expedient. They're not quite as firebrand as Fox News, because apparently Fox is managed by someone even Rupert is scared of. The Times uses longer words than the Sun, and has less boobs.

The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust - a non-profit established to ensure editorial independence. It actually loses money overall, and is subsidised by another Scott Trust property, Autotrader. Their original name was the Manchester Guardian, very much a "worker's paper", but they have mellowed since then. They're more middle-class liberal than socialist these days.

They have the best true "investigative" journalism (although the Telegraph is good too). Their main weakness imo is their tendency to get obsessed with trendy liberal fads like Social Security & public sector jobs.

The Star is owned by Richard Desmond, whose other main business is the product and distribution of pornography. I'd say the "horny teenage nurse shagged me in the train toilet cubicle" stories in his porno "letters pages" probably have more journalistic value than anything in the Star. He also owns the Daily Express, which is very similar to the Star with less football & tits, and more Muslim-hating.


The Daily Mail (also known as the Daily Heil or the Dail Fail) is owned by a Plc. The interesting thing about this Plc is instead of the Chairmanship going to the most suitable business person, it is a hereditary title, and has been since 1896 when the paper started. It goes to whoever is the current Viscount Rothermere.

That should tell you all you need to know about whether it's conservative or progressive.


Then there's just the Daily Mirror (left-leaning tabloid), and the Daily Telegraph (or the Torygraph), but I don't know much about them other than The Telegraph was owned by Conrad Black, who seems like a badass and thoroughly amusing fellow, even though he's currently in prison.

 

[Moxie]

Haha, no mang, I'm not a supporter, but I'm also not losing sleep over it or anything.

 

[marketer77]

So much for "the truth will set you free" MOXMAN