Robot Heart: Sex, Religion, and Politics: wesruvlikesstuff: I’ve never been a fan of many affirmative action...
I’ve never been a fan of many affirmative action initiatives as public policy. While I like this cartoon, and it’s very accurate about our past, I don’t know that I agree with some of the things it may imply.
One example is the idea that the amount of colored people in an…
Just noticed the reply, although you may have read what I typed, clearly you didn’t understand my vantage.
- You missed the point of me using the term colored person. I’m using it because I find that talking about colored people as a group is insulting. I am not like an immigrant from Lebanon, a doctor in Zimbabwe, or a bus buy in Compton.
There are so many more meaningful ways to group people.
While splitting by gender, religion, race, or sexuality is easy it also blindly ignores diversity of individuals and relies on the xenophobic/racist/homophobic/prejudice lens of the audience. - I love that you defended “people of color” as a valid term. What.The.Fuck. If I rearrange the letters of the term “spic” but use it in the same context does that make it better? Talking with a soft voice and using “mickey mouse”-“rated G” language does not make Walt Disney less of an anti-semite. Nor does it make racist points or terms less offensive.. You can’t discuss the negative social impact of the word nigger by using the “n-word” to refer to it.
Political correctness assumes that the problem is vocabulary, not content.
I believe Patton Oswalt makes this point for me (about something a little different) quite well. - Do you think telling people that so much % of their race is failing at things you find easy is helping? This is exactly what I’m saying is actually insulting, as opposed to the term “colored people” which I use to describe the arguments some paint, which I find to be oversimplified/kinda racist.
Example of why I find your reply insulting:20% of Mexicans don’t graduate high school
- As you can see the stat I used has no source (and I did make that up but if I didn’t tell you, how would you know I’m not a liar, much less that my source is competent)
- I’m slicing the data to target people based on race (implying a connection, implying that mexicans suck at high school by nature, possibly more things because I only show a negative stat about mexicans)
- If you want to discuss legislation and you start with stats like that; your indicators for who gets aid are going to be something along the lines of: ‘speaks spanish, wears a sombrero, may be seen with taco’.
With those stats you’ll probably dreg up a lot of first generation immigrant hispanics and have a much more meaningful and insightful statistic. But made up simple ones targeting race are cool too… (I guess?).
Better stats target things that matter, not broad simplified groups that Fox News can insert in their talking points. - If you can’t think of appropriate numbers to legislate against, there shouldn’t be a law (Hint: you can’t and there shouldn’t be a law)
- You’re missing the point. Racist legislation is racist legislation. The law of the land should not show preferential treatment to race/gender/sexuality. Gay marriage should be legal and the government shouldn’t dole out cash to Kanye West because he’s black. He’s rich, he’s fine, so develop identifiers that aren’t racist.
- Affirmative action perpetuates racism (because by your definition it is racist), it does not equalize it. Racism does not get equalized, it normalizes. The attitudes and perspectives of society don’t change because you make them. Grow up, the world isn’t fair, there are assholes there is inequality, there isn’t a legislative magic wand that makes that go away.
- Lastly, President Obama in front of the NAACP.
Face your bullshit in life and be better for it. Don’t make a racist society because it seems like the right thing to do. Feelings and inequality should not decide legislation or public policy, rational thought and what’s right in the long run should.
