no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Vince Vaughn Comes Out Swinging Against Affirmative Action
Posted on February 16, 2015 by Frank Camp —

There are inequalities everywhere; that fact is inescapable. But to try to iron out inequity with further inequity is like trying to fix a broken bone by breaking another bone. It’s asinine, and ultimately harmful.

During an interview with Playboy, actor Vince Vaughn came out swinging against ine******y, but not in the way you’d expect from a Hollywood star. When the interviewer asked him about affirmative action, he replied rather eloquently:

“Do you believe that using race as a factor in evaluating a person is a good way to operate? But then you’re evaluating someone based on race, which is r****m. Rights don’t come to you because you’re a man or a woman or African American or European or Jewish. And I certainly don’t think the federal government should be in the business of deciding things or handing out money based on factors like these. I think history has proven without a doubt that the proper role of government is to protect individuals’ rights and liberties. That has always been the most prosperous, freest society for people to live in. And when government gets too involved, society turns into a place that gets very, very ugly. But I think we’ve walked more into Crossfire here than Playboy.”

Vaughn is absolutely correct. Affirmative action is r****t. Allow me to lay out a scenario as an example.

Two high school seniors are applying to Harvard. One is Asian, and the other is Black. Both have equally outstanding scholastic achievements, with 4.0 grade point averages, and stellar extracurriculars. They are each granted interviews with the Harvard admissions Dean, and each of them impresses.

But the Admissions Dean has been given a mandate by the school. Because B****s represent only a minority of students at Harvard, he has been told that regardless of aptitude, Black applicants must be given priority over all other races. So the Dean tells the Asian student that because there are already so many Asian students at Harvard, and so few B****s, he is going to accept the Black applicant.

Not only is the decision unfair to the Asian student, but to the Black student as well, because he is being treated as if he were handicapped in some way, despite his aptitude. What this decision implies is that intellectual aptitude, scholastic achievement, and extracurriculars mean absolutely nothing in light of race. The only true deciding factor was the color of the Black applicant’s skin.

This is affirmative action; it tells Black people that they are not enough, that they are less-than. Affirmative action says “Oh, you poor, stupid black people need a leg up. Without our help, you’ll never get anywhere in life.” It’s demeaning. Rather than foster real e******y, affirmative action fosters false e******y—which is just another form of ine******y.

There may have been a time when something like affirmative action was necessary, in light of desegregation, and leftover prejudices. That time is over. It’s 2015, and giving someone a leg up simply because of the color of their skin is vile, and just the same as disadvantaging someone because of their race. It’s judgment based on nothing more than pigment.

KHH1

**Too bad the right did not attack the reason AA was needed before THEY just decided one day that equailty has been attained....and the whole concept of people telling b****s how they should view themselves and their accomplishments in a lesser light because this r****t azz country needed corrective measures is laughable if not downright insulting....since white s created the "white is right" and "black is whack" social order, they really f-ing believe that we should view ourselves and our social reality including the state of civil rights...the way they tell us to view it...even the inbreds in here try to tell me about the jobs I received as an AA candidate and the schools I have attended...it is some dishonest bulls**t to act like b****s who benefitted were un/lesser qualified or actually given something they did not have to work for...even though white women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA...and that is not what it was originally intended for......you all can go f-k yourselves with that trying to attach a stigma bulls**t...convince your lackies on the right about how they should view themselves...like clarence thomas...who is psychologically damaged by how light-skinned b****s treated darker ones in GA, a white man's creation(paper bag test and all), hence his punitive politics towards people of color.........I know other b****s who tell that same story...younger ones.....yep, r****t w****s fucked allot of us up so we could be just like THEM....but until you all address the residue effects of jim crow and s***ery in a quantitative way that addresses the status quo more vigorously based on social research, f-k you and that, "You darkies have been given enough" mantra...

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

Bulls**t..........bulls**t............bulls**t

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Thank you so much for this post.... I could not agree more!!!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Antisocialist Loc: Florida

E******y will never be achieved if you expect something based on the color of your skin.

Striker Loc: Arizona Rockies

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Gee, I believe that Jim Crow is long expired.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Without Affirmative Action, neither Barack or Michelle Obama would ever have been admitted to, or have acquired a law degree from Harvard Law School.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Jim Crow has been ensconced as the eternal mascot of the Democrat party.

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

California outlawed Affirmative Action in the state government back in 1994 or 1996 (not sure which) by a v**e by the people, one of the last common sense laws to be passed by the state. Unfortunately nearly all of the newer laws haven't reflected the popular will of the people and have been enacted by the state legislature or decided by the courts.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

it has always been the commucrat mascot

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

Look KHH1, you're way too intelligent for most of these mentally challenged individuals, on this forum. Personally you've touched on an issue that has been on my mind for a long time. S***ery existed in America for roughly 246 years before the end of the Civil War. And then for almost 100 years after that, in most places, b****s were treated as second class citizens, primarily in the South, but don't kid yourself the same treatment happened in the North, and in every other nook and cranny of this country, as well. B****s were not allowed to go to school, they certainly weren't allowed to v**e. I heard of one example where B****s had to recite the Constitution, in order to v**e, while W****s had no such requirement. But I digress, the point is that even after the Civil War things didn't improve for B****s. So with another 100 years of discrimination, and don't even think discrimination ended with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, B****s were still systematically excluded from White society. Thus creating a need for AA. But the "r****ts" want you to think that (1) r****m has ended, here in America. Which we all know is BS. and (2) that after the passage of the Civil Rights Act that b****s not only gained instant e******y, with W****s, but that they were given "equal" opportunity, for any position in White society, as well. Take the example in "no propaganda please's" post. The example is flawed from the get go, the example is of an Asian student and a Black student, applying for admittance to the same school. In this example, everything is identical and yet because of AA, according to the narrator, the se******n process is unfair to the Asian student. How can it be unfair? If everything is equal, in the example, and AA was not in place, then I would imagine the se******n would come down to personalities or what the interviewer personally thought of the two candidates. And herein lies the rub, because while it is impossible to know how others think, it's a pretty good guess that with hundreds of years of s***ery and discrimination that the interviewer, if he or she were White, would choose the Asian, if not for AA. That does not ultimately make the se******n wrong, because after all, both candidates are equal in their abilities. But we know that consciously or unconsciously many W****s,(and I'm being kind here), in this society, are predisposed to discriminate against B****s. And to simply ignore that fact is ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as it is to think that once the Civil War was over, B****s had attained instant equal rights and an instant equal societal footing, with W****s, here in America. We know this to be a lie because it took almost 100 years more to pass a Civil Rights Act.

R****m is an ugly devious societal disease. I, like most W****s, thought we had made great strides in eliminating r****m and discrimination, but it is apparent that we are no where close. The events in Furgeson, Cleveland, New York and all around the country are stark examples that we are a long way from eliminating r****m. I don't know the virtues of AA, but I do know that without it W****s, left to their own devices, would ultimately exclude B****s from mainstream society. Just as White males would do the same to females. I would venture to say that without AA there would be no Black CEOs nor Female CEOs, in mainstream society, in this country. Oh, there may be the occasional "exception to the rule", or the "exception that proves the rule" example, but that would be nothing more than "Tokenism". But we all know the "The Good Old White Boys" club would still be in effect.

No law will alter or change one's thinking, nor eliminate r****m, but it will provide for a higher standard of "Equal Opportunity". Let me give you one example, in the '70s bussing was a "hot issue", inner city students being bussed to suburban schools and vice versa. The goal was the integration of our school system. No one deluded themselves by thinking that bussing would change any individual's mind about how they personally viewed Black/White relations, initially. But what it did do was put children of all ethnicities together and over time the students studied, worked and played together, to the point that the children saw that we are all human beings and wondered why previous generations held such hatred towards certain people, just because of the color of their skin. I go back to the example used in this thread, if all aspects of both applicants, one Black and the other Asian, were equal, how can it be unfair to the Asian applicant if the Black applicant was chosen because of AA? It shows you the mind set, most likely unconsciously, of the individual giving the example. There is an implication that if all factors were equal, and that AA did not exist, the Asian student would be chosen. And that implies an inherent r****m that still exists today, in our society. Today "bussing" is a non issue. But unlike "integration" I don't believe eliminating r****m will be as easy as integrating U.S. society, but over time with an increase in "Opportunity" for all ethnicities to access all levels of our Society, Corporate and Governmental, it will quickly become apparent that it doesn't matter what one's ethnicity is, it will be can you get the job done. In a perfect society the only question that will be asked is "Can you do the job?"

KHH1, r****ts will always try and diminish and belittle the accomplishments of those they h**e. It's in the nature of the beast.

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Ditto.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

when you talk like an i***t people will judge you to be an i***t without knowing your race

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

???????????

Antisocialist Loc: Florida

Went over your head didn't it?

Which ........ kind of proves his point.