Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: When Affirmative Action is a Quota System

  1. #1
    Senior Member Verđandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 12th, 2018 @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    Luxembourg Luxembourg
    Location
    Asgĺrd
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Two sisters
    Occupation
    Wyrd-weaver
    Posts
    8,970
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    649
    Thanked in
    424 Posts

    When Affirmative Action is a Quota System

    Affirmative action is not the same thing as equality or equal opportunity. Hiring and civil rights policies are often about affirmative action quotas -- privileges for certain groups -- and not equal opportunity, which would be everyone having a fair chance to compete for the position. Failure to recognize the difference between equal opportunity and quotas results in policies that can generate much racial separation or hatred.


    More...

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 28th, 2010 @ 05:34 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scotch-Irish, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French
    Subrace
    Alpine-Nordic mix
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    Libertarian/Tribalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    24
    Thanked in
    24 Posts
    The argument always put forth is that all races are exactly the same and if there is any inequality in average salaries, living standards, education etc. that it must be due to "discrimination" "white priveldege" etc. Yet when non whites have higher incomes, educations etc. compared to whites then its ignored. I can only guess that affirmitive action has a racist motive, but oddly many whites will argue very strongly for it. When asked if whites should get affirmitive action because they are under represented in comparison to Jews or East Asians these people usually say no. I guess they just hate the white race. It's rather confusing if you ask me...

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,502
    Thanked in
    692 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rainman
    I can only guess that affirmitive action has a racist motive, but oddly many whites will argue very strongly for it.
    Of course they will, because they get told that those are made to garuantee the equal chances, of others compared to whites, women compared to men etc. This is what constantly is told.

    Almost noone is aware of the fact that these affirmitive actions are made up in a way that results in fact in a discrimination of everyone 'normal', be it whites in their hometowns, people who are qualified for the job but the quota says there must be a retarded employed, and women must be chosen even in 'pure men jobs' due to the quota, wether they fit into the team doesnt matter. The employer doesnt have the choice.

    I dont know about america, but here you have to pay some sort of 'fine' as an employer, when you refuse to hire retards. It is law to have a certain quota, even in companies where it is, given the facts, impossible to do so without having disadvantages. And when you refuse, you get fined, and it really isnt just a few cents, but with the money you could easily pay an employee over the year.

    Entirely absurd...

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 28th, 2010 @ 05:34 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scotch-Irish, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French
    Subrace
    Alpine-Nordic mix
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    Libertarian/Tribalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    24
    Thanked in
    24 Posts
    No I mean I've talked to people about this. I say "Don't you believe everyone should be treated fairly?" "uh yeah I guess" "So its wrong to discriminate against whites" "uh no its ok to do so as long as they are white"

    "So umm if I come from the exact same town, live on the same street, have the same economic background, same abilities, same everything- I should be denied help because I'm white? I should be denied jobs, opportunities etc. because I'm white (and male)" "yes of course".

    They are about one step away from saying its ok to round up whites and put them in death camps. It's not that they don't know what they are supporting. I can put it in clear terms and they will not argue against it. Who knows maybe they are just weak people supporting what they think they are supposed to say. I sense a sort of envy in people though. People tend to not like you if you are smarter than average, more athletic, better looking, more successful etc. As well people tend to not like whites because they are perceived as better than others, even if they don't admit it, that's the common unspoken perception. Sometimes you will be more favored but there's just this hostility and envy that seems to run through American culture and the emphasis is always on the looser: give us your poor, your tired, your weak, your hungry. Even successful intelligent people (? somewhat) who are heavy Christians have this belief that the poor are more valuable than the rich, the sick more favored than the healthy etc. It's just a sick culture/society we live in.

    Not saying everybody is like that but a good number of them are. I noticed generally that the uglier, the less successful, the less intelligent etc. tend to be the more white hating even if they are white themselves and of course Jews who even when successful and such are the most vehement pro- white discriminators, so I think a lot of it is people who are loosers kind of have a mentality of sticking together with other under performers. I also think the whole culture in America has become a looser culture. All people that want wealth and the good life but don't want to have to work to earn it and want to remain fat, lazy and stupid. That's the American dream.

    I've found not really a big difference between whites and non-whites as far as my ideology goes. Just that whites are more scared to voice any pro-white attitude. What I mean is a great number of minorities will agree with me that its wrong to discriminate against someone even whites (that is exept Jews who the majority seem to be anti-white), and as well I meet a fair number of whites who are pro-discrimination on other whites. Overall though among all races I'd say the majority are anti-white. Maybe something like 60%-40% with the more poor, ugly etc. leaning towards the white hating end and the more beautiful, successful, smart leaning towards the pro equality end.

    Also among women tends to be that blondes tend to support my views a lot more and dark headed (especially ones that dye their hair blond) tend to be more hate whites, pro race mixing etc. for some reason. I'm not really sure why that is. With men I haven't noticed that trend really.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,502
    Thanked in
    692 Posts
    Uh, that is a bit different then. Usually, when I point out that those laws in fact discriminate and make the people think about it, they tend to agree that this is wrong or at least not used as intended.

    Only once I've met someone who said 'of course, it should be that way'. I thought I misunderstood him, but no, he really thinks that.

    The anti-white attitude has become something like a religion since WWII, indeed. And you're right that some are not far away from the death camps thing, I'm pretty sure that it wont take too long to find the first one. The global finance system crashes, whites are blamed successfully, noone dares to ask why the world banks are private institutions, the legal powers of states are systematically dismounted. A global black friday is ahead, the result will be war, both real war and financial warfare which directs the real war.
    The goal to exstinct the germanic spirit has entered its hot phase.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 28th, 2010 @ 05:34 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scotch-Irish, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French
    Subrace
    Alpine-Nordic mix
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    Libertarian/Tribalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    24
    Thanked in
    24 Posts
    Maybe its better in Germany?? Here many people will start saying that one out of the 1,000 ancestors they had owned slaves and that whites are horrible evil people. This is pushed on us in school and media that we are terrible racists who have done so many bad things to all the other races and that everything we have- we didn't earn it. We got it from racism and white priveledge. We have it easy and don't deserve what we have. By contrast non whites have it hard and don't deserve the hardships that they have. The cure for this evil racism is the extinction of the white race. Its mostly women that are most suceptable to believing these things and especially the youth. If you actually start to question any of it you find more holes than swiss cheese. And everytime I start looking into the sources like who wrote this school book that says this... who wrote the news article that said that, who owns the TV station that is publishing this- all Jews.

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Resist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    State
    Ontario Ontario
    Gender
    Age
    51
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    295
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    383
    Thanked in
    208 Posts
    It's obvious affirmative action is scam. A better name for it would be anti-white policy. Where is the affirmative action for whites in South Africa, Iran or Israel?

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, August 21st, 2017 @ 11:37 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Gender
    Posts
    857
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Affirmative Action is strictly biased hiring against caucasians and is a very "racist" practice. Realistically one should be hired based on their skill and/or work ethic; with personality attributing to it. It forces multi-ethnical quotas that have not been proven to help a workplace out or improve its production. It should be fought against and ultimately abolished.
    "Life; it kills 100% of those who experience it."

  9. #9
    Senior Member Verđandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 12th, 2018 @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    Luxembourg Luxembourg
    Location
    Asgĺrd
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Two sisters
    Occupation
    Wyrd-weaver
    Posts
    8,970
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    649
    Thanked in
    424 Posts

    Grading on the Curves

    Jared Taylor

    Race norming was a practice that arose as part of the tortured history of affirmative action. Supreme Court decisions of the early 1970s banned the use of employment criteria that had a “disparate impact,” which means that they weeded out more non-whites than whites. For example, in the past, many police and fire departments would not consider a job applicant who had been dishonorably discharged from the military, but since blacks were more likely to receive dishonorable discharges than whites, this had a “disparate impact” and was therefore found unconstitutional.

    The theory — naturally — was that if employers set high standards, it was just a cover for “racism.” If a company decided its secretaries should have college degrees, this was not a legitimate attempt to get capable secretaries. “Racists” were trying to screen out blacks by using artificial standards.

    Clearly, just about any meaningful job qualification has a “disparate impact.” Whether it is a college degree or a high test score or the ability to fly a 747, whites are more likely to meet the standard than blacks. Were all standards therefore illegal, since they all had a “disparate impact”? No. A standard with a disparate impact could be maintained only if it was a “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ). For example, truck drivers had to know how to drive trucks, and it was permissible to hire a white driver who could drive better than a black. Disparate impact ruled out general qualifications, or tests that could not be shown to be narrow evaluations of precisely those abilities necessary for a specific job.

    Naturally, there was tremendous confusion over what constituted a BFOQ. It had been customary to check the credit ratings of potential employees who were to be handling company money. Blacks and Hispanics have worse credit ratings than whites, so a credit check has a disparate impact, but aren’t personal finance habits a BFOQ? Lawyers grew fat determining that they are not. Responsible personal finance is not a BFOQ because it does not have a direct relationship to job performance, even in a company’s finance department. The law took the position that jobs require discreet, definable skills and only those skills should be considered by employers — if considering anything else would have a disparate impact.

    Needless to say, this was a huge bother for employers. If they wanted to test applicants they had to design a specific and limited test for each job. Often they hired “civil rights” specialists to vet the tests to make sure they were not inadvertently testing some unrelated skill. It also meant companies had to junk a very reliable employment test called the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB), which had been used since 1947. The GATB gave employers an excellent overall assessment of a candidate’s abilities for many different kinds of job, but like all tests it had a disparate impact, and it was a general rather than specific job test.

    Employers loved the GATB, and in 1981, the US Department of Labor figured out how to salvage it by curing it of disparate impact. The trick — which came to be known as race norming — was to make “ethnic adjustments” to all applicant scores so that all races were equally represented at all ability levels. It took a lot of adjusting to get rid of disparate impact. If a black, a Hispanic, a white, and an Asian each got the same GATB raw score of 300, the black would be ranked in the 87th percentile, the Hispanic in the 74th, and the white and Asian together at the bottom in the 47th percentile. The test could then be used to give the job to the black. He was, after all, in the 87th percentile for blacks, and was therefore a better candidate, after race norming, than the white who got the same score but was only in the 47th percentile for whites. With race norming, the trusty old GATB no longer had a disparate impact, and could still be used legally.

    By 1986 about 40 state governments and hundreds of private companies were race norming test scores, but they kept it a secret from the estimated 16 million candidates who went through the process. Companies that hired through state employment agencies often got race-normed candidate profiles whether they knew it or not.

    About this time, whites got wind of what was happening and raised a stink. The National Academy of Sciences did a “thorough scientific evaluation” of the GATB, and concluded in 1989 that it had no internal racial bias, but that race norming was a statistically valid way to eliminate disparate impact. By then, though, it was fashionable to oppose race norming, and in July 1990, then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole suspended use of the GATB for a two-year review period. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 banned race norming (but did not lift the ban on disparate impact), so that finally put an end to the ancient and honorable GATB.

    Employers were unhappy. They like standardized tests, because they are an objective way to compare candidates. With race norming, at least the candidate rankings within the same race were meaningful, and if companies had to have a certain number of non-whites to avoid discrimination suits, a test like the GATB was a good way to hire the best black or Hispanic. Had race norming been publicly acknowledged, it would have been a transparently unfair, but at least transparent preference system. It was this very transparency that Congress could not stomach in 1991 and that the Supreme Court cannot stomach in 2003. Then as now, racial preferences had to be subjective and kept out of sight.

    Whites do not know what is good for them. It is far better to have open, quantifiable discrimination than secret discrimination. Open discrimination is a standing insult to whites, and a constant reminder that blacks and Hispanics cannot meet standards. It raises the question of racial differences in IQ, and forces whites to recognize what their country is doing to them. If Congress and the Supreme Court want discrimination against whites, they should require a full, pubic accounting of it.

    Amren

Similar Threads

  1. Austria Seeks to Withdraw from EU Mandatory Refugee Quota System
    By Nachtengel in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, April 3rd, 2017, 12:52 PM
  2. What's Affirmative Action Like In Europe?
    By Caledonian in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Wednesday, June 8th, 2011, 08:19 PM
  3. Affirmative Action to Stay
    By Liberator Germaniae in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 21st, 2007, 09:20 AM
  4. Affirmative Action strikes again!
    By Nordhammer in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Saturday, June 18th, 2005, 12:14 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •