Why do movement ultraconservatives feel entitled to respect?

Post Reply New Topic

A system that turns a predominantly White nation into a so-called multicultural one is anti-White by definition, just as a system that turned China into a multicultural state would be anti-Chinese. This is true regardless of whether you understand or care about it, and regardless of the comfort of your own existence.
Of course, it's often easier to bask in false morality than to face the facts of life.

Last edited by codarac on 06 Sep 2010, 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You can't correct past wrongs with new ones however good intentioned they are. If the notion equality is to be believed then society must be colorblind. Discrimination is discrimination no matter who is doing it.

How is allocating more funds for schools a new wrong?

I don't really consider that a "racial" issue.

I was more talking about affirmative action and race preferential acceptance to schools and scholarships, stuff like that.

What if "affirmative action" policies were based solely on socioeconomic status instead of race?

I firmly believe that it takes culture a very long time to change, since the 1960's is still only four decades ago it will still take a few more generations for the past to shake itself out but generally speaking there's no way to rush it and no way to have the government utterly change human behavior and memory. There will likely be a time where in rural areas color does not matter, there will be a time in urban areas where the African American community as well as Asian and Latino will be assimilated well enough to where its difficult to tell the difference based on achievement, marriage and family statistics, conviction rate, etc.. Until then then the best we can do is treat each other with dignity and as equals as well as doing all that we can to convince society that we're past it. Anything else just creates more resentments and will make this process take that much longer. Will it ever 100% disappear? That's impossible on any grounds and on any topic under the sun in regard to society, and that's the reason why that 2 or 3% we may have remaining should be left talking to the wind rather than having their broken thoughts amplified by the media to make it sound like they stand for a sizeable group.

That approach has a scintilla of reason to it. If people are disabled or less able for cultural reasons then some constructive outreach may help them out of the culture trap. This is based on social realities and social contingencies, not on the accident of race.

I belief in help less literate people improve their reading skills in order for them to realize their potential. And I do not do so for altruistic reasons either. Their success could very well contribute to my prosperity and welfare. That is why I record technical books for blind and dyslexic folk. These people need a hand, not a hand-out.

ruveyn

The more you correct it using the wrong methods, the more it will again build to the levels of hatred as actually seen in the 1960's. There are large quantities of American citizens who are far from colorblind, and who virtually use the race card to explain every problem they have as if it were a conspiracy personally directed at them. However, it's not so much the "majority" which does this.

Well I think that's certainly less reprehensible that it being based on race although I think it still runs into the same problem of it not being based on one's qualifications. It's easier said than done too, it's not as simple as checking a box.

I think you misunderstand what outreach intends. The idea is to look for genuine talent or at least potential in groups that are normally ignored for socio-economic reasons. Objective criteria for competence should remain in place, but looking for talent in a broader population increases the probability of finding talent. The purpose of affirmative action was not or at least, should not have been rewarding undeserving folk.

ruveyn

Actually, if you look at school funding, you'll find that the schools that are the worst funded are more likely to be fairly segregated (black/Hispanic) and have kids from very low SES. Minorities are proportionately more likely to come from lower SES status--so Affirmative Action based on SES would likely look very similar to Affirmative Action based on race.

The best argument I ever heard for Affirmative Action went like this:

Track coach is shown tapes of two different runners--one with good form and one with bad form. Both have fairly similar times. Which one makes the team? The coach says--the one with the bad form. Even though he's a little slower now, I can teach him good form and he will out perform the other "good form" runner eventually. Kids with lower SES status are like runners with bad form: No early childhood intervention, poorer nutrition and health care, and no SAT prep, private tutors, etc to help them perform on the SAT. They have not yet reached their full potential. Kids from advantaged families are performing at their peak--after tutoring and SAT prep and all the other advantages that their accident of birth allowed them.

When people get angry about Affirmative Action, I always wonder where that sense of entitlement comes from. Why do they feel someone is stealing their spots/jobs, whatever. When you look at the inequalities in education more closely, and you see resistance to fund urban schools because parents don't want their tax money funding education for those children, it really pisses me off.

Can I get a job for growing up in poverty, being held back when I did enter public school because I was homeschooled and they figured that since I was homeschooled that I must be an idiot or something so they enrolled me in the special "education" paycheck quota program. Dropping out of public school two months later my stepdad attempted to place me in a mental institution due to "paranoia and thinking other kids were making fun of him" for two weeks until the insurance ran out due to the vacuousness of such a claim. Then, emulating Nathaniel Bowditch as my role model, I "sailed by ash breeze" and taught myself everything I could find a textbook to learn from, including Algebra, Geometry, Spanish, Chemistry, Physics, Electronics, Latin, etc. I was held back from college due to the FAFSA, which placed the EFC too high to allow me to learn since my stepdad was unwilling to provide any funding for my education. I am white, but in my area, the west side of Minneapolis, I am actually a minority. Where the heck is my free money and Affirmative Action?

I am aware of that. However, affirmative action based solely on SES would also help out underprivileged whites, and would likely be perceived as fairer than purely race-based policies, meaning there would be less controversy and opposition.

Curiously enough, most of the people I personally know who have benefited from affirmative action policies come from affluent families. They were not in the least disadvantaged in their upbringing compared to me or to any other white student. That is another reason why I think SES rather than race should be the factor under consideration for affirmative action. Current policies let some people who need help slip through the cracks, while allowing others a free ride when they neither need nor deserve it.

I definitely think that is a good idea but I foresee controversy and opposition based on people feeling entitled to what they want and the fact that our schools promote the mythology that America is a meritocracy and if you work hard enough you can succeed. Funny how the examples of that are all people who started on 3rd base...or on the 90th yard of the 100 yard dash. The sad thing is, social class will follow a child throughout their life--affirmative action in terms of scholarships and job opportunities would be fantastic, but the "haves" have too much invested in the idea that they earned everything they have. They are not going to concede that it isn't a fair playing field in terms of class structure.

There's something fundamentally wrong when people who claim that ACORN caused the financial crisis by strong-arming the banks into lending to black people are treated as people whose views deserve respect and that such views are acceptable to hold and to propagate in polite company.

Right, and I know people like that. But it is much harder to argue against helping out the poor and disadvantaged than it is to complain about reverse racism, so there would certainly be less opposition than there is to current programs.