Anarchy

[jordanisonfire]

So, what are your thoughts on Anarchy or Anarchism?

[Alex]

I think anarchism is like communism in the way that it works much more in theory than in practice. Any larger anarchist body, at least in my mind, will be sabotaged by one or more of the participants becoming power hungry which is understandable for their archetypal instinct.

Would it be a better place if we could have an anarchy to the level of a nation?? probably because that would also mean it succeeded up to that point. That being said I doubt it could ever happen because of some human's natural instinct to propel themselves "to the top".

[Rafael Domination]

Everything would work out if people didn't take advantage of things for their own greed, defied things out of their own pride, had brains or didn't rely on their emotion, or the public opinion too much.

A dictatorship would work if the 'dictator' was a kind, wise man who everyone loved and obeyed

A democracy would work if everyone who voted was smart and united

Communism would work if people decided to stay equal and shared

Stuff like that...but the thing is, people are greedy, proud, brainless beings (for the most part - I should know :D), any government institution needs a lot of backup if it is to work.

[Shaun]

Anarchy cannot actually exist unless everyone were so crazy they are incapable of making coherent decisions or if everyone lives by their own rules that are completely different from the rules of everyone else (which would be impossible). It's a concept that can't exist because humans, by nature, want structure of some sort.

[Lykaios]

^I've read this in about four different threads, can't you read the rules?

School anarchy is fun, have you seen St Trinians? Chaos. :P

[Crocolyle]

In order to provide for the common defense, to protect the weaker/make and carry out laws, prevent wealth stratification and domination by the rich, and unify labor to provide for roads, sanitation, health, standardized education, and other services, there needs to be a government in place; however, the government should be neither too large nor too powerful in order to protect people and businesses from itself (the institution to eliminate threats, is a threat itself).

In my personal opinion, I think the government should therefore make drug laws identical to alcohol drugs and maybe only restrict the most potent and deadly ones, not regulate smoking, leaving that up to city and county ordinances and the discretion of the business themselves, remove laws against what two or more consenting adults can do in the bedroom (provided that neither one causes emotional or physical trauma to the other), remove laws banning gay marriage, and, while the deadliest weapons should be restricted and while the government should enforce meticulous record-keeping, people should be allowed to bear arms.

On the other hand, on the other hand the government should protect the environment and small businesses, ensure consumer rights (break up trusts and monopolies as well as FDAish stuff), and promote the arts (through financial aid) and scienfitic research.

A lot should be handled on a local level, like in cities and counties...

[Shaun]

Well, things were supposed to work with the Federal Government handling the big stuff (like war, international policy, major health concerns, nation-wide based policies of which I can't think of any at the moment...maybe laws on discrimination and racism?) while the State Governments were meant to deal with their respective states on the more local level (such as local laws on drugs and alcohol, city/county ordinances, and how they spend the tax money brought by the Federal Government and the State itself). Unfortunately it doesn't really work that way anymore. The Federal Government has sort of moved beyond its original role and become the forced moral compass for everyone. The Federal Government can essentially ban anything they want and while individual states can make their own laws, if the Feds say otherwise you're still committing a crime. Pot laws are a prime example here: in some states use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is perfectly legal, but because the Fed says it's illegal you can still be charged for a Federal crime, regardless of what the state says.

I think the problem with government is that it spends too much time trying to protect people that don't need protecting and trying to protect itself from the people it's supposed to be protecting. Granted, there's nothing wrong with protecting oneself, but there is a line between protection within reason and protection as corruption.

Affirmative action is evil, by the way. Just so you all know :P. Great idea when it was first made, bad idea today :P.

Enough from me!

[Crocolyle]

Well, things were supposed to work with the Federal Government handling the big stuff (like war, international policy, major health concerns, nation-wide based policies of which I can't think of any at the moment...maybe laws on discrimination and racism?) while the State Governments were meant to deal with their respective states on the more local level (such as local laws on drugs and alcohol, city/county ordinances, and how they spend the tax money brought by the Federal Government and the State itself). Unfortunately it doesn't really work that way anymore. The Federal Government has sort of moved beyond its original role and become the forced moral compass for everyone. The Federal Government can essentially ban anything they want and while individual states can make their own laws, if the Feds say otherwise you're still committing a crime. Pot laws are a prime example here: in some states use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is perfectly legal, but because the Fed says it's illegal you can still be charged for a Federal crime, regardless of what the state says.

I think the problem with government is that it spends too much time trying to protect people that don't need protecting and trying to protect itself from the people it's supposed to be protecting. Granted, there's nothing wrong with protecting oneself, but there is a line between protection within reason and protection as corruption.

Affirmative action is evil, by the way. Just so you all know :P. Great idea when it was first made, bad idea today :P.

Enough from me!

I agree. The gov't doesn't always need to protect people. Particularly from secondhand smoke when they can just walk out of the restaurant and take their business to a different eating establishment where smoking is not permitted. :P

But yeah, I personally think DOMA (I think signed in '96, might be '94) is a prime example of the government overstepping its bounds because it violates the constitutionally granted "full faith and credit" of state laws, saying that not all states have to respect a homosexual union from another state. While normally I wouldn't care, I think it goes against full faith and credit" and I'm not a big fan of violating the document from which the government derives its power. I don't think the elastic clause quite covers doing this...

Off topic: I support affirmative action, but think that it needs reform. Like it should also be getting poor white students in schools. Like if they change it to being economic based it will have the same affect (i.e. minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics [Asians are overrepresented, like at Berkley Asians encompassed 25% of the student body in the mid-late 80s... and are often denied acceptance even if more qualified than their white peers according to Ying Ling Leung's "The Model Minority Myth"] in schools), but technically won't be discriminatory in terms of race. The reason I support it from a racial standpoint is that in the military, it's been shown that troops are more loyal to troops that are more like them (particularly in terms of race), because--like it or not--race still plays a large role in behavior in this country, among both Whites and Blacks.

[Shaun]

I agree. The gov't doesn't always need to protect people. Particularly from secondhand smoke when they can just walk out of the restaurant and take their business to a different eating establishment where smoking is not permitted. :P

While I won't argue I will say by making smoking legal anywhere it means I won't be able to leave my house ever again...not without an extensive breathing apparatus to protect my lungs. My asthma won't allow it. I'm not the only one who would be screwed from being able to be a normal human being either, by the way. Millions of Americans have asthma...

Off topic: I support affirmative action, but think that it needs reform. Like it should also be getting poor white students in schools. Like if they change it to being economic based it will have the same affect (i.e. minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics [Asians are overrepresented, like at Berkley Asians encompassed 25% of the student body in the mid-late 80s... and are often denied acceptance even if more qualified than their white peers according to Ying Ling Leung's "The Model Minority Myth"] in schools), but technically won't be discriminatory in terms of race. The reason I support it from a racial standpoint is that in the military, it's been shown that troops are more loyal to troops that are more like them (particularly in terms of race), because--like it or not--race still plays a large role in behavior in this country, among both Whites and Blacks.

I know racism still exists, but the problem is that having things like affirmative action in existence doesn't help to diffuse it--it actually adds to it. White people get pissed off if they get turned down for a job because by law a company has to hire a certain amount of Black people or Asians or whatever, regardless of skill. I don't blame them either. If you apply for a teaching position and you have 20 years of experience, a flawless record, all the right degrees and experience and you get turned down because the school had to hire some guy of whatever minority who has hardly any experience at all, let alone not in the right subject, you'd probably be pissed off too. Granted, it doesn't always happen like that, but it does happen where people get fired because of affirmative action, or can't get a job they are better qualified for, simply because they weren't born with a certain skin color.
If affirmative action must exist it should only work on the economic level. School funding should go more to those folks that are poor, but it shouldn't have anything to do with race...period.

I also think it should be illegal for scholarships/competitions/etc. to discriminate against people of certain races. There are loads of Latino/Chicano only writing contests and scholarships in California. Whites or Blacks can't apply to them, yet there are not Black only scholarships or White only scholarships (the latter because if that ever existed it would be considered racist and would be banned, which is also illegal...affirmative action has created more problems than it solved). If anything the existence of racism today in any strength is due in part of affirmative action failing to do what it was supposed to do in the first place.

[Crocolyle]

While I won't argue I will say by making smoking legal anywhere it means I won't be able to leave my house ever again...not without an extensive breathing apparatus to protect my lungs. My asthma won't allow it. I'm not the only one who would be screwed from being able to be a normal human being either, by the way. Millions of Americans have asthma...
While I won't argue, I will say that it is you're allowed to not enter a restaurant where you know that the environment will be a problem. This is like saying roller coasters are unfair to people who have diagnosed heart conditions. If you know you have a heart condition, don't ride it. If you know the restaurant has smokers in it, don't go in it.



I know racism still exists, but the problem is that having things like affirmative action in existence doesn't help to diffuse it--it actually adds to it. White people get pissed off if they get turned down for a job because by law a company has to hire a certain amount of Black people or Asians or whatever, regardless of skill. I don't blame them either. If you apply for a teaching position and you have 20 years of experience, a flawless record, all the right degrees and experience and you get turned down because the school had to hire some guy of whatever minority who has hardly any experience at all, let alone not in the right subject, you'd probably be pissed off too. Granted, it doesn't always happen like that, but it does happen where people get fired because of affirmative action, or can't get a job they are better qualified for, simply because they weren't born with a certain skin color.
If affirmative action must exist it should only work on the economic level. School funding should go more to those folks that are poor, but it shouldn't have anything to do with race...period.

I also think it should be illegal for scholarships/competitions/etc. to discriminate against people of certain races. There are loads of Latino/Chicano only writing contests and scholarships in California. Whites or Blacks can't apply to them, yet there are not Black only scholarships or White only scholarships (the latter because if that ever existed it would be considered racist and would be banned, which is also illegal...affirmative action has created more problems than it solved). If anything the existence of racism today in any strength is due in part of affirmative action failing to do what it was supposed to do in the first place.

Latino writing contests make a lot of sense--they want literature from a Latino perspective. Which is totally understandable, because a Latino perspective is different from a Non-Hispanic White or Black's perspective. Racial based scholarships I think should be also allowed, I think. Like, if I were Latino and had money and I wanted to create a fund for other Latinos like me, I mean, I'm totally okay with that. There actually have been attempts to create White ethnic scholarships. I don't know if they were protested or not. In the articles I read, it just seemed like everyone else got huffy and then didn't care...

Affirmative action also is not necessarily meant to counter-act years of discrimination, but also to diversify the student body--which is understandable, because sometimes in discussion sessions it is useful to have the perspective of a student who isn't a WASP.

EDIT: But as I said earlier, it should be economically based.

[Shaun]

While I won't argue, I will say that it is you're allowed to not enter a restaurant where you know that the environment will be a problem. This is like saying roller coasters are unfair to people who have diagnosed heart conditions. If you know you have a heart condition, don't ride it. If you know the restaurant has smokers in it, don't go in it.

The difference is that roller coasters in and of themselves aren't bad for you unless you have a heart condition, whereas smoking is bad for you no matter what condition you are in.

Latino writing contests make a lot of sense--they want literature from a Latino perspective. Which is totally understandable, because a Latino perspective is different from a Non-Hispanic White or Black's perspective. Racial based scholarships I think should be also allowed, I think. Like, if I were Latino and had money and I wanted to create a fund for other Latinos like me, I mean, I'm totally okay with that. There actually have been attempts to create White ethnic scholarships. I don't know if they were protested or not. In the articles I read, it just seemed like everyone else got huffy and then didn't care...

That makes the assumption that just because you aren't a specific color you aren't able to write from the perspective of people of those other colors. That's a bias, since writers do it all the time and successfully.
The difference here is that you can have your Latino scholarships but if I want to have my Caucasian scholarships it's suddenly racist and will not be allowed. White scholarships pretty much don't exist. Either they are struck down by courts or people throw a fit and the folks creating the scholarships just give in (or the makers have to cleverly hide that it's a white scholarship). So until we can have scholarships for every race, equally, I think no racial scholarships should exist. The same can be said for contests. Equality means everyone.

Affirmative action also is not necessarily meant to counter-act years of discrimination, but also to diversify the student body--which is understandable, because sometimes in discussion sessions it is useful to have the perspective of a student who isn't a WASP.

EDIT: But as I said earlier, it should be economically based.

Yeah, it's diversified things enough, now maybe we should drop it and let the system work itself.

[Crocolyle]

The difference is that roller coasters in and of themselves aren't bad for you unless you have a heart condition, whereas smoking is bad for you no matter what condition you are in.

I thought you weren't arguing...

Roller coasters kill brain cells--they're bad for you no matter what condition you're in. You were specifically complaining about about smoking's affect on asthmatics. Don't go inside a restaurant that permits smokers--get take-out.

[quote]That makes the assumption that just because you aren't a specific color you aren't able to write from the perspective of people of those other colors. That's a bias, since writers do it all the time and successfully.
The difference here is that you can have your Latino scholarships but if I want to have my Caucasian scholarships it's suddenly racist and will not be allowed. White scholarships pretty much don't exist. Either they are struck down by courts or people throw a fit and the folks creating the scholarships just give in (or the makers have to cleverly hide that it's a white scholarship). So until we can have scholarships for every race, equally, I think no racial scholarships should exist. The same can be said for contests. Equality means everyone.

You can use your imagination and imagine what it's like to be a person of another gender or race, but you do not have the experiences of a Latino writer--therefore, any "Latino perspective" is pretension. Many of those contests, I'm sure want to know from Latinos what it's like to be a Latino living in the United States at the present time. It's just a writing contest--big deal. Boy scouts and girl scouts are exclusionary. Many lodges, schools, and organizations are exclusionary. Many religions have gender exclusive priesthoods.

Equality might imply everyone, but I don't think everyone institution has to demonstrate equality. To try to achieve perfect equality is a dangerous idea--almost every aspect of society is unequal: modern family structure reinforces gender roles, sexual norms, patriarchy, transfer of wealth to the children or wealth (i. e. maintenance of wealth stratification); the education system system fosters inequality through a disparity of funds based on county, ensuring those living in the poorer counties get a worse education, and socializing and conditioning people to accept this and accept authority... and there are a ton more examples, but essentially equality does not exist, and often shouldn't exist. The underlying theory behind a drive to succeed is to create unequality--one of the reasons Communism creates economic stagnation.

You like dystopias... Do either "The Giver" or "Harrison Bergeron" ring a bell? Both are essentially polemics arguing against equality.

It's one thing for the government to try and create equality through a system aimed at fostering ethnic and economic diversity (though it's focus should be on the latter) and another thing entirely to restrict organizations from trying to support people who would have certain, authentic perspectives that, when replicated by someone of a different perspective, without a writer actually of that perspective, would just be imitation. As I've said, I'm not, for the most part, a proponent of Affirmative Action, but I don't really care about ethnic based contests.

Did you know that the special Olympics is an exclusionary contest?

I can't find any evidence of white scholarships that were struck down by the courts, nor can I find any evidence of white scholarships that were successfully created. I can only find articles about the intended creations of scholarships. So I'm not sure how accurate your statements about racial scholarships are since I can find no evidence and since you have not provided any.

Yeah, it's diversified things enough, now maybe we should drop it and let the system work itself.

Okay, so now that we've had however many years of state sponsored diversity, we'll have some years of de facto segregation! Maybe, it's time to give both de facto segregation and state fostered diversity an "equal" shot? Get it? "Equal"? Haha? ;)

[Shaun]

I thought you weren't arguing...

Roller coasters kill brain cells--they're bad for you no matter what condition you're in. You were specifically complaining about about smoking's affect on asthmatics. Don't go inside a restaurant that permits smokers--get take-out.

I wasn't. I was giving you food for thought. I like going out in public and not worrying about having someone cram more cancer cells into my system :P.


You can use your imagination and imagine what it's like to be a person of another gender or race, but you do not have the experiences of a Latino writer--therefore, any "Latino perspective" is pretension. Many of those contests, I'm sure want to know from Latinos what it's like to be a Latino living in the United States at the present time. It's just a writing contest--big deal. Boy scouts and girl scouts are exclusionary. Many lodges, schools, and organizations are exclusionary. Many religions have gender exclusive priesthoods.

I'm mostly talking about University sponsored contests that act as scholarships in exchange for writing, but because I'm white I'm not allowed to enter.
Gender and race exclusion is against the law. End of story.


Equality might imply everyone, but I don't think everyone institution has to demonstrate equality. To try to achieve perfect equality is a dangerous idea--almost every aspect of society is unequal: modern family structure reinforces gender roles, sexual norms, patriarchy, transfer of wealth to the children or wealth (i. e. maintenance of wealth stratification); the education system system fosters inequality through a disparity of funds based on county, ensuring those living in the poorer counties get a worse education, and socializing and conditioning people to accept this and accept authority... and there are a ton more examples, but essentially equality does not exist, and often shouldn't exist. The underlying theory behind a drive to succeed is to create unequality--one of the reasons Communism creates economic stagnation.

Prove all that :P. I think the biggest problem is that the government doesn't know how to deal with those poor areas. There's a lot more dissension there than you think. Government programs frequently fail when they attempt to address education in poor areas and there's a lot more to it than what you've written above.
I'm not talking about economic equality. What I"m talking about is true equal opportunity and equality in racial representation. If there is a Black scholarship, there needs to be a White scholarship of the same value. We can't expect to deal with racial issues if all we're doing is attempting to segregate the population by race. We give opportunities to one race, but not to another, under the presumption that because someone is white they'll do better in life anyway. Except there are a hell of a lot of white folks who are living in horrible conditions, just as there are a lot of black folks, etc. Everyone is in the same boat. I don't want equality on all fronts. I fully understand that having true equality means damaging the entire system. But we don't have to treat certain groups with less care than other groups just because of their skin color. I don't care if there is a Latino Scholarship, I just care that there's not a White Scholarship as well.

You like dystopias... Do either "The Giver" or "Harrison Bergeron" ring a bell? Both are essentially polemics arguing against equality.

Never read them.

It's one thing for the government to try and create equality through a system aimed at fostering ethnic and economic diversity (though it's focus should be on the latter) and another thing entirely to restrict organizations from trying to support people who would have certain, authentic perspectives that, when replicated by someone of a different perspective, without a writer actually of that perspective, would just be imitation. As I've said, I'm not, for the most part, a proponent of Affirmative Action, but I don't really care about ethnic based contests.

But how would you know if that writer is actually from that perspective, or if that writer is black or latino? Short of asking them about their racial history, which is illegal, you can't possibly know. There are legitimate instances of white people writing about black perspective and vice versa in which it worked and you'd never be able to tell the difference.
And again, they're not contests, per se, but writing contests that give scholarships that are funded by the UC system in California (those are the ones I'm talking about basically). We have no "Caucasian Perspective" writing scholarships and the like.
You can claim it to be imitation but at the same time there's no reason why someone of an alternate race can't have the same experience as someone of another race. Take South Africa, for example. Whites who voiced their opinions against Apartheid experienced the exact same oppression and hatred as the black community.

Did you know that the special Olympics is an exclusionary contest?

Yup, but there's nothing inherently illegal about it. The Olympics themselves are exclusionary, since only able-bodied people can get in, and what the Special Olympics does is offer a place for people who are not able-bodied to compete (since the Olympics only allow so many people to compete and you have to earn that). If anything the Special Olympics are a prime example of the equality I'm talking about.


I can't find any evidence of white scholarships that were struck down by the courts, nor can I find any evidence of white scholarships that were successfully created. I can only find articles about the intended creations of scholarships. So I'm not sure how accurate your statements about racial scholarships are since I can find no evidence and since you have not provided any.

They are either struck down by courts or political/public pressure gets them turned down:
http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2006/11/21/News/Bu.Group.Offers.White.Scholarship-2505837-page2.shtml
http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/103.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/29/student_paying_price_for_white_scholarship/

There's more if you know where to look. Two of those are for the same incident I think. You have to dig it up to find this stuff. People don't talk about it. It's one of the more disturbing things about society right now, I think (reverse racism).

Okay, so now that we've had however many years of state sponsored diversity, we'll have some years of de facto segregation! Maybe, it's time to give both de facto segregation and state fostered diversity an "equal" shot? Get it? "Equal"? Haha? ;)

That's not what I said. I said that now that Affirmative Action has done what it was meant to do--forced inclusion of people based on race rather than merit--we should remove it and allow society to govern how it picks and chooses people within reason. Meaning, careful attention will be paid to how people are chosen for scholarships, jobs, etc. but there won't be racial quotas, since those quotas do very little to help businesses, since those businesses have to have a certain amount of people from certain races or they get in trouble. If racism becomes an issue, then the system can deal with it accordingly rather than trying to force integration, which doesn't help with racism at all.
Forced diversity isn't real diversity. Let people speak for themselves now. If a black man is better for the job, let him get hired. If he doesn't get the job and is clearly better for it, then the system has ways to deal with that.

[Crocolyle]

I wasn't. I was giving you food for thought. I like going out in public and not worrying about having someone cram more cancer cells into my system :P.

O rly?

I'm mostly talking about University sponsored contests that act as scholarships in exchange for writing, but because I'm white I'm not allowed to enter.
Gender and race exclusion is against the law. End of story.
My school has those. I don't really care... I don't see why I should...


Prove all that :P. I think the biggest problem is that the government doesn't know how to deal with those poor areas. There's a lot more dissension there than you think. Government programs frequently fail when they attempt to address education in poor areas and there's a lot more to it than what you've written above.

It's considered fundamental conflict theory in Sociology... It's been proven by sociologists... My SOCY textbook (which unfortunately I sold) says all this...

I'm not talking about economic equality. What I"m talking about is true equal opportunity and equality in racial representation. If there is a Black scholarship, there needs to be a White scholarship of the same value. We can't expect to deal with racial issues if all we're doing is attempting to segregate the population by race. We give opportunities to one race, but not to another, under the presumption that because someone is white they'll do better in life anyway. Except there are a hell of a lot of white folks who are living in horrible conditions, just as there are a lot of black folks, etc. Everyone is in the same boat. I don't want equality on all fronts. I fully understand that having true equality means damaging the entire system. But we don't have to treat certain groups with less care than other groups just because of their skin color. I don't care if there is a Latino Scholarship, I just care that there's not a White Scholarship as well.
It's not segregation. It's scholarships to allow integration.


Never read them.
Required reading for one who is interested in dystopia. Lois Lowery and Kurt Vonnegut are the authors respectively. I love both stories.


But how would you know if that writer is actually from that perspective, or if that writer is black or latino? Short of asking them about their racial history, which is illegal, you can't possibly know. There are legitimate instances of white people writing about black perspective and vice versa in which it worked and you'd never be able to tell the difference.
And again, they're not contests, per se, but writing contests that give scholarships that are funded by the UC system in California (those are the ones I'm talking about basically). We have no "Caucasian Perspective" writing scholarships and the like.
You can claim it to be imitation but at the same time there's no reason why someone of an alternate race can't have the same experience as someone of another race. Take South Africa, for example. Whites who voiced their opinions against Apartheid experienced the exact same oppression and hatred as the black community.
The Caucasian Perspective writing scholarships aren't around because that's what's considered the perspective we in the United States are constantly exposed to. These are to essentially, according to my understanding, normally pertinent to Latino themes, meant to give voice to the Latino community, or expose people to a Latino voice. It is only imprudent that the one speaking in the Latino voice be Latino, isn't it?



They are either struck down by courts or political/public pressure gets them turned down:
http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2006/11/21/News/Bu.Group.Offers.White.Scholarship-2505837-page2.shtml
http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/103.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/29/student_paying_price_for_white_scholarship/

There's more if you know where to look. Two of those are for the same incident I think. You have to dig it up to find this stuff. People don't talk about it. It's one of the more disturbing things about society right now, I think (reverse racism).

Those articles show clear bias. They're clearer serving an agenda. Like Time Magazine in articles about the Bible. I'm just going to laugh those off...:P


Forced diversity isn't real diversity. Let people speak for themselves now. If a black man is better for the job, let him get hired. If he doesn't get the job and is clearly better for it, then the system has ways to deal with that.
I disagree.

And I'm going to call "glass ceiling" on your example. One of the reasons affirmative action is present in the workplace...

[Shaun]

O rly?

No, I lie a lot. Everything I say is a lie :P. Just kidding. Nah, I don't want to go into that argument again :P.

My school has those. I don't really care... I don't see why I should...

I care because I could use more scholarship money, but UC Santa Cruz doesn't offer a lot in the way of scholarships, except to Latinos. So because I'm white I can't apply for funds that could help me not have 20,000 in student loans when I graduate. But hey, I guess I wasn't fortunate enough to be born a different color. Real fair there. :P. You don't personally have to care. But it bugs me.

It's considered fundamental conflict theory in Sociology... It's been proven by sociologists... My SOCY textbook (which unfortunately I sold) says all this...

I'll take your word for it. I don't know a lot about sociology, to be honest, but I'd wager that it doesn't apply in all cases, such as myself.

The Caucasian Perspective writing scholarships aren't around because that's what's considered the perspective we in the United States are constantly exposed to. These are to essentially, according to my understanding, normally pertinent to Latino themes, meant to give voice to the Latino community, or expose people to a Latino voice. It is only imprudent that the one speaking in the Latino voice be Latino, isn't it?


I think that's more about what we're led to believe. You have to be Black to talk about the Black experience. It's not necessarily true. On principle, sure, but there are exceptions to most any rule.


Those articles show clear bias. They're clearer serving an agenda. Like Time Magazine in articles about the Bible. I'm just going to laugh those off...:P

Yup, most everyone is just laughing it off. That's the problem. Heaven forbid that racism can go the other way.

I disagree.

And I'm going to call "glass ceiling" on your example. One of the reasons affirmative action is present in the workplace...

So you'd rather we force integration rather than allow the system to do it naturally? That seems very unlike you politically.
This is why I'd never be a businessman. I would never hire someone based on a racial quota. Whoever is best for the job gets hired, regardless of race.

And the glass ceiling exists now even with AA...so what do you want to do about that? Force companies to hire black CEOs? What if they aren't qualified? Tough crap, you have to hire them anyway, because that's the law? And what about that white guy who can't get a job, or the chinese guy who can't get one because a company has to hire a black guy no matter what? Tough crap for them too? Hopefully you see the problem with affirmative action. The system can deal with discrimination without AA.

[Guessed]

The thing I feel most passionately about in this thread so far is that Shaun hasn't read The Giver and Harrison Bergeron yet. Tut tut. The latter's a short story - just Google it, please.

We've been discussing Affirmative Action in Social Studies lately - as Crocolyle said, its ultimate goal is to diversify universities and job institutions. This means that to lower discrimination against minorities, we have to discriminate against the majority for some time, until society is a little less out of whack. Lesser of two evils kind of thing. I haven't had the unlucky experiences with it that Shaun has, and I'll probably encounter some difficulty because of it in the future, but in the meantime I try not to be bitter.

By no means do I think it's the best solution - or even a solution at all, seeing as I know nothing of its effectiveness. The minorities that Affirmative Action strategies reach out to aren't going to get very far unless they have wealth, and therefore power in the marketplace. This won't happen in the near future, as long as this recession keeps up. Or down, rather.

Anarchy: the poor forgotten subject. What do I think about it? It's a silly dream, really - laws are for the better, as much as we wish they weren't. That's just the human instinct of hating that which doesn't help you. If you want to screw the rules, get money - simple as that.

[Crocolyle]

So you'd rather we force integration rather than allow the system to do it naturally? That seems very unlike you politically.
This is why I'd never be a businessman. I would never hire someone based on a racial quota. Whoever is best for the job gets hired, regardless of race.


Yeah... my views are inconsistent... and I actually am against racial Affirmative Action... I think sometimes when I argue my views shift... it's odd... To be honest, I don't hold very strong convictions really in any political matter... I just like to argue...

[Guessed]

Yeah... my views are inconsistent... and I actually am against racial Affirmative Action... I think sometimes when I argue my views shift... it's odd... To be honest, I don't hold very strong convictions really in any political matter... I just like to argue...

That's nothing odd. It's an impossible complex world we live in - having black and white opinions is a sign of ignorance.

Or am I just validating my own indecisiveness?

[Shaun]

Yeah... my views are inconsistent... and I actually am against racial Affirmative Action... I think sometimes when I argue my views shift... it's odd... To be honest, I don't hold very strong convictions really in any political matter... I just like to argue...

See, but I do get the economic level of things and I fully agree there, simply on principle. Someone who has ten billion dollars shouldn't get a scholarship. They can pay for college just fine. Someone who has three dollars, on the other hand, should definitely be given the opportunity.

And I like to argue too :P

[Guessed]

Someone who has ten billion dollars shouldn't get a scholarship. They can pay for college just fine. Someone who has three dollars, on the other hand, should definitely be given the opportunity.

I can't argue against that. But should you guys considering changing the name of this thread? ;) I mean, the /boards/ are going to be anarchist if you keep diverting from subjects. xD

[Shaun]

My answer to that is if anarchy is about not following any rules at all, why should we follow them here :P.

I know, get back to topic :P. But it is sort of humorous that the topic is anarchy and we're talking about something completely different :P.

So, umm, anarchy sucks.

[Guessed]

Quite right.

Edit: I sort of like that my 100th post was only 2 words. Oops - nevermind. Anyway: -throws little party inside :icecream::flex::approve:-