From: sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: alt.discrimination = alt.caucasian whining
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:28:21 GMT
Organization: Society for the Promulgation of Cruelty to the Clueless

In article <93011.071448KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.063802.12575@panix.com>, sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart)
>says:
>>
>>In article <93008.070837KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>  Now we all can name
>more than a hand full of white people who discriminate, otherwise the civil
>rights division of the justice department wouldn't be as busy as it is.

You'll notice that when whites discriminate, the Justice Department
acts.  When do they start acting against Spike Lee?

>  OK,
>you named one, now is that rampant discrimination?

That's discrimination.  It's equally as bad as one equally powerful
white who discriminates on the basis of race.

>     That is great!  Let's have a level playing field starting now!  We will
>ignore the fact that white people haven't allowed us to get proper education
>and haven't been hiring us.  So therefore, if we start the playing field level
>beginning today, employers will say that you don't have the experience or the
>education to compete, so who will end up getting hired?  That is the reason
>behind AA.

Did you just admit that AA causes people who are less qualified than
others (due to lack of education or experience) to be hired?

>  I have not benifitted from
>AA and I have no reason to want to (with 1400 SAT's and a 3.9 GPA, I could go
>where I wanted to

I know whites with comparable averages and much better SAT's who
didn't get into every college they applied to (like me).  Are you sure
you didn't benefit from AA?

>  The playing field isn't level yet and shouldn't be for
>some because the starting line isn't equal!

When I want to hire a ditch-digger, I want to hire the person who can
move the most cubic feet of dirt per hour.  I don't want to hire
somebody who might have been able to move a lot of dirt, except that
he was crippled in a fight with a bunch of racists.

I think we should equalize the starting line.  Making the field
non-level is unfair to everybody (including "society", because total
production is less than it would be in a system where the best get
hired).

>   Are you going to deny that the white man "stole" this country and exploited
>people in order to make their fortunes?  If you are, I think you had better
>take U.S. History 100!

Who is this mythical being you refer to as "the white man"?  My
ancestors didn't arrive in this country until this century.

And, while you're at it, tell me precisely who Bill Gates (the richest
American, last time I checked) "stole" his fortune from.

>>>  And you are telling me that whites don't receive "special
>>>treatment" (look at the tax codes sometime).
>>
>>I have.  I see special deductions for people who are over 65 and for
>>people who are blind.  On what line of the 1040 does the special
>>deduction for whites go?
>>   Sure, look under the eligible deductions, where businessmen can write off
>their lunches, their vacation homes and things like that. Where Exxon can
>write off thier fine from the huge oil spill.  I have a editorial cartoon on my
>office wall that has a group of white men together at a country club eating
>lunch.  ONe guy says "We must ween these welfare leeches from living off the
>taxpayers".  At the same time, his friend is leaning over to the waiter and
>says "A receipt please".  That about sums it up.

I suppose black businessmen can't write off (80% of) their lunches?
If you want to say the tax code works in favor of business, fine.  It
isn't racially oriented.

>>Then why do you keep insisting that society discriminate in your favor?
>
>    I am not saying that there be discrimination in my favor.  Do you deny that
>the time in this nation's history that Black people have been able to compete
>for jobs and the like has been short?  Do you deny that a lot of companies
>still discriminate?  Do you deny that a lot more companies would discriminate
>if the legal obstacles were removed?

What do those things have to do with requiring discrimination (such as AA)?

>>>  And as a Black person, whose people do not discriminate because
>>>we don't own enough of America to discriminate,
>>
>>You don't have to own very much to discriminate.  You can choose to
>>buy your newspaper at one newsstand instead of another because of the
>>race of the proprietor; that's discrimination.  It doesn't require
>>very much money.