Reverse Discrimination

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

With Affirmitive Action in America, many acuse it of being "reversly discriminative". Can such a thing even exist? Can the majority be oppressed like they are implying? Since the ruling class is white, how can whites be oppressed?

[chamo]

It couldn't really happen in the USA unless a racist black government was somehow elected.

However, it is, was, possible in newly colonised countries such as South Africa where the whites were in the minority yet had more power and better facilities, along with the segregation, because they had all the money in the country.

Now, of course that is all changed and everyone is supposedley equal there.

[bluerev002]

Well, here in south Cali where there is a latins make up the majority of the population it is really hard for whites to get scholarships. Simply because the govt. thinks that they can pay for college themselves and most of the scholarship money goes towards the latins people. Even if they have the same grades or if they live in the same kind of houses or whatever. It is almost imposible for a white to get a schoalrship here, so theres an example of reverse dicrimination. They try to be fair to the latinos so they are unfair to the whites... <_<

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Yes it&#39;s possible and it&#39;s reality.

On every governmental level, where a certain "race" or group (which feels a connection with each other) makes out a majority, there will be discrimination. It&#39;s all part of the class-struggle. Each group tries to overrule the others.

[praxis1966]

As I see it, anyone who uses the phrase "reverse discrimination" in this context doesn&#39;t really understand the English language. First of all, discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, if I am an employer and I choose a qualified job candidate over a non-qualified candidate, that is by definition discrimination. I have discriminated against the lesser of the two candidates. Furthermore, the word "reverse" implies the opposite of something. By combining the words "reverse" and "discrimination," one is implying a lack or absense of discrimination.

A better description of the attitude/actions I think you are discussing is prejudice. Webster&#39;s Encyclopedic Dictionary defines prejudice as follows: a bias or leaning, favorable or unfavorable, without reason, or for some reason other than justice. This could apply to anything or anyone, white on black, black on white, Asian on Latino, etc. In other words, to precede "prejudice" with "reverse" is unecessary and negates the meaning of the former on it&#39;s face. Just goes to show you that any moron who uses this phrase doesn&#39;t really know what he/she is talking about in the first place.

FYI: Webster&#39;s Encyclopedic Dictionary defines discriminate (the root word of discrimination) as follows: To distinguish from other things by observing differences; to perceive by a distinction; to discern; to seperate; to select; to distinguish by some note or mark. In other words, when you are discriminating, all you are really doing is telling the difference between unlike things. Say, apples and oranges

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 12:03 AM
As I see it, anyone who uses the phrase "reverse discrimination" in this context doesn&#39;t really understand the English language. First of all, discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, if I am an employer and I choose a qualified job candidate over a non-qualified candidate, that is by definition discrimination. I have discriminated against the lesser of the two candidates. Furthermore, the word "reverse" implies the opposite of something. By combining the words "reverse" and "discrimination," one is implying a lack or absense of discrimination.

A better description of the attitude/actions I think you are discussing is prejudice. Webster&#39;s Encyclopedic Dictionary defines prejudice as follows: a bias or leaning, favorable or unfavorable, without reason, or for some reason other than justice. This could apply to anything or anyone, white on black, black on white, Asian on Latino, etc. In other words, to precede "prejudice" with "reverse" is unecessary and negates the meaning of the former on it&#39;s face. Just goes to show you that any moron who uses this phrase doesn&#39;t really know what he/she is talking about in the first place.

FYI: Webster&#39;s Encyclopedic Dictionary defines discriminate (the root word of discrimination) as follows: To distinguish from other things by observing differences; to perceive by a distinction; to discern; to seperate; to select; to distinguish by some note or mark. In other words, when you are discriminating, all you are really doing is telling the difference between unlike things. Say, apples and oranges
Good grief mate. You know that each word in the english language has several meanings.

dis·crim·i·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn)
n.
The act of discriminating.
The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.


C&#39;mon man.

[praxis1966]

Yeah, but that still doesn&#39;t change the fact that the phrase "reverse discrimination" is essentially meaningless, kind of like the phrase "same difference." Also, I have a feeling that definition crept into the vernacular due to constant misuse. Dictionary editors often add definitions and even words to their publications that were once considered improper. Take for instance the word "ain&#39;t." Most current dictionaries will include this, but no self-respecting author would use it except in the case of quoting dialogue.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Again, you know what the words mean. It pretains to discrimination against those whom have been the one&#39;s who have discrimiated. Many "catch phrases" don&#39;t make sense, however we all know what they mean.


Example;

In the USA have you ever driven by an apartment complex with a sign out front that says "free rent"?


Think about it mate.

[praxis1966]

I understand what you&#39;re saying. All I was trying to point out is that the claim of "reverse discrimination" is meaningless on its face. There&#39;s really no such thing. It&#39;s just a veiled excuse for racists in the U&#036; to use to further their agendas. If you look at the rhetoric used by people making such claims, you might notice that it sounds strangely familiar. The words smack of those used by people like Father Coughlin at the height of the Ku Klux Klan. It&#39;s just a more politically correct way of saying that blacks, Hispanics and Asians are taking over the country.

And no, I haven&#39;t driven by one of those signs. Nothing in this world is free. But once again, I understand the point you are trying to make.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

to clear this up, when one says "reverse descrimination" what they actualy mean, despite what it may literaly mean, is that despite the fact that whites are a majority, they are being descriminated against.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 05:00 AM
to clear this up, when one says "reverse descrimination" what they actualy mean, despite what it may literaly mean, is that despite the fact that whites are a majority, they are being descriminated against.
I cna pick up what you&#39;re layin down jack. That&#39;s the point I was attempting to make. I reckon I just talk to much.

On a side note VC, thatnks for the debate the other day, I just re-read it. It is good.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

the one in OI? Yes that was indeed a very good discussion, comrade. It was one of about three times i managed to have an actual discussion here where i constantly return to post a reply, as opposed to just stating my opinion and never seeing it again because I forget about its existance, or because others disregard my comments. Thanks for the thought-provoking arguments, comrade RAF.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Indeed. My pleaseure.


You know we deserve cookies for that debate. No flaming...lot&#39;s of intellectual discovery..good source citing.


Word comrade, word.

[chamo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 06:00 AM
to clear this up, when one says "reverse descrimination" what they actualy mean, despite what it may literaly mean, is that despite the fact that whites are a majority, they are being descriminated against.
Reverse Discrimination isn&#39;t oppression of whites, it is oppression of a majority by a minority. You are applying this meaning only to discrimination of whites.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by happyguy+Aug 9 2003, 04:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (happyguy @ Aug 9 2003, 04:51 AM)
[email protected] 9 2003, 06:00 AM
to clear this up, when one says "reverse descrimination" what they actualy mean, despite what it may literaly mean, is that despite the fact that whites are a majority, they are being descriminated against.
Reverse Discrimination isn&#39;t oppression of whites, it is oppression of a majority by a minority. You are applying this meaning only to discrimination of whites. [/b]
in this case, it is discrimination against whites, whites being the majority. Does anyone have any input on the actual subject at hand?&#33;

yes, we do deserve cookies, if they made me a mod it would be good too. :D

[chamo]

Well, reverse discrimination is possible, but not in this case of whites in the USA. I thought that was obvious.

A party that is reversly discriminative could exist and have a small following; but they would never be elected in Amerika.

I don&#39;t think the affirmative action is reversly discriminative and the claims that it is are just from the majority discriminators themselves. It&#39;s meant to see everyone as equal, as the US constitution should have done, not to switch the hands of power.

[bluerev002]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 11:14 AM
Well, reverse discrimination is possible, but not in this case of whites in the USA. I thought that was obvious.

A party that is reversly discriminative could exist and have a small following; but they would never be elected in Amerika.

I don&#39;t think the affirmative action is reversly discriminative and the claims that it is are just from the majority discriminators themselves. It&#39;s meant to see everyone as equal, as the US constitution should have done, not to switch the hands of power.
Did you like totally miss my post? It is possible and it is happening. Latins and African Americans as well as Asians have taken over the majority of South Cali and reverse discrimination is happening. even if whites dont get what they deserve just because they are whites should bring a smile to all of us immigrants, it doesnt to me. Discrimination is discrimination, wether straight foward or reversed...

...its possible and it is happening, yes HERE in the US. HERE in CALIFORNIA


<_<

[chamo]

Originally posted by bluerev002+Aug 9 2003, 09:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bluerev002 @ Aug 9 2003, 09:06 PM)
[email protected] 9 2003, 11:14 AM
Well, reverse discrimination is possible, but not in this case of whites in the USA. I thought that was obvious.

A party that is reversly discriminative could exist and have a small following; but they would never be elected in Amerika.

I don&#39;t think the affirmative action is reversly discriminative and the claims that it is are just from the majority discriminators themselves. It&#39;s meant to see everyone as equal, as the US constitution should have done, not to switch the hands of power.
Did you like totally miss my post? It is possible and it is happening. Latins and African Americans as well as Asians have taken over the majority of South Cali and reverse discrimination is happening. even if whites dont get what they deserve just because they are whites should bring a smile to all of us immigrants, it doesnt to me. Discrimination is discrimination, wether straight foward or reversed...

...its possible and it is happening, yes HERE in the US. HERE in CALIFORNIA


<_< [/b]
I did not, like, totally miss your post. I said it can exist and it does exist in South Africa you idiot.

And I didn&#39;t know that "Cali" was short for California. <_<


Well, here in south Cali where there is a latins make up the majority of the population it is really hard for whites to get scholarships. Simply because the govt. thinks that they can pay for college themselves and most of the scholarship money goes towards the latins people. Even if they have the same grades or if they live in the same kind of houses or whatever. It is almost imposible for a white to get a schoalrship here, so theres an example of reverse dicrimination. They try to be fair to the latinos so they are unfair to the whites...

If the latinos make up the majority then it is not reverse discrimination; it is a change in the ethnic majority.

[bluerev002]

Even if they do make up the majority of the population it does not make them the "majority"

And you said that it is possible But not in the case of whites In this case, yeah its them being reverse discriminated <_<

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 01:30 PM
Even if they do make up the majority of the population it does not make them the "majority"
:huh:
i think it does

[chamo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 08:30 PM
Even if they do make up the majority of the population it does not make them the "majority"

And you said that it is possible But not in the case of whites In this case, yeah its them being reverse discriminated <_<
How do you mean they are the majority but are not "the majority"? That makes absolutley no sense.

You probably mean that the immigrants are not a real majority because they are a minority on a national scale.

Let&#39;s assume that&#39;s what you mean.

Majorities usually only have effects within their local area and community, though national law may apply in cases of race discrimination, it is sometimes hard to detect and then even harder to prove and prosecute.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

perhaps what he means is that they are more populous than any other race, but they do not make up one half of the entire population.

or maybe he means that even though they are a majority, they are still labled as a minority because they&#39;re not white americans and they don&#39;t get proportional representation.

[lokigreeny]

Originally posted by bluerev002+Aug 10 2003, 06:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bluerev002 @ Aug 10 2003, 06:06 AM)
[email protected] 9 2003, 11:14 AM
Well, reverse discrimination is possible, but not in this case of whites in the USA. I thought that was obvious.

A party that is reversly discriminative could exist and have a small following; but they would never be elected in Amerika.

I don&#39;t think the affirmative action is reversly discriminative and the claims that it is are just from the majority discriminators themselves. It&#39;s meant to see everyone as equal, as the US constitution should have done, not to switch the hands of power.
Did you like totally miss my post? It is possible and it is happening. Latins and African Americans as well as Asians have taken over the majority of South Cali and reverse discrimination is happening. even if whites dont get what they deserve just because they are whites should bring a smile to all of us immigrants, it doesnt to me. Discrimination is discrimination, wether straight foward or reversed...

...its possible and it is happening, yes HERE in the US. HERE in CALIFORNIA


<_< [/b]
Number 1. The people that you are refering to as "latins" or "latinos" are not. They are residents of South America. You wouldnt call Portugese or Spanish Latinos or Latins, you would call them, obviously, Portugese, or Spanish. And they are far more closely related to the latin speaking civilisations than the South Americans are.
Number 2. Maybe it is only semantics, but i think victorcommie was right with the whole "reverse discrimination" thing. Affirmative Action is far more appropriate. but thats not really the point, sorry, I was just wandering. OK,
Number 3. Yes AA is definitely a reality, what a silly question. Governments around the world seek to assuage their colonial guilt by awarding scholarships, higher social security benefits, even in here in Australia lowering the entry scores for uni for the Aboriginal people entering. Now this may sound silly, or discriminative, andin some cases it is. But only in some cases. Take the uni entry scores as an example. The aboriginal people of Australia do npt come from a written language culture. Therefore they immediately have a problem in our culture. If they wish to "sucseed" (ugh, awful spelling. sorry.) in life, they must sucseed in our (WAS)culture. so they must be litterate. but becasue they are (generally) less litterate then WAS&#39;s, they get into uni less, sucseed less, and create the oppurtunity for more sucsess&#39; to follow, less. So the gov. lowers entry scores. that is not discriminatory, that is AA, because it is acting as a balance for discrimination, even though in this case it is nobodies fault.

So AA is a balance, and discrimination is a lack of balance.

My apologies if I have said anything that has offended an aboriginal person of Australia in that post. it was not my intention. Oh well, actually, sorry if i offended anyone, i just thought i might have been a bit insensitive to aboriginal persons. :(

[bluerev002]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 03:33 PM
or maybe he means that even though they are a majority, they are still labled as a minority because they&#39;re not white americans and they don&#39;t get proportional representation.
Yeah, that is what I meant. when I said Majority of people being the minorities I thought you guys would have knows what I meant, its been said here thousans of times.

Alright I made a mistake calling them Latins. But since South America is called Latin America (Mexico included) I think the right word would be "Latino"

And yeah, AA isnt reverse discrimination.

[FabFabian]

The whole point of affirmative action is to make sure that the right person for the job is hired, regardless of race, culture, gender or disability. Like some well intended legislation it is always better on paper than in practise. No one would like to be an a job because a company needed you to fufill their quotas. It doesn&#39;t do the individual or the company any favours. But since society is so to progress, legislation like this has to exist. We only have to look at the civil rights legislation for the Southern U.S. in the 60&#39;s. Has it eliminated racism, no. But are conditions a damn sight better than before, hell yes. So much so, that there is a black migration from the Northern U.S. to settle in South.

[FabFabian]

Dammit&#33; I forgot what I was going to say re: reverse discrimination. Of course it happens. Discriminating against some because of a characteristic they can&#39;t change is the same whether someone comes from a traditionally oppressed group or not.