On Thursday, Matthew Yglesias blogged:
For example, in his father Rafael Yglesias's profession of screenwriting, only 6% of screenwriters of studio movies are minorities (and who knows whether that's counting Yglesias Sr.).
Most of the really good jobs in America, such as screenwriting or being a CEO, are, legally-speaking, Special Snowflake Jobs that are considered so unique that the statistical logic of disparate impact discrimination lawsuits are assumed not to apply to them. A firm only has one CEO, so it's hard for the EEOC to mount a statistical case showing that the firm's CEO hiring practices have a disparate impact on legally protected groups: the sample size of CEOs hired by the firm is too small to demonstrate statistical significance.
In fact, a working definition of somebody with a good job is somebody who doesn't have to worry much about quotas. People who do have to worry a lot about quotas therefore, by definition, don't have good jobs and, thus, are nobodies who can and should be ignored.
So, the people with the really good jobs in America tend to be fairly clueless and apathetic about how the system works for people competing for average jobs, like, say, fireman.
On Friday, the Chicago Sun Times reported:
... new research appears to indicate that anti-anti-racism is now the default view of white Americans who see themselves as a persecuted, put-upon minority that happens to hold over 90 percent of political offices, corporate executive jobs, and other positions of power and prestige.
For example, in his father Rafael Yglesias's profession of screenwriting, only 6% of screenwriters of studio movies are minorities (and who knows whether that's counting Yglesias Sr.).
Most of the really good jobs in America, such as screenwriting or being a CEO, are, legally-speaking, Special Snowflake Jobs that are considered so unique that the statistical logic of disparate impact discrimination lawsuits are assumed not to apply to them. A firm only has one CEO, so it's hard for the EEOC to mount a statistical case showing that the firm's CEO hiring practices have a disparate impact on legally protected groups: the sample size of CEOs hired by the firm is too small to demonstrate statistical significance.
In fact, a working definition of somebody with a good job is somebody who doesn't have to worry much about quotas. People who do have to worry a lot about quotas therefore, by definition, don't have good jobs and, thus, are nobodies who can and should be ignored.
So, the people with the really good jobs in America tend to be fairly clueless and apathetic about how the system works for people competing for average jobs, like, say, fireman.
On Friday, the Chicago Sun Times reported:
City must hire 111 bypassed black firefighter candidates, court rules
By FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter May 13, 2011 7:34PM
The Chicago Fire Department must hire 111 bypassed black firefighter candidates — and distribute “tens of millions of dollars” in damages to 6,000 others who will never get that chance — a federal appeals court ruled Friday, upholding a landmark ruling.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 9-to-0 decision, that, contrary to the city’s contention, African-American candidates hadn’t waited too long before filing a lawsuit that accused the city of discriminating against them for the way it handled a 1995 firefighter’s entrance exam.
On Friday, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling and sent the case back to the trial court to implement what it called the “hiring remedy” the city has been stalling.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Joshua Karsh said ... “The city gave a test back in 1995 that did not measure the ability to be a firefighter. It made it more than six times more likely that white applicants would be hired rather than African Americans with no job-related justification. Nothing about getting a high score on that test predicted anything about whether you’d be a superior firefighter.”
When results from the 1995 entrance exam were disappointing for minorities, the city established a cutoff score of 89 and hired randomly from the top 1,800 “well-qualified” candidates.
In 2005, a federal judge ruled that the city’s decision had the effect of perpetuating the predominantly white status quo, since 78 percent of those ‘‘well-qualified’’ candidates were white. ...
One of those expected to be vying for the coveted 111 jobs is Handy Johnson, a 49-year-old personal trainer whose dream of becoming a Chicago firefighter was put off for so long that he’s now 11 years above the city’s age limit for new firefighter hires of 38 years old. That age limit won’t apply to the 111 new hires because the discrimination occurred before the cutoff was established. ...
Crawford Smith, 35, isn’t interested in cashing out, either. He still wants a job with the Chicago Fire Department.
“My grandfather was a fireman. My father was a fireman. I’ve got an uncle and a cousin who are still firemen. The Fire Department raised me. It’s a dream I’ve always had,” Smith said. ...
Friday’s ruling exacerbates a city budget crisis that Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel, who will be sworn in on Monday, will inherit from Mayor Daley.
My June 2, 2010 VDARE column explained the back story of this 16-year-long case:
Well, it’s kind of hard to make this sound plausible … but in 1995 Mayor Daley, hoping to diversify the Chicago Fire Department, used a hiring test designed by a black psychologist in order to hire more blacks. But according to district judge Joan B. Gottschall’s 2005 decision in favor of the 6000 black applicants who scored poorly, the black psychologist’s test wasn’t good enough, so therefore a huge amount of money should be paid to blacks.
Daley set out to create an objective, relevant test that would also get rid of the racial gap. He would pay big money for cutting edge civil service exams that would not discriminate against blacks and Hispanics.
Daley gave a large contract to a black consultant named Dr. James Outtz, who positions himself as a psychometrician who could come up with tests that minorities would do well upon. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 2009, "The ‘95 exam was drafted by an African American with an eye toward diversifying the Fire Department."
In 2005, finally, Judge Gottschall, a graduate of Stanford Law (LSAT range 168-172), issued her ruling: total victory for the black plaintiffs. Chicago should just pick randomly among anybody scoring at the 16th percentile on up.
She offered multiple reasons for junking the test: the "chaotic" nature of the black consultant’s video, her assumption that anybody who scores at the 7th percentile of the white distribution of scores is good enough for the job, and the fact that in the Horan case brought by white firefighters passed over for promotion, the city had defended its use of overt racial quotas for promotions: in effect, any compromise on one case will be used against you in the next.
In 2006, Chicago finally gave another firefighter’s hiring test. To avoid disparate impact, it made the test so easy that 96 percent of whites passed it. Then it chose randomly from all who passed.
Posts
49 comments:
Steve, fire-fighting is a GOOD government job--a really good one, actually. That's why there are so many applicants.
There is no doubt that people who current have the jobs have an inside-track for their friends and family.
I'm in favor of shaking up the status quo to be honest.
It will be interesting to see if any Republicans choose to make an issue out of affirmative action after the way the media ganged up on Donald Trump.
What's also interesting is how diversity completely neutralizes "progressives," because it was the progressive movement which mainly fought for civil service reform and civil service exams as an objective way to protect against patronage and corruption in government hiring.
The inferior ones will only be serving the city of Chicago, right? The bordering suburbs wouldn't be affected, right? I have family there...
I keep hearing that fires are rare nowadays because of the modern regulations, but my local ghettoesque fire department celebrates every 2 weeks without a fire because fires happen relatively often around here.
...white Americans who see themselves as a persecuted, put-upon minority that happens to hold over 90 percent of political offices, corporate executive jobs, and other positions of power and prestige. --M.Y.**
Hmmm... 90% of such positions are held by white Americans, therefore... 90% of white Americans must hold such positions!
Iberian-American thought has certainly slipped since the days of Santayana and Dos Passos.
** Say, does Matthew get royalties from Windows' "My Documents", and all that other My-mania stuff going around in the early Aughts?
... new research appears to indicate that anti-anti-racism is now the default view of white Americans who see themselves as a persecuted, put-upon minority that happens to hold over 90 percent of political offices, corporate executive jobs, and other positions of power and prestige.
... new research appears to indicate that anti-anti-Semitism is now the default view of Jewish Americans who see themselves as a persecuted, put-upon minority that happens to be highly over-represented among those who hold political offices, corporate executive jobs, and other positions of power and prestige.
Not complaining about anti-white discrimination arises from the same instinct that meant people did not complain about poor programming of network TV on Saturday nights.
Popular people went out on Saturday nights, so the only people who were home to get aggrieved by the programming were therefore unpopular losers. So, better to just shut up about it than complain and appear a loser.
is 90% high? low? just about right? To analyze that we'd have to compare merit and achievement with some objective metric; i.e., we'd have to use math, which people like Yglesias are terrified of. Hence the degrees in English, journalism, history, art, whatEVER it takes to get away from icky math!
Unreal how the guy just quotes a number with no frame of reference. And we're supposed to clutch our skirts, shrieking "Eek! 90 percent of some jobs are staffed by whites! This is an outrage!" so loudly that we don't ever have to explain why it's an outrage.
Are there any voices within black leadership that realize the hazards to the entire institution of affirmative action of so aggressively pursuing quotas for the fire department?
I can understand why the local organizers (the kingmaker minister of New Haven) wouldn't want to pass up really good government jobs for his people butwhat about national leadership?
It would appear that 99% of NBA millionaires are Black. Not to mention 100% of wealthy rappers, 65% of NFL millionaires, and 100% of the current President and Attorney General. If anything, Blacks at 12% of the population and dropping (slightly) are over-represented, and should give up those positions RIGHT NOW! to deserving Mexicans.
After all, who needs Kobe Bryant or Lebron James when you can have Jose from the Barrio? What skills do they have that cannot be found in "vibrant" places like East LA?
Following the example of the firefighters, what would happen if the competent (not NAM I guess) firefighters all agree to refuse to go if there is a fire in a judge's or politician's home?
Of course if this is illegal, they could always find some way (the car is broken, there is not water...). Put at work that IQ difference.
Just for asking.
This is great news. I can't believe Whites are finally waking up to the anti-White forces at work in American society. Awesome!
You should've linked to the text of the AP story posted earlier in the comments of another post here. It included this great line:
A spokeswoman for the city's law department called the decision a “partial victory” for the city because it reduced the number of African Americans the fire department must hire from 132 to 111.
Oops! That didn't come out right!
“Reducing the number of plaintiffs who are eligible reduces the damages,” said Jenny Hoyle.
Oh, I see.
"It would appear that 99% of NBA millionaires are Black. Not to mention 100% of wealthy rappers"
Eminem, The Beastie Boys.
"It’s a small sample size, but new research appears to indicate that anti-anti-racism is now the default view of white Americans who see themselves as a persecuted, put-upon minority that happens to hold over 90 percent of political offices, corporate executive jobs, and other positions of power and prestige"
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/04/asian-admissions-in-boston-globe.html
"What about the argument that, in relation to the general population, Asian-Americans are already overrepresented at universities? “It’s both true that Asians are overrepresented and that they’re being discriminated against,” says Stephen Hsu, a professor of physics at the University of Oregon who speaks out against discrimination he says Asian-Americans face in university admissions. Both things can happen at the same time, he says."
Or not, says Matt. Or is there an Asian exception?
....
I also found this comment staggering, in response to the suggestion that White and Asian people were unfairly impacted by affirmative discrimination:
"Having people from different backgrounds is more useful than a couple IQ points. This is why private companies often have affirmative action even if they're not legally required to.
That, and frankly, society doesn't have legitimacy if everyone in power is white, rich, and overwhelmingly from a couple of elite high-schools. In theory, you get a meritocracy. But in reality, you get a country that's run solely for the benefit of those with "merit". And there's a big difference."
Selecting people on the basis of characteristics which aren't theoretically* earnable by someone from any background is fine if it leads to "diversity", but I can guess what this commentators reaction would be if it was "We pick WASP sales guys and Jewish accountants because it gives our customers confidence". Or if CEOs were selected due to background and experience in an upper class business mileau through family connections that was not accessible to all.
And in what sense does society "not have legitimacy" purely because the rulers are all from a single ethnic background, regardless of how fair the process of their appointment was?
*Well, we all know the truth, on a HBD basis, but remember this is the theory.
Amy Wax, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, has written a pretty good paper on the absurdities of disparate impact: Disparate Impact Realism. Quoting from the paper:
Alternatively, this paper proposes repealing the disparate impact rule altogether. The principal argument for repealing disparate impact is that, under present social conditions, racial imbalances in employment are exceedingly weak evidence of discrimination, either in the form of race-based disparate treatment or through unlawful disparate impact. The IOP data indicate that differences in the distribution of skill and human capital, not race-based exclusion or arbitrary barriers to employment, are the principal factors behind racial imbalances on the job. In light of these realities, the disparate impact rule is fatally overbroad and ensnares far too much conduct in its net. Under current social conditions, the vast majority of commonly employed selection procedures are valid and job related, and thus do not actually violate the disparate impact rule. Yet most valid personnel practices will routinely show enough adverse impact to create a prima facie case of discrimination, thereby shifting the burden of justification to employers. Given the legal uncertainties and practical difficulties of defending disparate impact claims, employers run a significant risk of being found liable regardless of whether their defense is valid, and even though they are not actually violating the rule. Virtually no aspect of the business necessity defense is settled law, so employers still face the prospect of protracted, expensive, uncertain, and resource intensive litigation to defend their practices. This encourages them to engage in perverse, inefficient, and evasive tactics, including de facto affirmative action. In sum, the overbreadth of the disparate impact rule is both inefficient and fundamentally unfair. Racial preferences are also directly at odds with the meritocratic goals of the disparate impact rule.
Wes said...
This is great news. I can't believe Whites are finally waking up to the anti-White forces at work in American society. Awesome!
Is this sarcasm or fake enthusiasm? It can be hard to tell with these "non-trolls" sometimes.
Why would a White want to be a firefighter in Chicago, where there are actual fires? Why not apply to the FD in some (relatively) quiet suburb, where there would be less competition, less chance of minortiy lawsutis, and where the municipality would be (relatively) less cash-strapped?
"white Americans who see themselves as a persecuted, put-upon minority that happens to hold over 90 percent of political offices, corporate executive jobs, and other positions of power and prestige."
White and Jewish need to be separated out to show the true situation. College admissions also.
Most white people don't hold high political offices or corporate CEO positions. Those white people--ususally Jews or liberal wasps--are safe and getting richer and more powerful. No need to worry about them. Upper middle class whites/Jews/Asians of global economy are doing fine too--and trust fund babies of affluent whites in places like Portland are also having lots of fun.
MOST white people don't belong in the above-listed categories. Most of them are middle class, lower middle class, working class, and increasingly poor, and they are being hurt by the global economy(loss of manufacturing jobs and outsourcing), illegal immigration(higher crime, taxes, worse neighborhoods), rise of Asians(loss of college admission for middle class gentile whites), black problems(as more blacks are relocated into white areas), loss of lower-level government jobs to blacks and Hispanics, interracism where white women are lost to men of other races, trash culture(which encourages their girls to dress like whores), Main Street having to bail out both Wall Street and Asphalt Jungle, PC blaming everything on whites, etc.
Uglysias misses the point cuz he focuses on the cream of the crop of whites and associates ALL whites with the happy elite. That would be like saying blacks have nothing to worry about since 80% of top athletes, music stars, and etc are black(and the president too). While it's true that people like Obama, Oprah, Cosby, and Woods are doing fabulously well, things are not so good for the blacks of Detroit.
Similarly, while things may be great for Swapple yuppies and superrich whites(and Jews), things are not so great for most whites.
Also, many of the most successful whites are Jewish(and liberal), and their agenda is not to help their fellow white brethren(in fact, many Jews don't even see whites as fellow brethren though most whites see Jews as a holy brethren)but instead to hurt general white interests. Paradoxically, the great success of 'white' Jews means even less power for non-Jewish whites. Just look at the policy of Sierra Club after Jews gained control. Just look who's president as the result of Jewish power/support/money.
So, in the eyes of progressives, we'd better make sure prosecutors' offices/ US attorneys' offices and appointed judges all over the US don't have a % of Jewish names that exceed the % of Jewish people in the US or in the community those people serve. Let's weed 'em out right now I say--after all, it's what the progressives are arguing for.
"Diversity" is another way in which big players can use the government to their advantage. If your outfit is big enough, you can afford the inefficiency that comes with hiring and promoting and finding non-obvious sinecures for "diversity candidates." But the mid-sized and smaller firms don't have that luxury. They're caught between laws and a culture that demands a diverse workforce, on the one hand, and the economics of needing every employee to be productive, on the other.
Same goes for handicapped-access laws.
Everyone always forgets that AA was supposed to work like this: all other qualifications being equal, the minority candidate was supposed to be considered for the job along with the others qualified.
The argument went like this--*qualified* minorities and women were not being hired even when they met or exceeded the stated criteria of the job, even when their qualifications matched those of white males, the argument being they were discriminated out of hand on the basis of race or gender. That was largely true for many positions for a long time.
Of course, in practice, that morphed into minorities and women must be hired even when their qualifications do not match those of others; and when that didn't work, it morphed into the argument that when women and minority candidates didn't meet the criteria or when all qualifications were *not* equal, the stated qualifications must be changed for they must be unfair to begin with. Gag.
I won't vote for him, but I wish Ron Paul would attack an issue like this for once. He's the only one likely to give it voice, but is he even interested?
For no other reason than Supreme Court nominees of the future, Obama has to go.
Damn, even minorities should see that the country can be destroyed very quickly from within when incompetent hires continue.
I' love to see a YouTube debate/discussion with Steve on one side and Yglesias on the other.
Any possibility of that? Why not?
Go to Steve Hsu's blog for recent posts about his trip to Taiwan, Chinese research into genomic sequencing of g and what's on the horizon in the next decade regarding genetic evidence of g.
One wonders how the American judicial system will react to scientific realities.
When Yglesias says "White Americans" shouldn't he just say "the Goyim" or "those scary, dirty, dangerous Goyim"? Or something like that.
... new research appears to indicate that anti-anti-racism is now the default view of white Americans who see themselves as a persecuted, put-upon minority that happens to hold over 90 percent of political offices, corporate executive jobs, and other positions of power and prestige.
No Matt it doesn't work that way.
Here goes - "the put-upon minority that DOESN'T hold 99.99% of political offices, corporate executive jobs, and other positions of power and prestige".
If 100% of the 9 Supreme court justices, 100 Senators and 500 Fortune 500 CEOs were White men that would mean 99.99% of White men DON'T hold those jobs.
Yglesias doesn't seem all that bright. Is it due to an excess of Sephardic genes at the expense of Ashkenazi ones?
@Fred, 1:27pm 5/15: "Eminem, The Beastie Boys."
Ok, one. Beastie Boys - not so much. Plus, aren't they, like, over 50 by now.
When I was a graduate student the smart career move was to become a firefighter. Firemen didn't work very hard and got good money. It wasn't considered a permanent job - more of a way to further your education.
Alas I had the test scores but I didn't have the eyes. They gave you an eye test without glasses. I think the claim was that the helmet and mask kept you from wearing glasses. Something about smoke I think.
The work hours of firemen were notorious. It was common for firemen to build a boat or restore a car during work hours. My friends as firemen got advanced degrees. A fireman always had plenty of time for study.
In San Francisco the younger guys dreaded working in the Avenues - too dull. There were essentially no fires out there so the firefighters just lolled about the station all day. It was better to work the Mission or Hunter's Point - still mostly waiting about, but an occasional fire or disaster to keep you awake.
Fire fighter is not a normal job in any sense. The nearest comparable job is probably policeman but when things are slow at the station house the cops go out and pound a beat or cruise the boulevards. They do something if only just show their presence. Firemen just sit down and wait.
So at one time we were getting a lot of high scoring White graduate students with good eyes to fight our fires. Crazy, as is the modern reform that fills the fire houses with Black dullards.
In Japan their firefighters seem to spend their idle hours training for Ninja Warrior. An optimum solution.
Albertosaurus
In 1983, at the age of 20 I was working on my BS in Computer Science at a mid-level college in MA. Just for a back-up plan, I took the Firefighter test in my hometown, a suburb of Boston. In this city of 50,000 people, over 500 (mostly) young men lined up on a Saturday morning and were ushered into the local high school auditorium, issued an exam booklet, a bubble sheet, and two no. 2 pencils. Most of the test-takers were "townies" - local high school and vocational school grads, working in manual labor jobs in the area, ages 20 - 29.
I ended up scoring in the 99th percentile. And about a year later, the mayor of the town called me into his office and offered me a job as Firefighter at the princely sum of $8.50 per hour (1984). That seemed like decent money to me, but I was just one year away from my BS, so I turned down the job offer. The city ended up hiring about 5 people out of the hundreds that took the test. One of whom was my childhood friend; he quckly dropped his hardware clerk position.
Fast forward, 25 years and two masteres degrees later, I'm still working and those guys that took the job topped out at about $70K per year + $50K OT, and have retired at 45 y/o w/ $50K per year pensions.
I sometimes wonder if I made the right career decision that day, almost 30 years ago.
"The argument went like this--*qualified* minorities and women were not being hired even when they met or exceeded the stated criteria of the job, even when their qualifications matched those of white males, the argument being they were discriminated out of hand on the basis of race or gender. That was largely true for many positions for a long time."
This is bullshit. My friend's grandmother worked as an engineer on the Manhattan Project. QUALIFIED women weren't discriminated against, but unqualified women were. Top 20% women want to displace the men who are above average and have wives and families to support. NAM's don't want to be CEO's. They just want the salary.
"In Japan their firefighters seem to spend their idle hours training for Ninja Warrior."
LOL
I assume you mean they are playing video
Wes said...
This is great news. I can't believe Whites are finally waking up to the anti-White forces at work in American society. Awesome!
Anonymous: Is this sarcasm or fake enthusiasm? It can be hard to tell with these "non-trolls" sometimes.
==
Ha, ha---Looks like I'm not the only commenter here with at least a couple of brain cells. But the answer is definitely "fake enthusiasm." Our mysterious friend "Wes" always does his best to "blend in" ideologically, though he's really not all that good at it.
For example, when he was last hanging around here a week or so ago, he was using phrases like "Have courage, my Middle American Brothers." Ain't that just about the fakest lingo you ever heard?...
Will libs ever make up their minds? With the myth of the 'superman teacher' saving depressed communities, they say we must fire lots of underqualified black teachers and replace them with good white and asian ones.
But libs also say fire departments must make way for underqualified black firemen.
Of course if the city burns down, and black firefighters do a bad job, the city will be blamed for not hiring the best.
Steve,
Here's an excellent paper summarizing the academic research on why the most predictive tests will necessarily have disparate impact. The author, a University of Pennsylvania Law School - Professor, suggests amending the law to allow for this.
Disparate Impact Realism
"What about the argument that, in relation to the general population, Asian-Americans are already overrepresented at universities?
It really seems to me, as I've argued here, that we're de facto ending up with "weight classes" (like in boxing) but for brains.
And if that's what society wants--'we'll take this many low achievers, this many middle achievers, and this many high-achievers for this job / college spot,' then we should stop dancing around it and just admit it already. Some of these quotes from judges, etc. are so through the looking glass that they read like something from the Onion.
"This is bullshit. My friend's grandmother worked as an engineer on the Manhattan Project. QUALIFIED women weren't discriminated against, but unqualified women were. "
HA. No, not at all bullshit. I am a Boomer. I entered the teaching profession in the early seventies and found no women at all in administrative jobs at the district level and none at the school level. That's right, no women prinicipals, no women vice or assistant principals, no women deans, no women co-ordinators of curriculum...NONE in a town of moderate size in California. There were a total of 13 schools in the district at that time--one large high school, two junior highs, the rest elementary schools. Women had applied, but never seriously considered for any admin position.
The female faculty of the high school were not allowed to wear pants. The district's superintendent, the best friend of the high school's principal, deferred to him on this matter. He announced to us at a faculty meeting, when women pressed him for a change in policy, "No woman working at my school will ever be allowed to wear pants."
I tell this, however, as evidence of a time long ago when women were not even considered in many places for positions for which they were indeed qualified and often superior in talent to their male counterparts.
You should eat your own bullshit.
TH, Kiwiguy:
Disparate Impact Realism
Thanks for posting the link to this study. It's the first scholarly one I've seen that challenges the reigning doctrine on 'disparate impact.' The question is, how on earth to get anyone in Washington to read it, and second, how to get them past page 1 without calling Ms. Wax a RacistNaziBigot?
Formerly JP98:
You might be interested in: "The Theory of Differential Cutoff: How to Maximize Productivity in a Multiracial Workforce," an essay @
lagriffedulion.f2s.com
Wes said...
This is great news. I can't believe Whites are finally waking up to the anti-White forces at work in American society. Awesome!
Is this sarcasm or fake enthusiasm? It can be hard to tell with these "non-trolls" sometimes.
It is sincere enthusiasm. I thought Whites were the one group that had lost all sense of ethnic identity. It also means that Whites are paying attention to how they are being legally discriminated against.
Gene -- Thanks for the tip. Looks very interesting.
"White and Jewish need to be separated out to show the true situation. College admissions also."
If you can't get them to break out (or even mention) the overrepresentation of Asians, they certainly won't be doing it for Jews.
I just read through the comments at Yglesias' blog. It's fun, contrasting the different response patterns from HBDers and Libtards. HBDers grab hold of hostile interlopers (so they can't get away) and give them a beating. Libtards just beg interlopers to leave.
"Ignore the troll and he'll go away" (hope hope). LOL. Grab your balls, guys!
The funniest part is how they all were so very content talking amongst themselves and doing all the talking for the evil white racists. But when the evil white racists came along and actually spoke for themselves...crickets chirping. Nothing but facile non-response, wisecracks, name-calling, etc.
What a bunch of limp-wristed cowards. They really, really don't want to understand WTF they're talking about. Actual evil white racists explaining their positions are definitely not welcome.
Libtards = epic fail at what they value most; moral preening. By their standards I'm a better human being than they are, because I'm interested in dialog and they aren't.
Once again we have a mere inference of racial discrimination based on disparate impact.
And once again the court-ordered remedy is intentional discrimination that flagrantly violates the statute that is supposedly being enforced.
Not complaining about anti-white discrimination arises from the same instinct that meant people did not complain about poor programming of network TV on Saturday nights.
Popular people went out on Saturday nights, so the only people who were home to get aggrieved by the programming were therefore unpopular losers. So, better to just shut up about it than complain and appear a loser.
You couldn't be more wrong. It's the people at the top who suffer the most. For instance, there are just four whites on the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Once again we have a mere inference of racial discrimination based on disparate impact.
And once again the court-ordered remedy is intentional discrimination that flagrantly violates the statute that is supposedly being enforced."
Once again we have a 8h grade logic game performed on Isteve by our little facist.
Once again we have a 8h grade logic game performed on Isteve by our little facist.
Oh, I was just about to dub you "our little libtard" but if you think Ben's cooler than me well you can just go sing for your supper, pal.
... new research appears to indicate that anti-anti-racism is now the default view of white Americans who see themselves as a persecuted, put-upon minority that happens to hold over 90 percent of political offices, corporate executive jobs, and other positions of power and prestige.
Question 1: Do you suppose anti-anti-semitism is the default view of Jewish Americans who see themselves as a persecuted, put-upon minority that happens to be overrepresented in higher education, corporate executive jobs, and other positions of power and prestige?
Question 2: Will Jews ever become more self-reflective?
Question 2: Will Jews ever become more self-reflective?
Only when circumstances force them to. Mutual consent, roleplay type force, obviously.
Peter Hitchens What’s really important, ‘equality and diversity’ or the lives of firefighters?
One thing it has been good for is Cosmopolitan where they gets ads to entice their readers into being firefighters because they are equally as good as if not better than male firefighters.
The ads do not work for some reason.
Post a Comment